Politeness Strategies in a Chat Show Context

Spoken Discourse Analysis LE3022

Candidate Number: 936162

Introduction

Politeness may manifest itself in any form of behaviour, both linguistically (i.e. verbally) and

physically. This paper analyses the differing politeness strategies used in contrasting types of

television interviews according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) research on positive and negative

politeness strategies. The analysis will include discussion of how these strategies are used to mitigate

‘Face Threatening Acts’ and secondly, how they can be employed to manipulate perceived

relationships between the interview participants.

Literature Review

Some of the first theories of linguistic politeness were invented in the early 1970’s, namely by Lakoff.

She defined politeness as ‘… a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by

minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange” (1990:34).

Her politeness principle consists of the following three rules in order to avoid friction within

communication:

1. Don’t impose – respect the interlocutor’s territory.

2. Give options – offer alternatives.

3. Make audience feel good, be friendly – make the interlocutor feel good.

(Lakoff, 1973:298)

When we communicate, we are not only concerned with the information being produced or elicited,

but the manner in which it is done so. The definitions of politeness differ interculturally, depending on

which of the above rules in the most important in that particular culture. Lakoff states that cultures

adhere to strategies of Distance, Deference or Camaraderie (1990:35). Distance politeness is

‘equivalent to what most people our society consider ‘polite behaviour’’ (1990:35) and is

characterised by impersonalisation, often seen in European cultures. Deference politeness represents

Asian cultures and is indecisiveness or being hesitant. Finally, camaraderie is mostly seen in modern

American culture where the ‘appearance of openness and niceness is to be sought above all else’

1

(1990:39). Here, it is the interlocutors desire to be seen as friendly and is characterised by informal

language.

Lakoff connected her politeness principle with Grice’s Cooperative Principle, which rests on the

assumption that people are innately cooperative. It’s maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and

Manner function as rules of linguistic behaviour governing the ways in which we produce and

interpret language:

1. Maxim of Quantity - State as much information as is needed in the conversation, but not

more.

2. Maxim of Quality - Only say what you believe to be true based on your own knowledge and

evidence.

3. Maxim of Relations - Be relevant

4. Maxims of Manner - Be concise, avoid confusing, ambiguous statements

(Grice, 1975:183-198)

However, in spontaneous conversation, the maxims are often ‘flouted’ and in order to account for this,

Lakoff proposed a politeness rule which compliments Grice’s Clarity maxim;

‘…if one seeks to communicate a message directly, if one’s principal aim in speaking is

communication, one will attempt to be clear, so that there is no mistaking one’s intention….If the

speaker’s principal aim is to navigate somehow or other among the respective statuses of the

participants in the discourse indicating where each stands in the speaker’s estimate, his aim will be

less the achievement of clarity than an expression of politeness, as its opposite.’

(Lakoff, 1973:296)

Brown & Levinson’s politeness theory was not the first to be created, but is arguably the most

influential. Their work is based on the assumption that everybody has a public self-image or ‘face’,

and this ‘face’ can represent a person’s self-esteem. Their idea of face is based on Goffman (1967),

who defines it as “positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others

assume he has taken during a particular contact” (1967:5). In other words, ‘it represents the way a

person is perceived and since it is not a constant value and it continually develops, it has to be

attended to in interaction’ (1967:14). The ‘face’ theory can be divided into two opposing desires of a

person; firstly, ‘Negative Face’ which is the want that their actions be unconstrained by others, and

secondly ‘Positive Face’ which is the want to be desirable to others.

Goffman explains that during an interaction, a person can maintain face by saving their own

(defensive orientation) and saving the others face (protective orientation). Acts that might threaten a

person’s face are called ‘Face Threatening Acts’ (FTA’s). Face threatening acts include things such as

accusations, insults, interruptions, complaints, disagreements and requests for information. For

2

example, a disagreement between two speakers may threaten the hearer’s positive face, because it

suggests that there is a lack of acceptance for the other speaker’s opinions. A request for information

may be threatening to hearer´s negative face, as the demand imposes upon the hearer and restricts

their response. This is particularly important to the nature of this current study, as the chat show

context presents a unique pragmatic relationship between interviewer and interviewee.

Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed the following strategies for dealing with FTA’s in conversation:

1. Bald On-record politeness: The most direct and threatening strategy is to act baldly on record.

‘Direct speech acts are used and they tend to contain the imperative without any mitigating

devices’ (1987:69). This is often used where either the interlocutors know each other well, or

need to communicate in an urgent situation. The reason being that the participants are not very

concerned with maintaining face as their main priority of the conversation. This method doesn’t

try to preserve face, but can come across as threatening if taken out of context.

2. Off-record: This is a more indirect strategy used not to impose on the hearer. In turn, the hearers

face is not directly threatened, but the hearer is required to make some social evaluations about

what the speaker is saying.

3. Positive Politeness: This method tries to minimise the amount of threat posed towards the

hearer’s positive face by creating solidarity. They are used to ‘make the hearer feel good about

himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience

knows each other fairly well.’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987:60). Positive politeness can be done by

seeking agreement from the interlocutor, complimenting them and being positive.

4. Negative Politeness: This strategy tries to minimise the threats to the hearer’s negative face.

Examples of this include being indirect, using hedges or questions whilst respecting the hearer’s

right to refuse to answer (minimising imposition) and apologising.

When choosing an appropriate strategy for dealing with FTA’s in conversation, it is important for the

speaker to assess how much threat is being posed within the conversation. Brown and Levinson state

that the way in which evaluations are made about the seriousness of the threat depend upon the

following social factors:

1. Social distance of the speaker and the hearer

2. Relative power of the speaker and the hearer

3. Absolute ranking of the impositions in a certain culture.

(Brown and Levinson, 1987:74)

3

Methodology

Choice of Data

The wide range of chat show types makes it difficult to categorise them all into one genre. Although

for the purpose of this paper, I will use the definition by Ilie (2001:210) who asserts that a talk/chat

show is a ‘host-controlled, participant-shaped and audience-evaluated speech event’. Becker

(2007:110) states that chat show interviews belong under the umbrella of ‘institutional talk’. This is

due to the turn-taking restrictions and pragmatic boundaries between the participants which resonate

in other institutional environments including classrooms, police interviews and court rooms.

In celebrity interviews, ‘the goal is human interest rather than politics’ (Norrick, 2010:526). The

separation between the roles of speaker and hearer is more fluid, and there is more ‘give-and-take’

than in a political interview. As Norrick (2010:526) suggests, celebrity interviews can be more

challenging for the interviewer as in this sense, as Petríčková agrees, (2012:23) ‘He (the interviewer)

cannot rely so much on factual information… but has to win the interviewee and the audience over by

his personality more frequently during the course of conversation’. However, political interviews have

their own challenges, as Petríčková continues (2012:23), although hosts of the show can often prepare

in advance, they must ‘manage to keep the advantage over the interviewee in a much more

antagonistic situation’.

Transcripts

The data that appears in the Appendix of this paper are two transcribed interviews; firstly, a political

interview appearing on the Andrew Marr Show between host Andrew Marr and Prime Minister David

Cameron, aired 10th January 2016 and secondly, a celebrity interview appearing on Piers Morgan

Tonight between host Piers Morgan and singer/actress Barbara Streisand, aired 25th December, 2012.

The interviews were transcribed orthographically, as the focus of the paper is pragmatic rather than

lexical/phonological.

The two transcripts were analysed according to the following proposed strategies set out by Brown

and Levinson (1987) on positive and negative politeness, with particular focus on the interviewer’s

choices of either strategy:

Positive Politeness Strategies

1. Notice, attend to hearer

2. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with hearer)

3. Intensify interest to hearer

4. Use in-group identity markers

4

5. Seek agreement

6. Avoid disagreement

7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground

8. Joke

9. Assert or presuppose speaker´s knowledge of and concern for hearer´s wants

10. Offer, promise

11. Be optimistic

12. Include both Speaker and Hearer in the activity

13. Give (or ask for) reasons

14. Assume or assert reciprocity

15. Give gifts to Hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

(Brown & Levinson, 1987:102)

Negative Politeness Strategies

1. Be conventionally indirect

2. Question, Hedge

3. Be pessimistic

4. Minimize the imposition

5. Give deference

6. Apologise

7. Impersonalize S and H, avoid the pronouns “I” and “you”

8. State the FTA as a general rule

9. Nominalise

10. Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H

(Brown & Levinson, 1987:131)

Analysis

Positive politeness strategies

As expected, positive politeness strategies prevailed throughout the celebrity interview between Piers

Morgan and Barbara Streisand. Positive face was attended to by both participants, despite there being

a lack of FTA’s. When there is a Face Threatening Act present, it usually appears in the form of

5

questions that are imposing upon Streisand’s privacy, restricting the responses she is able to give

back. In this way, Norrick (2010) implies that celebrities have an advantage in a chat show interview,

since in order to keep the audience interested, the interviewer has to elicit personal information which

the celebrity may decide not to share. The following example shows how Streisand mitigates the FTA

through joking (Strategy 8 of Brown and Levinson’s Positive Politeness theory):

[Line 57: MORGAN: …How many times have you in your life been properly in love?

Line 58: STREISAND: How many times have I been in love? I should have prepared for this,

because I see you ask-

(Audience laughter)

Line 59: STREISAND: Although you didn't ask Mike Tyson.

Line 60: MORGAN: No, there's a reason for that.

Line 61: STREISAND: Oh, is that right?]

Thus, Morgan does not impose any more on her privacy as he understands the topic is delicate. By

attending to her positive face, Morgan can build a friendly relationship with Streisand, making it more

likely that she will answer face threatening questions, which she goes on to do in this instance:

[Line 61: STREISAND: I am trying to think- at least five or six.

Line 63: MORGAN: Really, that's fascinating. Does the wider world know all of them?

Line 64: STREISAND: You didn't ask how long it lasted.]

Joking as a strategy for positive politeness is really useful in diminishing the social distance between

the interviewer and interviewee. It is reciprocated by Morgan throughout to build a connection, for

example:

[Line 226: MORGAN: Marlon clearly wanted to do more than just look at flowers with you.]

[Line 348: MORGAN: Ask my mother, the moment I came out, I sang "The Way We Were."

((Audience laughter))]

The following extracts demonstrate where Morgan has employed Brown and Levinson’s 2nd strategy

for positive politeness ‘Exaggerate interest/approval/sympathy’:

[Line 1: MORGAN: Barbra Streisand, the way she is, a funny girl. This is Piers Morgan Tonight.

When people ask me who I'd most like to have on my show as a guest, one name continuously pops

up in my mind, she is a fabulous actress, with a truly iconic voice, a voice I believe is the greatest that

6

has ever been. A humanitarian, a political activist, a wife, a mother (.) she's "A Funny Girl", she is, of

course, Barbra Streisand. And I even got her name right!]

[Line 27: MORGAN: Whereas many people would think, you are the greatest singer I'll give you that

had ever been, I would argue that.]

[Line 240: MORGAN: Yes. Because I look at you and I see the greatest singer there's ever been. I

want to know how you do it. Barbra Streisand.]

[Line 328: MORGAN: Let's talk about your philanthropic career, because that's been almost as

relentlessly productive as anything else you've done. One of the particular things that you are keen on

is women's heart disease. Tell me why that's been such a passionate thing for you.]

Throughout the interview, both Morgan and Streisand build solidarity with one another. Morgan is

successful in building up rapport with his interviewee, and often exaggerates the amount of ‘approval’

towards her, as seen above in his endless compliments about her personality, talent and career (lines

27 and 240). In doing so, Morgan flatters Streisand, which can be seen as an example of “give gifts to

H” (strategy 14) - the gift in this case being recognition and admiration.

Although it is any interviewer’s prerogative to elicit information from the interviewee and therefore

show an interest, Morgan often exaggerates this interest in every topic they cover through the

interview including politics, love, celebrity friends, philanthropy (line 328), relationships and films.

Undoubtedly, this extravagant and sometimes over-nostalgic interviewing style seems to be

characteristic of Morgan himself, but given the unique type of chat show it was, it possibly won

viewers over other shows with this interrogative and over-sentimental style. His over-exaggeration

does not go unnoticed by Streisand in lines 345-347:

[Line 345: STREISAND: When you were a baby, you wanted to do an interview with me?

Line 346: MORGAN: Yes!

Line 347: STREISAND: You don't have to exaggerate! Just tell the truth. ]

Although it appears she is only joking, this could come across as an FTA to Morgan, who in return

responds with a joke.

In a similar way to over-exaggeration, Morgan intensifies his interest towards Streisand’s responses

throughout by using tag questions and small utterances to acknowledge her for example, lines 200,

243 and 248 where he says ‘Really’ or ‘Oh, really’ repeatedly as Streisand reminisces old memories.

He also says ‘yeah, yeah’ and ‘oh yeah, yeah, yeah’ in lines 231 and 204. This kind of constant

attentiveness wouldn’t be expected in an everyday conversation between two friends where

sometimes, concentration may waiver and information gets disregarded. The speaker and hearer may

7

have an equal social distance or relative power to one another, therefore less opportunity to produce a

face threatening act, whereas if Morgan isn’t seen to be attending to/noticing his interviewee (strategy

1 of positive politeness), he may be interpreted as uninterested and rude.

There is some use of in-group identity markers by Morgan to assert familiarity and convey group

membership. This is done mostly through the use of inclusive pronoun ‘we’ for example line 114:

[MORGAN: I know that you're into your politics big time. Because we spent most of the last month

emailing each other about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.]

A feeling of group membership is also achieved by sharing information that relies on an

understanding of some outside contextual knowledge, for example in line 119 where they discuss

politics, Morgan says ‘You did. You did. And your man won’ but it is not yet known to the audience

who ‘your man’ is. Again in line 242, Morgan asserts some familiarity between the two ‘When we

had dinner, I said to you…’

Morgan seeks agreement and avoids disagreement throughout the interview (strategies 5 & 6 of

Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness theory). For example, in lines 142-143:

[Line 142: MORGAN: But what would have been the proudest moment for you with Obama? Or I

imagine one of them when he came out so vocally for gay rights, finally?

Line 143: STREISAND: Absolutely. That's great.]

Morgan has raised a ‘safe topic’ which allows him to stress his agreement with Streisand, and

therefore to satisfies her desire to be ‘right’, and to corroborate his own opinions. This appears again

in line 73, where Morgan assumes some common ground when talking about a loss of a parent, and

seeks agreement for his own feelings:

[Line 73: MORGAN: I think- and I think you'd become- I'm sure you are the same, but you are

parentally curious, because you never knew this person, who yet despite that, was such a pivotal part

of your life, clearly. That's why you are here.]

Similarly, he avoids disagreements with Streisand in lines 90-91:

[Line 90: STREISAND: Doesn't he have a gorgeous voice

Line 91: MORGAN: He does. He has an amazing voice.]

The exception to this is where Morgan wishes to compliment or flatter Streisand and she doesn’t feel

that she can agree with him, as it seems to cause embarrassment or awkwardness.

[Line 249: STREISAND: I'm looking at the- why was I wearing that kind of thing over the black

dress? And God, my hair was light, and I was a little chubby. But-

8

Line 250: MORGAN: You weren't chubby!

Line 251: STREISAND: No, no, it's OK, it's OK.

Line 252: MORGAN: But you weren't, you looked beautiful…]

Morgan disregards the ‘seeking agreement’ strategy and opts to disagree to a large extent, and in

doing so he poses a FTA towards Streisand. In disagreement, she also poses a threat back towards

Morgan as she says ‘No, no, it’s OK, it’s OK’. Herbert (1986:80) argued that despite being socially

conditioned to respond to a compliment by using manners to thank in response ‘American speakers

are almost twice as likely to respond with some response other than agreement’. In this way, Streisand

is being ‘pessimistic’, which instead corresponds with ‘negative politeness strategies’

A similar example appears in line 280-283, but this time Streisand does concede to his flattery saying

‘maybe’ in line 282.

[Line 280: STREISAND: I was hoarse that night.

(MUSIC PLAYS)

Line 281: MORGAN: See, you're saying you sound hoarse. I've got goose bumps. This is the

difference- this is why you are such a perfectionist. It must be why you are so good.

Line 282: STREISAND: Maybe, because I never-

Line 283: MORGAN: Never happy.]

As previously touched upon, Morgan also employs strategy 7: ‘Presuppose/ raise/ assert common

ground’. Not only does he make small talk to build rapport at the beginning and end of the interview,

but he also touches upon some more serious topics. Whilst demonstrating he has effectively done his

journalistic research, he also asserts that they have common ground emotionally:

[Line 37: MORGAN: …You talked about this before, but I found it fascinating. You father died

when you were one.

Line 38: STREISAND: 15 months old.

Line 39: MORGAN: Right. I was one when my father died.

Line 40: STREISAND: Really?

Line 41: MORGAN: I saw that parallel, yeah.]

In raising this common ground, Morgan has essentially softened his request for information on the

topic, by showing his own vulnerability and experience with losing a parent, which in turn lessens the

FTA of asking an imposing question.

9

Finally, Morgan uses an ‘offer/promise’ (strategy 9) to invite Streisand back for another chat:

[Line 338: MORGAN: …What more can I say? Go to BarbraStreisand.com for all things Barbra. It's

been such a pleasure. Come back, please. Don't leave it so long next time. ]

As Streisand and Morgan are good co-operators, they share the same goals (to fulfil their roles of

interviewer and interviewee within the interview context), so they are willing to help one another

achieve those goals. The polite offer to come back for a further interview demonstrates Morgan’s

attentiveness in satisfying Streisand’s positive-face wants, (even if they are false), ‘Come back,

please. Don’t leave it so long next time’ whilst also pleasing the third party, the audience – with

prospect of another entertaining show.

Negative Politeness Strategies

Negative politeness strategies are used in political interviews to establish a professional social

distance between speaker and hearer, and to keep ‘the fiction that their questioning is objective,

impartial and neutral’ (Heritage, 2002, p. 1430). On the other hand, as we have seen in the previous

section, the hosts in celebrity interviews prefer to use positive politeness strategies in order to

establish solidarity and a non-confrontational tone.

One of the most common negative strategies in the interview between David Cameron and Andrew

Marr was ‘impersonalisation’ (strategy 7). According to Brown and & Levinson, when this is used

‘the speaker implies that the agent is other than the speaker or that the addressee is other than the

hearer’ (1987:190). Marr continuously uses impersonalisation to avoid personally questioning

Cameron, but instead quotes a different person or uses vague descriptors to present the agent. For

example:

[Line 7: AM: And just to be clear, so people understand…];

And again in line 33:

[Line 33: …which suggests to a lot of people inside the machine that there is no expectation that we

will leave the EU. It is smoke and mirrors.]

In presenting the agent as ‘people’ and ‘a lot of people inside the machine’, and then asking for a

reaction from the Prime Minister, he is displaying negative politeness and saving face whilst keeping

seemingly objective, thus Cameron cannot feel personally offended.

An additional example of this strategy is line 21 where Marr says ‘Okay. But your critics in the party

say all of this in the end is actually smoke and mirrors…’ to which he reiterates (Line 33 above) later

10

on but modifies the agent to ‘a lot of people inside the machine’. In doing this, he is becoming vaguer,

possibly in hope to elicit a ‘better’ response from Cameron.

A further example is line 49, where Marr pushes Cameron onto what he believes is a more pressing

topic of social housing:

[Line 49: ‘All around the country I can hear the tinkle of people throwing their mobile phones at their

television sets and ‘get onto something else,’ they’re saying. Let’s move to the council estate issue

that you’ve announced today. You want to demolish a lot of council estates, can you explain the

plan?’]

He has used impersonalisation here to avoid offending the Prime Minister at first, by avoiding a bald

on-record statement ‘I can hear the tinkle of people...’get onto something else’ they’re saying’. Rather

than use the imperative directly and on its’ own ‘let move on’, he successfully satisfies the negative

face of the hearer. As the negative face wants the basic claims to not be distracted and to have

freedom of action, both interviewer and interviewee are co-operative. This also gives deference

(strategy 5) towards Cameron, and as there is a relative power distance between Marr and the Prime

Minister, it works in this interview to use negative politeness.

Marr also uses impersonalisation when addressing the Prime Minister, by referring to him in the third

person to achieve a sarcastic tone, whilst maintaining a professional façade. Rather than saying, ‘you’,

in line 81 he says ‘AM: They’re thinking should I be cutting back on my borrowing. What does the

Prime Minister think?’

Marr also uses hedges (strategy 2) to modify the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase.

Marr often uses hedges to soften the FTA – particularly when he is conveying bad news or

controversial opinion. For example:

[Line 3: AM: But that speech is about England going to the dogs, by the end of it. Can I – I mean,

you’re right in the middle – thick of these negotiations…]

[Line 17: AM: It has been suggested, prime minister…]

[Line 23: AM: They sort of don’t believe you though, do they?]

Using hedges is one of the ways in which the speaker is able to avoid commitment when performing a

FTA, as there is always an assumption made about the hearer being willing to answer the question.

Brown and Levinson define hedges as a part of speech that ‘says of the membership that it is partial,

or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected’

(1987:145). Hedges offer a way to be conventionally indirect, as per strategy 1, as the speaker

minimises the imposition, rather than using a direct request for information. However, the more direct

and transparent a request is towards the hearer, the less of a burden the recipient bears in interpreting

11

the request. Therefore, a speaker can minimise the imposition by coming rapidly to the point,

avoiding a further imposition of prolixity and obscurity, which Marr does throughout.

Thus, one reason to use a hedge in an utterance is to explicitly state the awareness of making an FTA

and to show the addressee that the speaker understands if the addressee feels imposed on, for example

Line 71: AM: ‘…There seems to have been a very, very marked change of tone if you like…’. In

saying ‘if you like’ he is giving deference for Cameron to re-phrase or correct his statement, giving

respect towards him as a powerful participant in the interview.

Marr is continuously pessimistic (strategy 3) towards Cameron, not only with regard to topic but the

manner in which the words are spoken. For example, line 73: AM: ‘You talk about external threats

but unfortunately there are internal threats too. We have something close to an asset bubble at the

moment’ and again line 23, AM: ‘They sort of don’t believe you though, do they?’ and line 77: ‘are

you not concerned that we’re heading towards something quite nasty?’ In this way, he is trying not to

coerce the hearer by being pessimistic, by assuming they both believe the statements to be true,

leaving only distance and power between Cameron and Marr as swaying factors.

Conclusions

This analysis has helped to illustrate how the choice of politeness strategies in an interview context

depends not only on the real social distance of the interviewer and interviewee, but also how the host

wishes to manipulate this distance to create or manage either solidarity or friction during the

conversation. As the situation requires consideration of two further audiences - both the in-studio

audience and also the television viewers - this changes the motivations of both participants depending

upon how they wish to be perceived by these audiences. In the politically orientated Andrew Marr

interview, Marr must come across as professional and objective as possible whilst eliciting important

information, but remains respectful of the Prime Minister’s status and experience therefore employing

a negative politeness strategy. Despite both participants having antagonistic views at some point

during the interview, the concept of face is still important and Marr had to mitigate face threat by

softening the argumentativeness of his questions and the imposition they posed, so as not to be

perceived as rude by all audiences.

Most celebrity chat show interviews are dominated by light-hearted topics and usually broadcast when

there is a need to promote an upcoming film/album/tour. However, Piers Morgan successfully gained

a deeper insight into the life of his guest Barbara Streisand, through means of positive politeness

strategies such as flattery, exaggerating interest and avoiding disagreements.

12

References

Becker, A. (2007). Are you saying..? A cross-cultural analysis of interviewing practices in TV

election night coverages. In A. Fetzer & G. E. Lauerbach (Eds.), Political discourse in the media.

Cross - cultural perspectives (pp. 107-137). Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Eelen, G. (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theory. Volume 1.Routledge.

Fetzer, A. (2006). ‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you.’ Media references in political

interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (2), 180-195. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216605001517

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual; essays on face - to - face behaviour. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Studies in Syntax and

Semantics III: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press.

Herbert, R.K. (1986) Say thank you or something. American Speech, 61, 76-88.

Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content.

Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (10-11), 1427–1446. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216602000723

Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of pragmatics, 33, 209

254. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216699001332

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your P's and Q's. In: Papers from the Ninth

Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, ed. C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, A.

Weiser, pp 292–305. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.

Lakoff, R. (2004) Language and Woman's Place: Studies in Language and Gender. Oxford University

Press.

Norrick, N. R. (2010). Listening practices in television celebrity interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 42

(2), 525–543. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216609001775

Petrickova, I. (2012) Politeness Strategies in Interviews.

13

APPENDIX‘PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT’ INTERVIEW WITH BARBRA STREISAND. AIRED

DECEMBER 25TH 2012.

1. MORGAN: Barbra Streisand, the way she is, a funny girl. This is PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT. When people ask me who I'd most like to have on my show as a guest, one name continuously pops up in my mind, she is a fabulous actress, with a truly iconic voice, a voice I believe is the greatest that has ever been. A humanitarian, a political activist, a wife, a mother (.) she's "A Funny Girl", she is, of course, Barbra Streisand. And I even got her name right!

(Audience laughter)

2. STREISAND: Did you say "Barbara"?3. MORGAN: I said Barbra.4. STREISAND: Oh, Barbra.5. MORGAN: But what's more important, I got Streisand right.6. STREISAND: You absolutely-7. MORGAN: Because we have been on together, and you kept

lecturing me that I kept calling you Barbra Streisand, which is this kind of British way of saying it.

8. STREISAND: Very English.9. MORGAN: Streisand.

(Audience laughter)

10. STREISAND: By God, you've got it!11. MORGAN: So, I've just come from watching your brilliant

new movie. I don't say that lightly, "Guilt Trip."12. STREISAND: Thank you. 13. MORGAN: And the reason I loved it was it reminded me

exactly of what it would be like if I were on the road trip with my mother. It's about you and Seth Rogen. You go off on this bizarre, crazy road trip together. You are the archetypal Jewish mamma, he is the archetypal only son, and chaos ensues, in a really loving, touching, funny way. Let's watch a little clip.

14

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(END AUDIO CLIP)

14. MORGAN: It's a really touching movie. I find it very moving, it moved me to tears at one stage. And it's also very funny. You also had a ball doing it, didn't you?

15. STREISAND: Oh, if you like -- yeah. Yeah. If you like working that much.

(Audience laughter)

16. STREISAND: Yeah, it was fun. It actually was.17. MORGAN: Do you hate all work, basically?18. STREISAND: No.19. MORGAN: What do you like doing?20. STREISAND: I love -- I love making movies and I love

recording. That's what I love.21. MORGAN: You don't like performing in front of people.22. STREISAND: That's odd.23. MORGAN: It is strange.24. STREISAND: I never know what to do during the applause. I

don't -- I don't know what to do. It's like oh, OK, right, go on to the next one. It's a strange thing to be live in front of people.

25. MORGAN: You consider yourself to be primarily an actress who sings, right?

26. STREISAND: Uh-huh.27. MORGAN: Whereas many people would think, you are the

greatest singer I'll give you that had ever been, I would argue that.

28. STREISAND: I don't know, but I only began to sing because I couldn't get a job as an actress, you see. And I entered the-

29. MORGAN: The dream was always to be an actress, to be a star?

30. STREISAND: Oh, yes.31. MORGAN: You wanted to be a star?32. STREISAND: I think when I was younger, I wanted to be a

star, until I became a star, and then it's a lot of work. It's work to be a star. I don't enjoy the stardom part. I only enjoy the creative process.

33. MORGAN: If I said to you, look, you can go to a desert island, all you can do for the rest of your life you can

15

sing, you can direct, you can act. Or you can just sit there drinking out of coconuts.

34. STREISAND: I would say direct.35. MORGAN: That's the true love.36. STREISAND: Well, directing is so interesting. You know,

it just sort of encompasses everything that you see, that you know, that you've felt, that you have observed. It's just -- you know, you can turn the camera on anything -- oh my God, just turn the camera and do -- you are in control of your work, you are in control of your so-called art. I like that.

37. MORGAN: When I watched "Guilt Trip," and we'll come to your own guilt trips, because I'm sure there are millions of them, as I have, but it took me back to your early upbringing in many ways, because it's about motherhood, it's about the relationship between a mother and her son. You had a very difficult upbringing. You talked about this before, but I found it fascinating. You father died when you were one.

38. STREISAND: 15 months old.39. MORGAN: Right. I was one when my father died.40. STREISAND: Really?41. MORGAN: I saw that parallel, yeah.42. STREISAND: Ah.43. MORGAN: And I was very fortunate. My mother remarried

somebody who was a fantastic father to me.44. STREISAND: Wow.45. MORGAN: You weren't so fortunate. You had this very

difficult relationship with your stepfather. And so I was personally fascinated by that. How much do you think it scarred you or did it just drive you?

46. STREISAND: I think it did scar me more than it drove me. What drove me was the fact that my father's life was cut so short. He died at 35 years old. And it was- he was listed in the book of great leaders of education. He wrote incredible theses

47. MORGAN: Right.48. STREISAND: If there is such a word. With just wonderful

observations and wonderful- he was a teacher, and he also taught at Elmira Reformatory. He taught English to juvenile delinquents. And I could never read that piece until I got much older and had this certain experience, and then I was able to read it, and that was me. In other words, there is so much in the cellular memory or the DNA, because I never knew him. But at 16, I had discovered Chekhov and Ibsen and Shakespeare. And when I finally read my father's thesis, it

16

was how to teach, you know, prisoners and delinquents through Ibsen and Chekhov and Shakespeare.

49. MORGAN: Have you been able to find out a lot about him and his character and his life?

50. STREISAND: Not really. Although very mystical things happened. You know, I was doing a concert, I can't remember when- several years ago. And I was with my two girlfriends one night at my house, and they were talking about their fathers, and I couldn't relate to them. Because they had the experience of having a father. I came up to my office after they left, and there was a letter from my father that had been sent to me through a cousin who's got the Streisand same name, in Brooklyn in some synagogue, and she asked if he was related to me, and she says my cousin, and she said, could you give this to Barbra? And this was my father's girlfriend when he was 19 years old, and she found me through my cousin, and it was a poem written to her. But such a beautiful poem. And it talked about love, the only thing really in this world is love, was the moral of the poem. With an enigmatic structure in it that you had to find -- you had to find a key to find his -- he was such an interesting mind.

51. MORGAN: That is extraordinary.52. STREISAND: So extraordinary.53. MORGAN: He was 19 when he wrote this. What did that make

you feel?54. STREISAND: That he was telling me something. That it was

to me.55. MORGAN: What was he telling you?56. STREISAND: It was this message that, you know, no matter

what, love is the answer. That's what I called my album "Love is the Answer." Also, it's a line from a song, but-

57. MORGAN: Your character in the movie, "The Guilt Trip," has been in love for- the viewer has been in love properly twice in her life. To the man she married and then to this other guy that she, you know, fell in love with. How many times have you in your life been properly in love?

58. STREISAND: How many times have I been in love? I should have prepared for this, because I see you ask-

(Audience laughter)

59. STREISAND: Although you didn't ask Mike Tyson.60. MORGAN: No, there's a reason for that.61. STREISAND: Oh, is that right?

17

(Audience laughter)

62. STREISAND: I am trying to think- at least five or six.63. MORGAN: Really, that's fascinating. Does the wider world

know all of them?64. STREISAND: You didn't ask how long it lasted.65. MORGAN: No.66. STREISAND: Love, feeling or whatever, but-67. MORGAN: How long does it need to last to qualify for

proper love, do you think?68. STREISAND: Oh, maybe seven. Not that long. Eight months

would you say, or maybe a year? A year-69. MORGAN: I think it's different for everybody. Some people

have it literally in a flash, no, I do believe that there can be love at first sight. I know people where that's happened, they'd been very happy the rest of their lives together.

70. STREISAND: Wow. 71. MORGAN: They get lucky.72. STREISAND: Yeah. Yeah. Isn't it interesting- it's a

recognition of something. I knew I liked you from the minute, but I didn't know that your father died that early. And there is, you see, we don't -- we've never talked about it. You might have known that about me. But there is something that you recognize in someone's past, and it's -- it's a void, that you're recognising, don't you think?

73. MORGAN: I think- and I think you'd become- I'm sure you are the same, but you are parentally curious, because you never knew this person, who yet despite that, was such a pivotal part of your life, clearly. That's why you are here.

74. STREISAND: Yeah.75. MORGAN: That's what I find fascinating about it.76. STREISAND: Yeah. Yeah. 77. MORGAN: Did you feel that your mother properly loved you?

Or was there a sense always of jealousy that you were leading the kind of life, perhaps, she dreamt of herself?

78. STREISAND: She was a wonderful singer. My mother had a great voice. Not like mine, not like my sister's, not like my son's, a high soprano voice, but like a bird. I mean, really beautiful. But I used to say, mom, you know, why didn't you try to get a career as a singer? "No", she said, she was too shy, she couldn't do it. And I'm basically shy, too, but that makes the difference. You know, how do you succeed if you don't try.

79. MORGAN: How did you feel when your mother died? Did you feel that you had reconciled things with her?

18

80. STREISAND: Basically, yeah. A little- a short time before she died, I remember going to her house, and she had Alzheimer's. And she didn't recognize me, really, but I started to sing her a melody of something she had sung when she was younger, and that she remembered. And it just shows you the power of music, doesn't it?

81. MORGAN: What was it you sang? Do you remember?82. STREISAND: It was something that she made a record of

when she- when I was 13 and she took me, but it was really because she made the record and then I was able to make the record when I was 13.

83. MORGAN: Do you think she was proud of you?84. STREISAND: You know what it was, I used to say, ma, how

come you never told me, "I love you", you never said those words or really hugged me. She said, I didn't want you to get a swelled head.

(Audience laughter)

85. STREISAND: She said, she said I knew that my parents loved me, but they didn't have to tell me all the time. It's a certain coldness, you know. It's not tactile, it's not physical. It's- I don't know what it is. It was strange to me always. Strange to me.

86. MORGAN: How are you with your son?87. STREISAND: Oh, I just- I think everything he does is

great. You know, I mean, my son, that's unconditional love. I swear. It's a terrible thing to say, but I think my son could do something really bad, and I know I would find a way to justify it.

88. MORGAN: You sang with your son, this is in September- just take a look at this. Because it's very moving.

89. STREISAND: What do you have?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

90. STREISAND: Doesn't he have a gorgeous voice?91. MORGAN: He does. He has an amazing voice.92. STREISAND: Oh my God. But look at that- he's- he'd never

been on stage before, but he's done so much incredible work on himself that he actually could have the courage. He says

19

I'm never going to perform. He said I like recording, but I'm never going to perform live, and I said, Jason, when I heard him sing that song on this record he made, I said, we've got to sing it together, I have to sing that with you.

93. MORGAN: It was beautiful to watch. 94. STREISAND: Wow!95. MORGAN: We found it on the Internet. 96. STREISAND: How do you like that? I've never seen that

before.97. MORGAN: Have you never seen it?98. STREISAND: No.99. MORGAN: Amazing.100. STREISAND: But we have it on a television show that's

going to come out on Mother's Day hopefully, but I've never seen it-

101. MORGAN: Well, it's great. Let's take a little break. And when we come back, we'll talk about Jason a bit more, because I want to know whether you've ever been on a road trip with him. Whether there's any parallel with the movie. But I want to come back first and talk about some politics. "The Way We Were," my favourite movie. I want to know what rocks your political boat, because I know for a fact a lot does.

-ADVERT BREAK-

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

102. MORGAN: Barbra Streisand in "The Way We Were." That is my single favourite movie of all time, and I told-

103. STREISAND: Really?104. MORGAN: Redford that when he came in. Yes.105. STREISAND: Oh, how lovely.106. MORGAN: I talked to Robert Redford about it, and he said

he had been resisting your clarion call for a sequel ever since.

107. STREISAND: Yeah. It's such a good story, the sequel.108. MORGAN: I know.109. STREISAND: I am still after him.110. MORGAN: He's never made a sequel to anything, he told me.

He just doesn't believe in sequels.

20

111. STREISAND: I understand. I understand. But this happens to be a great story. I wanted it to be released on the 25th anniversary, but we never made it.

112. MORGAN: What would have happened?113. STREISAND: It was just a very interesting story about

through their daughter and her political activism at Berkeley in 1968 and the Democratic National Convention, which is very interesting. It was- and a beautiful love story. Again.

114. MORGAN: I know that you're into your politics big time. Because we spent most of the last month emailing each other about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

(Audience laughter)

115. MORGAN: And you were tearing me off a new one, I believe, is the American phrase for what you perceived to be my lack of support for the president.

116. STREISAND: That's right.117. MORGAN: It wasn't that. I was more interested in the

debate that we were having. And it was a very good one, actually. I found it very informative.

118. STREISAND: I kept sending you articles, right?119. MORGAN: You did. You did. And your man won.120. STREISAND: Your man didn't?121. MORGAN: No, no, no, I don't have a horse in the race. I'm

British. I can't- 122. STREISAND: I know, but you-123. MORGAN: My argument with you was I wondered whether Mitt

Romney could be better for the American economy124. STREISAND: Oh, my God, no.125. MORGAN: Given his background.126. STREISAND: No, you know why?127. MORGAN: You were having none of it.128. STREISAND: You know why? There have been businessmen who

have turned presidents, I think Herbert Hoover, George Bush, the first George Bush- businessmen, I think- there were a couple of others- lousy presidents. Businessmen make lousy presidents.

129. MORGAN: Why have you been so consistent in support of Obama?

130. STREISAND: I can't even imagine thinking about what would happen to the Supreme Court if a Republican were the president, you know. I mean, Citizens United is a horrible thing, that people can spend and waste this amount of money

21

on elections? Think of all -- you know, the people that could be- that benefit from that money, you know.

131. MORGAN: There have been two elections since I've been in America, there have been two elections where one party has had far more financial firepower than the other. One was here in California, it was Meg Whitman. One was nationally. Romney clearly had more money than Obama, for most of that campaign. And in both cases the one with the most money lost.

132. STREISAND: Isn't that great?133. MORGAN: What does that tell you about the American

people?134. STREISAND: Because the people- the people are getting

smarter, they are going, I don't like this- all this amount of money spent on this election. I mean, there should be a given- campaign finance reform is very important, and I hope somebody does something about it. I mean, you should have a given amount, equal amount, equal air time, and that's it. You know. That idea of corporations being people- no, no, it's not- this is a country of, by and for the people. Not of, by, and for the corporations. You know, it's like I- because I'm so against GMOs, you know, the modified food, and I'm so against lobbying, you know, by chemical companies, lobbying, and that's Proposition 37, you know, it was bad. And that's scary, because the poison, and, you know, the poison in our foods and in the air, and pollution, and they give discretionary polluters. We are having climate change. The Republicans don't seem to want to acknowledge that. It's a major problem. And you have to be a Democrat to understand it or to believe in it.

135. MORGAN: Have you ever been in love with a Republican?136. STREISAND: Never.137. MORGAN: Could you ever be?138. STREISAND: No.139. MORGAN: Really? That's fascinating.140. STREISAND: Well, I mean, unless there was an enormous

sexual chemistry and, you know, and I had to- we never talked about politics.

(Audience laughter)

141. STREISAND: But I can't quite imagine it, no.142. MORGAN: But what would have been the proudest moment for

you with Obama? Or I imagine one of them when he came out so vocally for gay rights, finally?

22

143. STREISAND: Absolutely. That's great.144. MORGAN: What else?145. STREISAND: What else has he done, are you saying?146. MORGAN: Yeah, that you are particularly proud of.147. STREISAND: His stance for women. Women, the power of

women, or not allowing- just for that one reason. You know, in my show I would say, well, I'm not going to tell you- my concert tour, limited concert tour - I say, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but if you want to be clean air, you want, you know, good food and so forth, and if you believe that a woman has a right to choose what happens in her own body- in other words, or you think that your body belongs to the state. There's a clear choice. How could you- thank God that Akin and Mourdock came out with those extremist views.

148. MORGAN: Extraordinary statements, weren't they.149. STREISAND: Unbelievable, I thought. Isn't that great --

keep talking boys, keep talking 150. MORGAN: It was amazing, when you watched the footage of

those moments, neither of them had a clue that they said anything remotely contentious.

151. STREISAND: Exactly. That's so scary, isn't it? 152. MORGAN: I thought that pretty unsettling. You can reach

the point of potentially becoming a senator-153. STREISAND: Yeah.154. MORGAN: And actually have no clue that what you are

saying is deeply offensive to many people.155. STREISAND: Right. Some men, mostly women, right?156. MORGAN: Yeah.157. STREISAND: Yeah, I mean it was- it was deeply offensive.158. MORGAN: You feel that there is any form of real equality

yet in America for women? 159. STREISAND: Well, we are one of the last countries to ever

think of having a woman be president, but I think that's possible now. But it wasn't years ago.

160. MORGAN: Do you think Hillary is likely to run?161. STREISAND: I don't know, but I hope after a four-year

rest that she would run. Because she'd be a great woman president.

162. MORGAN: Let's take another break. Let's come back and talk Hollywood. Your great love.

163. STREISAND: It is?164. MORGAN: I want to know who you think the greatest movie

star in the world is, ever.165. STREISAND: Oh, OK.166. MORGAN: Other than yourself.167. STREISAND: No.

23

(Audience laughter)

-ADVERT BREAK-

168. MORGAN: You are wearing the same outfit, I just realized!

(Audience laughter)

169. STREISAND: It's very funny.170. MORGAN: What do you think when you see yourself from that

era? That was from "Yentl" in 1983. 171. STREISAND: Yeah. What do I think?172. MORGAN: Yeah, when you look at yourself?173. STREISAND: I'm so objective when I look at myself. You

know, when I'm directing a movie, and I'm editing, you know, it's always she, her, it's not me, it's like the character in the movie.

174. MORGAN: Do you see a beautiful woman there?175. STREISAND: Not particularly.176. MORGAN: Have you ever looked in the mirror and thought

you look beautiful?177. STREISAND: From certain angles.

(Audience laughter)

178. MORGAN: Really? Which is your best angle?179. STREISAND: Well, my left.180. MORGAN: Why?181. STREISAND: Because my eyes don't look as cross-eyed

sometimes or my nose is better, my-182. MORGAN: That's what you- the way you feel.183. STREISAND: My mouth is better. Yeah, I'm like two

different people on two sides, I think.184. MORGAN: Let's take a look at a clip from one of my

favourite films. This is your film debut, "Funny Girl" in 1968,

(MUSIC)

24

185. STREISAND: It's odd.186. MORGAN: A fabulous film.187. STREISAND: You know what it is? I don't like to live in

the past. I like to live in the present. So it's always odd for me to see-

188. MORGAN: We got you from when you were 19 years old.189. STREISAND: You do? 190. MORGAN: Check this out.191. STREISAND: 19 years old?

(MUSIC)

192. MORGAN: See, I find that absolutely spellbinding. I'm honest with you. It is funny, you're watching it and all you're thinking of I look cross-eyed, and I'm thinking there's a beautiful young woman singing like an angel.

193. STREISAND: Isn't that sweet. 194. MORGAN: Two slightly different perspectives. 195. STREISAND: We don't appreciate ourselves, most people,

it's interesting.196. MORGAN: Have you resisted the sort of self-masticated

plunge into plastic surgery that so many American female stars feel compelled to do?

197. STREISAND: I don't trust most people. You know when I was younger I thought well, God, if only I could just take off just like little bit and then just shorten it just a little bit, but what if he screws up? You know, so. I just- and I really don't like the idea of changing one's face, you know, like capping the teeth or stuff like that. To change a face, no.

198. MORGAN: Who's the greatest actor you've ever seen? I know you love acting. It's your great love. Your great passion. Who do you think?

199. STREISAND: Marlon Brando.200. MORGAN: Really?201. STREISAND: Oh, no question. Why? Do you doubt that?202. MORGAN: No, I don't, actually. I think he would

definitely- although I remember interviewing Dennis Hopper once, and he said, James Dean for him had the Brando thing as well.

203. STREISAND: But Brando was first.204. MORGAN: Yeah.

25

205. STREISAND: No, he was fascinating. He would call me up sometimes.

206. MORGAN: Marlon Brando would?207. STREISAND: He called me up once, and said, sing me a

song. And I said, Marlon, that's like me asking you to recite "Hamlet."

(Audience laughter)

208. STREISAND: Which he proceeded to recite a soliloquy from "Hamlet."

209. MORGAN: And what did you have to sing?210. STREISAND: I did.211. MORGAN: What did you sing him?212. STREISAND: I sang a song called "Nobody's Heart Belongs

to Me."213. MORGAN: Just on the phone to Marlon Brando.214. STREISAND: And I remember sitting in my kitchen, and I'll

never forget, this is one of those moments you never forget, I'm going, this is before they had gizmos to record things, you know, I'm going-

(Audience laughter)

215. STREISAND: Doing "Hamlet." So I have to sing him a song.216. MORGAN: What did he say at the end of it?217. STREISAND: I don't remember that.218. MORGAN: But did he then- was it then a regular thing?

Would he ring up on a Friday night and say where is my song or-

219. STREISAND: We- he- we once went on a short road trip together.

220. MORGAN: You and Marlon Brando? This is fantastic. Where did you go?

221. STREISAND: He wanted to take me to the desert, to see the wild flowers.

222. MORGAN: I bet he did.223. STREISAND: And sleep over in a ghost town.224. MORGAN: Now, we're getting there.225. STREISAND: But I didn't- I was such a nice Jewish girl

that I just said, Marlon, I can't stay overnight with you. I'll go with you for the day, but you have to take me home.

26

226. MORGAN: Marlon clearly wanted to do more than just look at flowers with you.

227. STREISAND: Well, he wanted to sleep over in the desert with me, but-

228. MORGAN: You turned down Marlon Brando?229. STREISAND: Yeah, I thought, yes. Absolutely.230. MORGAN: How did he take rejection? 231. STREISAND: He was fine. But I mean, he would do things

like, you know, we would talk for hours and hours sometimes on the phone. It was great.

232. MORGAN: But what about? I find this mesmerizing. Because you and Marlon Brando, greatest singer and the greatest actor. Just chewing the fat on the phone.

233. STREISAND: Yeah, we would talk for hours. Interesting, when we went on that road trip, he had just done, you know, the sexual one. "Last Tango in Paris."

234. MORGAN: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.235. STREISAND: But I never asked him about acting. But he

told me, you know, it was interesting what he was telling me, you know, and I'll write about it someday. But when I was older and I was doing my last film, no, it was "Nuts," yes, and then he was telling me all these things, you know, how he wears an ear wig, so he could hear the lines. The guy would speak the lines and- and I was saying to him, Jesus, you know, Marlon, I didn't want to know the lines of this movie, because I was supposed to be under the influence of a drug in "Nuts," but then he started to tell me. But I never wanted to ask him, impose on him. He would come, he came to my house once and he said, OK, before we say anything, look into my eyes and don't smile or anything, see how long you could do it. Actually, I was just reading a book about him.

236. MORGAN: Well, how long did you do it? Don't leave me in suspense.

237. STREISAND: I couldn't do it. I kept laughing. But he was amazing, and I see in this book that he does that with people.

238. MORGAN: Amazing. Let's take a break. Let's come back and talk about singing.

239. STREISAND: Singing.240. MORGAN: Yes. Because I look at you and I see the greatest

singer there's ever been. I want to know how you do it. Barbra Streisand.

241. STREISAND: Oh my God.

-ADVERT BREAK-

27

(MUSIC)

242. MORGAN: When we had dinner, I said to you, I found this thing on YouTube, from you from 1975. A television special called "Funny Girl to Funny Lady," and I said, it is so amazing, it's breath-taking. That was the clip. And I've now played it to a lot of other quite famous people. I won't embarrass you by saying who it is. And they all just sit there, big singing superstars, and they sit there with their mouths open.

243. STREISAND: Really?244. MORGAN: Yes, because it's just almost, I would say,

musical perfection. But also you just look so dazzling in that clip.

245. STREISAND: Oh, that's so nice.246. MORGAN: What do you feel when you see it?247. STREISAND: I can't see what you see, I really can't.248. MORGAN: Really?249. STREISAND: I'm looking at the- why was I wearing that

kind of thing over the black dress? And God, my hair was light, and I was a little chubby. But-

250. MORGAN: You weren't chubby!251. STREISAND: No, no, it's OK, it's OK.252. MORGAN: But you weren't, you looked beautiful. The

interesting thing about you is the singing, and we'll come to the other, the amazing success you have had, but it's the fact that you have got so cripplingly shy when you perform live I found really interesting. That you played this huge concert I think in New York once, 130,000 people.

253. STREISAND: Oh, 150,000, Central Park.254. MORGAN: And forgot the words to a few big songs, and it

freaked you out so much, you did not perform again live for how long?

255. STREISAND: 27 years.256. MORGAN: That's incredible. You were at the peak of your

powers.257. STREISAND: Yes.258. MORGAN: When you could have earned literally $1 million a

night in Vegas. You just stopped. That's some freak-out you were going through.

259. STREISAND: I know. 260. MORGAN: When you have that freak-out-261. STREISAND: Because when you get freaked out-262. MORGAN: Tell me how you're feeling. You're Barbra

Streisand. I never imagined that people with your talent

28

could ever feel that nervous. But clearly it's just completely-

263. STREISAND: There are probably several people called Barbra Streisand, meaning you see me as this star. I don't see myself like that. I'm this girl, I'm this woman, I'm this mother, and I’m this wife. You know, I do not dress up, I don't at home, I don't like to say shlump but more likely, you know, the picture you saw of me, I was very comfortable doing that picture. I wore a sweat suit, sneakers.

264. MORGAN: What I loved about it is you were the least starry superstar I'd ever met in my life. I was imagining after all these diva stories I'd read about over the years- that I would kind of half hope were true. I like my divas to be divas.

265. STREISAND: I know. Isn't that terrible? No.266. MORGAN: You were not remotely diva-ish. You were just

very, very normal and nice.267. STREISAND: I hate to disappoint you.268. MORGAN: Have you even been a terrible diva?269. STREISAND: What the hell is a diva, I don't even know.270. MORGAN: Have you ever been one?271. STREISAND: No.272. MORGAN: Have you ever screamed at people?273. STREISAND: Oh, yes, I screamed at people. But-274. MORGAN: How lovely.275. STREISAND: But that does not mean- you know, I scream at

my husband. It doesn't make me a diva. 276. MORGAN: Are you a perfectionist?277. STREISAND: I am proud to say I am. But there is no such

thing as perfection, and I found that out when I was 15 years old. I wrote it in my journal, that perfection is imperfection. So it has that humanity, like human quality. Otherwise it's too cold, right? You can just strive for perfection. Another word is excellence, strive for excellence.

278. MORGAN: What I love about you, is we're heading towards Christmas, and you could even sing "White Christmas" stuff better than anybody else. Watch this, I found this on the Internet.

279. STREISAND: You're kidding me.

(MUSIC)

280. STREISAND: I was hoarse that night.

29

(MUSIC)

281. MORGAN: See, you're saying you sound hoarse. I've got goose bumps. This is the difference- this is why you are such a perfectionist. It must be why you are so good.

282. STREISAND: Maybe, because I never-283. MORGAN: Never happy.284. STREISAND: I'm never in love with what I do. That's

right.285. MORGAN: What are some things that you do that we maybe

wouldn't know? A secret, painting, you-286. STREISAND: Oh, I have -- I draw, I actually draw.287. STREISAND: I take photographs. I wrote a book on design.

That's interesting to me, because that's a lot to do with directing too, it's composition and colour, and you know, monochromatic frames. That interests me.

288. MORGAN: Are you a naturally person, or can you just completely relax if you want to?

289. STREISAND: I think more so now, I can relax. I mean, I really like quiet. I like to read and be quiet and watch films. Or have interesting conversations. Most conversations are not that interesting. That's why I like politics, political-

290. MORGAN: You are great at them. And I've had some ding-dongs with you which I thoroughly enjoyed. You give as good as you get. No holds barred.

291. STREISAND: No, that was fun.292. MORGAN: Let's come back and talk more about "The Guilt

Trip." I want to know what guilt trips you have had in your life. And I want names.

293. STREISAND: Oooh. You know, that's hard.

-ADVERT BREAK-

294. MORGAN: Barbra Streisand in "The Guilt Trip." It is a very warm film. It is funny, but it's also very warm and poignant in places. Could you ever imagine doing a road trip with your son like that for a week?

295. STREISAND: Yeah, I could imagine going it with him.296. MORGAN: You'd drive each other mad. My mother and I could

probably last about a day.297. STREISAND: Really?298. MORGAN: Yeah, because we're just too similar. It would be

too much arguing, I'm sure.299. STREISAND: Really?

30

300. MORGAN: Yes. She probably wouldn't admit it, but I bet there would be.

301. STREISAND: No, we never did that. I love travelling with him now in my tour. That was great. He brought his dog, I brought my dog. And we ate (inaudible) together. You know what that is?

302. MORGAN: Yes.303. STREISAND: Chinese delicacy like a hamburger. But I've

taken road trips with my husband. 304. MORGAN: How did they go?305. STREISAND: It actually brings us closer.306. MORGAN: Because he's a great guy- I only met him once or

twice. But he is a very- seems a very calming influence, a very self- confident, you know, very un-starry again. I really liked him. He's a very down to earth kind of character.

307. STREISAND: Yes, he is very different than I am. I am much more -

308. MORGAN: How much like the character you play, Joyce, are you in real life? Are you quite neurotic? In a good way. Are you?

309. STREISAND: Probably. Probably. I'm on good behaviour now.

(Audience laughter)

310. MORGAN: Let's turn to the future, because you're somebody I get the feeling, just having talked to you as well, that you don't really like going on about the past.

311. STREISAND: No.312. MORGAN: To you, it's about what's happening next.313. STREISAND: Yes. And being here in the present. And being-

it's hard too, you know, just trying to be grateful for everything that's positive and not dwell on the negatives, but it's in my character to see things more pessimistically than optimistically. I have to work on that.

314. MORGAN: You have also managed your career, I think, so skilfully, and it may have been almost by default. It may be because you didn't want to put yourself out there much or whatever.

315. STREISAND: Lazy.316. MORGAN: Maybe that, yes, your word, not mine. But I mean,

certainly you haven't done that many tours, you know, or released that many albums by comparison to many contemporaries over that period. You haven't made that many movies.

31

317. STREISAND: Right.318. MORGAN: But what you have managed to do is make each time

you do anything, you make it an event that people look forward to, and that may be the secret of your incredible longevity. Did you think that?

319. STREISAND: Well, it's not conscious. It's the fact that I do what I- especially in relationships if I'm, you know, I'm newly going with Jim, I don't have any desire to work. Sometimes work is a substitute for-

320. MORGAN: For life.321. STREISAND: For life. That's right. 322. MORGAN: Let's look at your track record- 51 gold albums,

30 platinum, 18 multi-platinum, 8 Grammys, 2 honorary Grammys. That's just the music. Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, the acting and so on. It's an unbelievable array of honors, medals, trophies. You must have the cabinet room that's the size of the New York Yankees. I mean, does any of that really motivate you? Do you ever look at it and think, yes, I've not done badly for a young girl from Brooklyn?

323. STREISAND: Every once in a while. I used to hide all these awards, and then one day I- I was doing a new house- actually, well, it was a long time ago. Ten years ago, let's say. And I decided, I'll put them in a room. You can't see then when you walk in. But they are there, and I do appreciate them now. I must say, I do say, oh good, I was here, I'm still here, but I was here. You know, I think it's because my father- and maybe you'll relate to this- died so young. That I want to be remembered. I want to have made a mark here. And records and films, television shows, they do that. They say you existed, you were here. And hopefully for, you know, a good purpose.

324. MORGAN: Let's take a final break. Let's talk about other ways you can be remembered, most of which I think are for your charitable work. I want to talk about heart disease and the philanthropy that you've done, because you've raised a lot of money and made a big difference.

325. STREISAND: I hope so.

-ADVERT BREAK-

326. MORGAN: "Little Fockers" there with Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman. Great fun. Did you like making that?

327. STREISAND: It's not a challenge, put it that way.

32

(Audience laughter)

328. MORGAN: Let's talk about your philanthropic career, because that's been almost as relentlessly productive as anything else you've done. One of the particular things that you are keen on is women's heart disease. Tell me why that's been such a passionate thing for you.

329. STREISAND: Because, you know, I am- I dislike inequality so much, whether it's you know, gender issues or gay rights or whatever. Even in the medical sciences, there is discrimination. So it turns out that more women die of heart disease now than all cancers combined. More women die of heart disease rather than men. More women than men die of heart disease, did you know that? I was just so shocked by some of these statistics.

330. MORGAN: I didn't know some of this, until I researched this interview.

331. STREISAND: Yes. That's right. 332. MORGAN: And I saw why you were so strong about it. It's

startling.333. STREISAND: And 50 years of research have been done on

men. I'll tell you a funny story too, and you realize how powerful females are, OK? That even in the research, a woman doctor discovered how to grow a heart by- from stem cells, in, you know, in a petri dish, whatever, that's beating. How did she do it? You know how she did it? With only female stem cells, because literally, the male stem cells got lost.

(Audience laughter)

334. STREISAND: Like in life.

(Audience laughter)

335. STREISAND: And they refused to ask for directions. Now, this is true. Can you imagine that? So, I just believe, you know, breast cancer has done such a magnificent job raising millions and millions of dollars to help that disease, but let's say, 39,520 women died of breast cancer one year, in the last couple of years. 455,000 died of heart disease. And we haven't learned yet those organizational skills in order to raise awareness and subsequent funds to help that,

33

because women have a different, a smaller vascular system, called the microvascular system. We need different equipment, different diagnostic techniques in order to examine women, and it's something that I -- I really look forward to happening.

336. MORGAN: Good for you. Good for you. Barbra, it's been a real pleasure. I've waited so long for this moment. You have not disappointed.

337. STREISAND: Oh, thank you so much. 338. MORGAN: And this is your album, which is "Release Me,"

which is as stunning as your eyes look on there, and the "Guilt Trip." It's funny, it's warm, it's smart, it's poignant, it's bursting with talent. It is Barbra Streisand on film. What more can I say? Go to BarbraStreisand.com for all things Barbra. It's been such a pleasure. Come back, please. Don't leave it so long next time.

339. STREISAND: Thank you so much.340. MORGAN: It took 47 years to get you in front of me.341. STREISAND: 47?342. MORGAN: I'm 47.343. STREISAND: You are kidding.344. MORGAN: That's how long it took me to get you to do an

interview.345. STREISAND: When you were a baby, you wanted to do an

interview with me? 346. MORGAN: Yes!347. STREISAND: You don't have to exaggerate! Just tell the

truth. MORGAN: Ask my mother, the moment I came out, I sang "The Way We Were."

(Audience laughter)

348. MORGAN: Barbra, lovely to see you.349. STREISAND: Nice to see you.350. MORGAN: The great Barbra Streisand.

(Audience applause)

34

‘THE ANDREW MARR SHOW’ INTERVIEW: ANDREW MARR (AM) AND PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON (DC) AIRED JANUARY 10th 2016.

1. AM: In Shakespeare’s day politicians who got too close to continental Europeans tended to lose their heads. Not a problem, I’m sure, for my next guest, the prime minister. Much Ado About Nothing, the Tempest? We’ll see.

2. DC: Well, it’s the future of this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, so –

3. AM: But that speech is about England going to the dogs, by the end of it. Can I – I mean, you’re right in the middle – thick of these negotiations. Just give us first of all a kind of update on where you’ve got to mid-January.

4. DC: Well, it’s hard work but the areas I’ve identified are the things that actually drive us up the wall about Europe that we need to deal with: let’s make sure we’re not part of an ever-closer union, I think we’re on the way to getting that fixed. The idea that Europe must add to our competitiveness not take away from our competitiveness. Making sure this isn’t just a single currency club but it’s flexible enough for countries like Britain with our own currency. And then dealing with this issue of the abuse of free movement and the pressure of migration from the EU on to Britain, by amending welfare rules. You know, it’s hard work. I’m hopeful of a deal in February, and if we do that we can go ahead and hold the referendum. But I think really here there is a huge prize for Britain, if we can deal with the things that drive us up the wall about Europe we can get the best of both worlds and actually secure our economic future inside this valuable market, and also help to keep our people safe by staying together with our close allies and partners as we confront extremism and terrorism. So it’s a massive prize for Britain if we can get this right.

5. AM: But it sounds like you think you might get it wrapped up in February, which means we could get a summer referendum.

6. DC: That is, you know, that is what I’d like to see, is a deal in February then a referendum that would follow. But you know, you’re dealing with complex negotiations. I think some people think it’s the migration bit that’s the most difficult and the others are easy. Well, certainly migration is difficult, but the other areas are not simple and straightforward either. But my aim is clear, best of both worlds for Britain, a massive prize of sorting out what frustrates us about Europe, but staying in a reformed Europe, and that prize is closer than it was and I’m going to work round the clock to get that done.

35

7. AM: And just to be clear, so people understand, if you don’t get it wrapped up in February, because of all the timescale problems and the summer holidays in Scotland and so forth, we’d be looking at a referendum probably in September or October.

8. DC: Or later. You know, look, I have to have this referendum by the end of 2017, that’s now the law of the land. In the last general election you had people sitting on your sofa here saying it’ll never happen, they’ll never deliver the referendum. We’ve legislated for it, it must happen by the end of 2017. To me, the substance matters much more than the timing. So if I can’t get the right deal in February I’ll wait and I’ll keep going and keep plugging away, because this is such an important issue for the future of our country, and if we get it right there’s, you know, so much benefit that we could feel from that.

9. AM: Turning to the substance then, this idea of a four-year ban on European workers coming into this country before they can take in-work benefits, that was in the manifesto, it’s been very important to you, it’s still on the table, I understand. But Mr Tusk and many others say the problem is it’s illegal under European law. Francois Hollande, and I think Angela Merkel, have both suggested a three-year delay rather than the four-year, and I don’t quite understand the difference, but is that something that’s possible?

10. DC: Well, there are a lot of suggestions being made. My position is very clear: the four years remain on the table until I can see something equally powerful and meaningful, because it’s the goal that matters to me, which is at the moment our welfare system acts as a sort of extra additional, almost unnatural draw for people to come to Britain, and we need to be able to address that. You know, we have a welfare system, unlike many in Europe, you have instant access to, and it’s that that creates the difficulty. So I’m in the middle of the negotiation, I can’t give a running commentary on it, but I’m confident we can get a good outcome.

11. AM: At the risk of getting the same answer, the Poles are saying at the moment – it’s the Polish Foreign Minister, I can’t pronounce his name, I suspect neither can you – but what he says is if Britain supports Poland in getting more NATO troops into Poland, possibly British troops – because he’s very worried about Vladimir Putin – then that might be a quid pro quo which allowed Poland to back us.

12. DC: All I can say – 13. AM: It seems a very strange deal.

36

14. DC: - I read a lot of things in the newspapers that look like very interesting and possibly worthwhile suggestions, but I don’t always recognise what they are. I mean, it’s true that Britain supports having NATO troops in Poland. In fact, British troops exercise regularly in Poland and we’re going to see an increase in that. But no, what needs to be done here is a difficult tough discussion about that combination of free movement and welfare, to get a good deal for Britain, something equally powerful to the four years or indeed the four years itself.

15. AM: So you sound very sympathetic to the Poles on that. Is that in any way linked to our negotiations?

16. DC: It’s certainly not in any of the conversations I’ve had, it hasn’t been the case. We’ve talked about – we’ve talked about all issues when I – I’ve made several visits to Poland. But as I say, some of the things I read in the papers don’t absolutely come in line with what my own experience is –

17. AM: It has been suggested, prime minister, that because of EU legality, one way round the four-year problem would be that British workers could lose benefits, which would seem very bizarre indeed. Is that a possibility?

18. DC: Well, my whole aim is to make sure that the unnatural draw of the UK welfare system, the problem we’re trying to address is that – I’ll give you some figures. You know, 60 per cent of those who come from the EU to work in Britain are actually jobseekers, they don’t have a job when they arrive. Some 40 per cent of them then get, you know, serious support through the welfare system for the jobs that they do. Sometimes we’re adding, you know, 7, 8, 9, 10 thousand pounds to their income.

19. AM: To deal with that, to ensure there isn’t discrimination between EU citizens, which is the legal problem, we might have to remove benefits for four years for British workers.

20. DC: Again, I’m afraid you’re playing – I’m in the middle of a negotiation, I’ve got hard work to do, and I, you know, when I’ve got an announcement to make I’ll make it.

21. AM: Okay. But your critics in the party say all of this in the end is actually smoke and mirrors, it’s camouflage, David Cameron is determined that we’ll stay in the EU almost under any circumstances and he’s determined to lead the IN campaign when it comes.

22. DC: Well, I’m determined to fulfil what we put in our manifesto, which is the renegotiation, the referendum. I think the best answer for Britain is staying in a reformed European Union if we can get those changes. But as I’ve said

37

before, and happy to say again, if we don’t get them I rule nothing out. By saying nothing out, I absolutely mean that. You know –

23. AM: They sort of don’t believe you though, do they? 24. DC: Well, they – not everyone sits with me in those

negotiations. I’ve been to 42 European Councils since being prime minister. I think I know what can be delivered, what can’t be delivered. I feel we have got this – a very substa- if you stop and ask people what is it that bugs you about Europe, a lot of people say, ‘well, I do feel there’s too much of a political union.’ I say let’s get out of that. People would say, ‘well, are we more competitive in Europe or less?’ I’m saying we’ve got to fix this, Europe should be signing the trade deals with the fast-growing parts of the world, completing the single market, making sure regulations come down rather than go up. You know, these things are the sorts of things people actually want fixed in Europe, and you know, if they were easy to fix, believe me, I would have fixed them by now.

25. AM: Coming out of Europe would be a huge thing for us, massive, massive problems. So if this is a genuinely open question presumably we have plans, as the government about what would happen if Brexit occurs.

26. DC: We have plans for our renegotiation, referendum, and then of course –

27. AM: Then the possibility of leaving. 28. DC: - then the British public will make their decision,

and we must obey that decision whatever it is. That is the nature of a referendum. It’s for those who –

29. AM: Are you as a government prepared for the possibility of us leaving the EU?

30. DC: Well, I don’t think that is the right answer, for the reasons I’ve given, but were that to be the answer we would have to do everything necessary to make that work. This is, you know, we put it in the manifesto, it’s the public who will decide this, not the politicians.

31. AM: Are the civil service working on a contingency for this?

32. DC: The civil service are working round the clock to support my renegotiations.

33. AM: The answer is no, I suspect. And Ministers are not allowed to work on the contingency for Brexit, which suggests to a lot of people inside the machine that there is no expectation that we will leave the EU. It is smoke and mirrors.

34. DC: No, it’s not smoke and mirrors, because there’s a very serious negotiation agenda. This is not simple or easy.

38

All of the four areas I’m talking about, whether it’s sovereignty, whether it’s the strength of national parliaments, whether it’s adding to Europe’s competitiveness, whether it’s dealing with migration, all of those are difficult. And the civil service is working to help me deliver those things. Now, if we fail to deliver them and we have to take a different stance, then that’s a new situation. But I’m clear in politics what my goal is, my goal is renegotiation, referendum, secure Britain’s place in a reformed European Union.

35. AM: Will the British parliament be sovereign after these negotiations?

36. DC: Yes. The British parliament is sovereign now actually. We made that clear in a Bill in 2010, that if the British parliament wants to alter its arrangements it can. I mean, the British constitution, as I was taught, can be summed up in eight words: what the Queen enacts in parliament is law. And that is, as far as I’m concerned, whether we’re in the EU or out of the EU, that is absolutely crucial. If we need to reaffirm that even more, if we need to put it up in lights, happy to do so. Because I think it is important. I often say to my European colleagues, you know, Britain is not, you know, difficult or prickly about these matters, we’re just immensely proud of our long history of strong democratic institutions. We joined Europe for trade, for cooperation, for working together. We do not want to bury ourselves in some sort of European super-state. And that is why already, you know, Britain’s not in the single currency, we’re not in the Schengen no borders system, we’ll never sign up to a European army. These things are important for people to know. There is a very strong patriotic case for engagement in the – on the continent of Europe, from a British perspective.

37. AM: We have talked about this quite a lot, we talked about this a year ago and a year ago I said to you what about Cabinet Ministers who take a different line? And you were very clear, you said, no, no, Cabinet is collective responsibility. I can remind you of what you said.

38. DC: Well, I – I – actually I’ve looked very carefully at what I said a year ago. What I said, I was on your programme actually only as recently as October, and I said in October the decision about collective responsibility will be taken at the conclusion of the negotiations. Well, I hope we’re close to that and that’s why I’ve said what the decision will be. And frankly, Andrew, that’s always been my intention. You can’t ask people who have, you know, very long standing held and sincere views to campaign in a

39

different way. And so that’s what will happen. As – of right.

39. AM: There are people in your Cabinet, I think, who will vote to leave whatever happens, a few of them, and there are other people who will wait and see the results to negotiations. How much does it matter to you than you win over the majority of the Cabinet to your negotiations?

40. DC: Obviously I want to have – 41. AM: I mean, these are Theresa May... 42. DC: I want to have as many people supporting the side

that I’m on, whichever side that is, when the time comes as possible. And let me make this clear, because I think it’s important. The government’s not going to be sort of neutral about this issue, with people on one side or on the other, my intention is at the conclusion of the negotiation, the Cabinet has a discussion and reaches a clear recommendation to the British people of what we should do. I hope that we’ll be staying in a reformed European Union, because I would have got a good negotiation for Britain, and at that point a clear government position that I’m saying, you know, members of the Cabinet, Ministers who have long standing held views on a different basis, they’ll be able to campaign in a personal capacity.

43. AM: And come back again afterwards? 44. DC: Of course, yes, absolutely. They won’t leave, as it

were, they will remain ministers, and they will – very much as happened on previous occasions.

45. AM: You may have heard Tim Montgomerie earlier on, some people are concerned that at the moment it’s okay if you’re in the Cabinet to come out, as Philip Hammond did, and say, ‘these are the reasons why we want to stay in Europe,’ but it’s not okay to come out and say, ‘these are the reasons why we want to get out of Europe.’ So in a sense people who are pro your position are enable to speak, people who are against your position are still muzzled until the negotiations are over.

46. DC: I think that’s a wrong premise to the question, in a way, it’s not my position, it’s the position of the whole government.

47. AM: Nonetheless, Iain Duncan Smith can’t come into that chair and make his case for leaving the EU, if that’s what he believes, without risking his Cabinet position.

48. DC: Because the position of the whole government is that we should renegotiate, hold a referendum, and the best outcome would be to keep Britain in a reformed European Union. That is the position of the government, so anyone sitting in this chair from my team should be making that

40

argument. But at the point at which we’ve completed the negotiation people who take a different view will be able to do so. I think that is fair, sensible, reasonable. It’s very much what happened in the past and I think it’s – and obviously at the end of the referendum the Conservative Party has to come back together, and so it’s very important these are – these discussions will be conducted in a reasonable way.

49. AM: All around the country I can hear the tinkle of people throwing their mobile phones at their television sets and ‘get onto something else,’ they’re saying. Let’s move to the council estate issue that you’ve announced today. You want to demolish a lot of council estates, can you explain the plan?

50. PM: Well it’s a very straight forward plan which is, we’ve got an economy now where we are generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We’ve got rising wages, we’ve got taxes coming down. There are, you know, good prospects for people. But we’ve got too many people in our country who are you know stuck, left behind, sometimes permanently left behind and if we’re really going to have a more – a society with greater equality of opportunity, greater chances for people we’ve got to deal with the things that hold people back. Now we’ve done a lot to help with poor education with the reforms in the last parliament and we continue. But I think sink housing estates, many built after the war where people can feel trapped in poverty, unable to get on and build a good life themselves, I think it’s time, with government money, but with massive private sector and perhaps pension sector help, to demolish the worst of these and actually rebuild houses that people feel they can have a real future in.

51. AM: With greater intensity of housing as well? 52. PM: In some cases. The odd thing about the - some of

these high rise blocks and the way that they’ve been structured is actually they don’t provide a huge number of houses and in fact by demolishing them you might be able to provide better houses and more houses at the same time.

53. AM: But here’s the really crucial question is what they do provide traditionally is social housing for rent. People at the bottom of the heap. Will there be as many social housing units for rent after this project as there were before?

54. PM: Well there’s always going to be – depends on how you define…

55. AM: because I think that you’re cracking down on social housing.

41

56. PM: No we’re not – I want affordable housing and when people hear that term –

57. AM: Ah, but that’s a different term. 58. PM: No, no, but when people hear that term they often

think the government means oh that’s affordable for me to buy. That’s great. I can become a home owner, I can achieve my dreams. And then they discover that actually for years affordable housing has only meant housing for rent. I think we need both, but frankly yes, we should have a big shift towards more affordable housing to buy. Of course you always need some affordable housing for rent, but most people in our country –

59. AM: Well that was coming down 60. PM: you know getting a job, getting together with a

partner they want to have a home of their own, a flat of their own.

61. AM: They certainly do. 62. PM: and you know you’ve got this great vista of London

behind us here in London, the average house price now is you know £500,000. We’ve got to build more houses

63. AM: £90,000 sometimes for a single flat in some of the vista behind me and all the rest of it, so lots of people can’t afford to buy their own homes, they need somewhere to rent and the trouble is with the new Housing Bill and this proposal is there is less and less social housing of a traditional kind, more and more private rented housing and the rents for that are going up, housing benefit is staying the same, a lot of people are having a really tough time.

64. PM: But look at what the government’s doing. Changing the planning system so we build more houses, doubling the housing budget, because we’re putting – making that our priority. Introducing far more shared ownership so you can own a share in the house and pay some rent as well. And then these new starter homes, which will be 20% off the market price, available for people under the age of 40, just as we promised in our Manifesto. And then of course help to buy which has been a massive boost for people to be able to get on the housing ladder because we’re helping them affectively with their mortgage.

65. AM; For those people watching who are in what we used to call council housing on a rent they can just afford and all the rest of it, can you promise that by the end of your term there will be as many such places for them as there are now?

66. PM: Well I want to build – we’ll be building more, but the key thing is –

67. AM: of those kind of properties.

42

68. PM: Yes, and the key thing for people in those properties is that we’re giving them the chance to buy them. And people stop me on the streets and say all sorts of things but recently I’ve had so many people say please, get on with this right to buy. I live in a housing association flat, I rent it, I’d love to be able to buy it. And we’re going to deliver that and that will create you know potentially over a million more home owners.

69. AM: Over the last year right to buy takes a lot more social housing out of the market, out of the country than it puts in. I mean I think 2 thousand new social housing units came in in 2014-2015 as opposed to 12 thousand which left social housing because of the right to buy. So for those people who don’t want or can’t afford to buy the number of properties they can rent is going down and down and down.

70. PM: That’s why in an Amendment to the Housing Bill put forward by Zac Goldsmith who will be our mayoral candidate, we’ve actually got this policy that for every one of these high cost social houses that we sell we’re going to build, you know, two, at least two new rental houses. You know in London, if you look behind us you get sometimes council houses that become vacant that are worth 500, 600, 800 thousand pounds and as they become vacant what we’re saying is let’s sell those houses and use that money, sometimes up to a million pounds or more, use that money to build new homes, some for rent and yes, of course, some that are affordable for people to buy. I don’t - you know –

71. AM: You mentioned just now the economy and you’re very upbeat about it. There seems to have been a very, very marked change of tone if you like from the Autumn Statement where £27 billion appeared from behind – I’d love to have that sofa myself but from the back of the sofa and so forth and there’s generally a sort of sunny air. Things didn’t need to be quite as tight as we thought to 14 what the Chancellor was saying just this week about a cocktail of risks ahead for the British economy. Why has the mood changed so radically?

72. PM: Well it’s right to warn of the difficulties that we face in the world. We’ve got a slowing Chinese economy, we’ve got this dislocation obviously in the Middle-East. You know there are a number of concerns in the global economy. I think it just reinforces our point that you must stick to the long term economic plan, keep getting the deficit down, keep making sure that Britain is competitive and I think it was a very powerful speech on that basis. But the record is –

43

73. AM: You talk about external threats but unfortunately there are internal threats too. We have something close to an asset bubble at the moment. We talk about housing, housing you know in the south east particularly, house prices have been shooting up all around the country and there is a sense – that one thing we know about a bubble is that it eventually bursts. We also have a country which has very, very heavily over borrowed on the domestic scale. Domestic borrowing is now higher per household than it was before the crash. I just wonder how alarmed you are about the asset bubble, about the amount of money that people are borrowing on their credit cards and against mortgages?

74. PM: Well you have to look at borrowing as a percentage of income rather than just borrowing figures alone, but you know this was why – these sorts of concerns are why we gave the Bank of England you know the proper independence and ability to sort of call time as it were on excessive levels of borrowing in banks, building societies or in the economy at large.

75. AM: But they are worried –76. PM: and they are – rightly, they’ve taken some steps

already. We’ve had these very low interest rates for a very long time. They’ve already taken some steps on the mortgage market to try and make sure that people aren’t taking out mortgages they can’t afford. In the budget we took steps to deal with the buy to let phenomenon which I think, you know does need to be kept under control.

77. AM: Personal debt is the highest debt is the highest since 2008 at the moment. Interest rates we think are about to go up again, are you not concerned that we’re heading towards something quite nasty?

78. PM: What I think we need to do is make sure government plays the right role. Get our own borrowing down, and we’re doing that. Making sure the economy keeps moving forward, and we’re doing that. Making sure that there are jobs for people to take and now you see jobs with rising salaries and of course lower taxes so people are better able to service any debts. But crucially –

79. AM: So you’re not worried about the borrowing issue? 80. PM: Well look, I worry about everything. That’s my job. 81. AM: They’re thinking should I be cutting back on my

borrowing. What does the Prime Minister think? 82. PM: Well don’t – you should take advice from financial

advisers. I’m not – and also listen to what the Bank of England says. That’s why we gave it this role. You know we identified this in opposition as a real problem, that there was no clear authority responsible for the overall level of

44

borrowing in the economy and to warn when things were getting out of control. We now have a highly capable independent Governor of the Bank of England which an amazing track record across the world and we’ve vested in that organisation the ability to you know, to deal with excessive levels of borrowing and I think we should listen to them and let them set the interest rates.

83. AM: That highly capable man is also very worried about what we used to call the balance of payments deficit, or the current account deficit as it’s now called. In basic terms we are not paying our way in the world. We are not selling enough in goods or services to pay our way in the world. To that extent the economy remains fragile.

84. PM: Well we need to do better. We’ve seen – you know if you take China we’ve seen you know a doubling of our exports I think since I’ve been Prime <inister, but there are other markets we’re doing less well. So yes, a very big export drive is a key part of our plans, but you know, we shouldn’t talk ourselves down. Today we were the star economy of the G7 in 2014, we looked like leading the pack along with America in 2015. We created over 2 million jobs -

85. AM: (Over) I’m testing the extent.86. PM: - since I became prime minister. So there’s a strong

economy that is resilient, borrowing’s coming down, but obviously all of the risk factors we face - are we productive enough? Are we exporting enough? Are we building enough houses?

87. AM: No. No. No.88. PM: Well exactly, and I’m not defensive about those

things. You know, we’ve got a majority, we’ve got a strong government, we’ve got a strong economy, we’ve got a very capable Chancellor, we’ve got a brilliant Governor of the Bank of England, we’ve got a team that can one by one address all of these challenges. One of them for instance was very low business investment in our country. You’re now seeing really good growth in business investment because people believe that the British economy is strong and can get stronger and they’re investing.

89. AM: We’re just coming to the news but a couple of foreign affairs quickies if I may. We were told when we were going to war in Syria that the crucial thing were these fantastic new Brimstone missiles the Americans didn’t have but we did. How many of them have actually been fired?

90. PM: Well the focus has been in Iraq even since the Syria vote. It’s been on the attack on –

91. AM: (Over) The answer to my question is none, isn’t it?

45

92. PM: Well it’s been the attack on Ramadi. That is the key thing and you know, you know change these conflicts with the use of one or two missiles in one or two weeks, this is going to take a very long time, as I always said.

93. AM: All right. Saudi Arabia. 47 people executed by the Kingdom last week, some of them terrorists, not all of them terrorists. Some of them perfectly ordinary peaceful demonstrators who were grabbed by the police, given a secret trial and them beheaded. Now the government’s response was that this was ‘disappointing’.

94. PM: That wasn’t what I said.95. AM: No, your minister said it was disappointing.96. PM: The last time I looked I was the prime minister and I

condemned it roundly on the television.97. AM: Okay. Is there any more we can do about it than

condemning it, saying we’re against it, because we have very very tight ties with Saudi Arabia now.

98. PM: Look I think we have to ask ourselves a more profound question which is do we – yeah of course we should condemn it, of course we should – we have many disagreements with Saudi Arabia, their internal politics and their policies are not the same as ours and we make that very clear to them. But there is a bigger question, Andrew, which is do we think it is necessary to have a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia for our own safety and security? My answer to that is yes and frankly you can sit here and have a foreign policy based on issuing press releases, here, there and every – or you can have a foreign policy based on trying to keep our people safe and frankly I know what my job is.

99. AM: All right. For now prime minister, we’ll talk after the news, but for now thank you very much indeed.

46