:00:39. > :00:42.Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:43. > :00:46.Net migration to the UK fell very slightly in the 12
:00:47. > :00:48.months to September - but the Government is still way
:00:49. > :00:51.off its target of reducing it to below 100,000 -
:00:52. > :00:54.did the EU referendum have any impact on the numbers?
:00:55. > :00:56.They have more of the money, property, and now, apparently,
:00:57. > :01:03.Are the older generation lauding it over the young?
:01:04. > :01:06.Think a 5% increase in council tax is a lot?
:01:07. > :01:09.We reveal the village and town councils that have hiked rates
:01:10. > :01:19.MUSIC: Chained to the Rhythm by Katy Perry
:01:20. > :01:25.A skeletal Theresa May and Donald Trump hold
:01:26. > :01:27.hands at the Brits - why can't celebrities stop talking
:01:28. > :01:33.about the US President they love to hate?
:01:34. > :01:40.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration today
:01:41. > :01:48.Why were they skeletons? Somebody else asked me that this morning and
:01:49. > :01:50.I don't know why. That is why you watch The Daily Politics, because we
:01:51. > :01:54.don't know what we are talking about!
:01:55. > :01:56.The former universities and science minister who earned
:01:57. > :01:58.the nickname "two brains" - though his colleagues may just have
:01:59. > :02:04.Wheel was mention him when he comes on the programme.
:02:05. > :02:06.Anyway, he's smarter than the average former minister -
:02:07. > :02:09.David Willetts, welcome to the programme.
:02:10. > :02:14.Now - there may be some developments on the Bill which will allow
:02:15. > :02:17.Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and begin the process of the UK's
:02:18. > :02:21.The Bill has been making its way through the House
:02:22. > :02:27.Let's speak to our political Correspondent, Adam Fleming.
:02:28. > :02:34.Adam, is there a concession in the offing from the Government here?
:02:35. > :02:38.Good morning. The answer is maybe, we're not sure but Labour seem
:02:39. > :02:42.confident. It's over the issue come to be known as the meaningful vote,
:02:43. > :02:45.when at the Article 50 bill was in the Commons the government said
:02:46. > :02:49.Parliament will have a vote on the final Brexit deal but it will be
:02:50. > :02:52.take it or leave it, so either approving the deal that Theresa May
:02:53. > :02:58.gets from Brussels, or the UK reading without a deal and falling
:02:59. > :03:01.back, so-called, the World Trade Organisation rules, which some
:03:02. > :03:06.people say would be much less generous. What has happened now the
:03:07. > :03:11.Bill has reached the Lords, Labour Pires feel they are confident they
:03:12. > :03:16.will get the Government to agree to an amendment that will write a vote
:03:17. > :03:20.into the legislation and that will be better than the vote offered in
:03:21. > :03:25.the Commons in that it will give Parliament the power to say to
:03:26. > :03:29.Theresa may go back and negotiate a better deal. -- peers. Rather than
:03:30. > :03:32.happening at the end of the process it would be just before the process.
:03:33. > :03:37.Labour are confident they have got that but sources close to the Tory
:03:38. > :03:43.party say they have not got a deal yet so we have to wait to the
:03:44. > :03:47.Committee Stage. So at that point we will know what has happened to be
:03:48. > :03:51.amendment if it is put down and put to the Lords next week? Yes, because
:03:52. > :03:54.we have the Second Reading stage at the start of this week and that goes
:03:55. > :04:00.through to the Committee Stage next week when peers can add and subtract
:04:01. > :04:07.bits to the legislation. There is also talk of the compromise on UK
:04:08. > :04:11.nationals living abroad and EU nationals in the UK and Liberal
:04:12. > :04:13.Democrats and Labour peers are keen to push the government on that.
:04:14. > :04:15.And we're joined now by the Shadow Leader
:04:16. > :04:23.Welcome to The Daily Politics. Explain to us, what do you believe
:04:24. > :04:28.the Government is promising you dumb or indicating to you? They haven't
:04:29. > :04:33.indicated anything to us yet. I don't think it will be clear by next
:04:34. > :04:36.week to be honest. There are press reports today saying the government
:04:37. > :04:39.is concerned about this particular point of the Bill. On the meaningful
:04:40. > :04:43.vote at the end we listen to what was said in the Commons, I don't
:04:44. > :04:47.like take it or leave it, it is unacceptable, and we crafted a new
:04:48. > :04:53.amendment in the Lords that I think will win because it has cross-party
:04:54. > :04:55.support. What is interesting is in the debate, Lord Hope, a crossbench
:04:56. > :04:58.independent peer, a former Supreme Court judge, says all this
:04:59. > :05:02.legislation does is give a vote to start the process, there needs to be
:05:03. > :05:05.a vote at the end of illegally to get parliamentary approval to
:05:06. > :05:09.conclude the process. It's in statute, it is in law for the
:05:10. > :05:12.European Parliament but not in law for the British Parliament which
:05:13. > :05:15.seems to us to be wrong. The government conceded the point and
:05:16. > :05:20.said they will, we think it should be in legislation but more than take
:05:21. > :05:25.it or leave it. What is your amendment say? It basically says
:05:26. > :05:29.there should be a vote at the end and should engage Parliament on the
:05:30. > :05:32.outcomes there. And what happens next. Even if the government says we
:05:33. > :05:37.have a bad deal and we want to look at it again, if it says we want to
:05:38. > :05:41.negotiate, whatever it says, it must get parliamentary approval. The key
:05:42. > :05:44.part is not just the vote, if the government knows it must get
:05:45. > :05:48.parliamentary approval at the end it has got to engage with Parliament
:05:49. > :05:51.throughout. I think it is an opportunity for the government. Has
:05:52. > :05:57.the government not said that it will give a vote? If and when a deal is
:05:58. > :06:02.done, has the government not said whatever the deal we will bring it
:06:03. > :06:05.for Parliament either to vote for it or against it? It has indeed, it
:06:06. > :06:09.said or leave it, we will bring it to Parliament but they also said to
:06:10. > :06:12.Alf Dubs we would allow child refugees to come into this country
:06:13. > :06:17.and on that basis and also on the basis of the European MPs have in
:06:18. > :06:21.statutes, guarantee they will have a vote, we think it is right to be in
:06:22. > :06:25.statute for MPs in this country as well. You want the government... The
:06:26. > :06:28.government has made a promise and you want it to hold to that promise
:06:29. > :06:34.by agreeing to an amendment that would put it into legislation? Yes.
:06:35. > :06:38.I understand but what is your understanding of what that vote
:06:39. > :06:45.would be. Two years down the track, deal has been done. It comes before
:06:46. > :06:51.Parliament. What is Parliament's real choice? Is it to vote for the
:06:52. > :06:55.deal or to vote against the deal but we leave anyway without a deal?
:06:56. > :06:59.Leaving without a deal, this thing about the government saying deal or
:07:00. > :07:02.no deal is unacceptable, then no deal scenario is a nightmare
:07:03. > :07:07.scenario for this country, it really is. Wouldn't that be the vote in the
:07:08. > :07:10.end? No because by having a vote at the end Parliament must be engaged
:07:11. > :07:14.in the process better than the government indicated now. What sort
:07:15. > :07:17.of engagement could you have? You cannot just have a vote and say take
:07:18. > :07:20.it or leave it, it must say this is where we're heading, what do you
:07:21. > :07:24.think is the right thing to do? Should we look for extra time and go
:07:25. > :07:29.back? There is a range of things the government could even if they say we
:07:30. > :07:35.want you to work with us to look at this again and work with the 27
:07:36. > :07:38.other countries. The key on this... In the end you may still end up with
:07:39. > :07:41.a deal and if it comes before Parliament and the choice for
:07:42. > :07:44.Parliament is to either vote for this deal even if you are unhappy
:07:45. > :07:49.with a lot of it, or vote against it in which case we come out anyway
:07:50. > :07:54.with no deal and what is widely called WTO terms... Isn't that
:07:55. > :07:59.right? It could be but I hope it isn't, there are other alternatives
:08:00. > :08:04.as we proceed along the process. You could not do without the support of
:08:05. > :08:08.the 27th. No. The government cannot do this on its own and Parliament
:08:09. > :08:12.needs to be involved early on and what worries me is the attitude. If
:08:13. > :08:15.the government accepts this amendment, or if they come forward
:08:16. > :08:18.with something similar, you have some good faith from the government
:08:19. > :08:21.and it shows not this attitude we will not amend it under any
:08:22. > :08:25.circumstances, we are listening and want to work with Parliament. Let me
:08:26. > :08:33.get David Willets's reaction and I will come back to you. Theresa May
:08:34. > :08:37.has said there will be a vote so I'm not sure how much this is just
:08:38. > :08:40.putting into law what she has already committed to all goes beyond
:08:41. > :08:43.that. The Shadow Leader of the Lords said if the government means it why
:08:44. > :08:48.wouldn't you put it into legislation? Exactly and I do not
:08:49. > :08:50.know where we are heading on this but if it isn't too putting into the
:08:51. > :08:53.text what is already an insurance from the government that is
:08:54. > :08:57.different from trying to change the whole process. In terms of
:08:58. > :09:00.scrutinising Brexit we are going to have a big, complicated Repeal Bill
:09:01. > :09:05.with all of these European measures brought into British law. That is
:09:06. > :09:10.not to do with the deal and free trade agreement that the government
:09:11. > :09:15.wants. There is a lot of Brexit assessment and debate over the next
:09:16. > :09:19.two years. We will not be short of opportunity. They are two separate
:09:20. > :09:24.things, there is negotiations and UK law that comes from EU law. It is in
:09:25. > :09:26.The Daily Politics constitution that we can't speak to you on these
:09:27. > :09:31.matters without saying the word ping-pong. If you ping it back and
:09:32. > :09:42.get your amendment through and you ping it back to the Commons, and the
:09:43. > :09:45.Commons pongs it back to you haven't taken the amendment out of what do
:09:46. > :09:50.you do? I don't see any extended ping-pong. The timetable to the end
:09:51. > :09:53.of March is not in doubt but there is an opportunity for the
:09:54. > :09:57.government, if they want to talk to us about it seriously we are open to
:09:58. > :09:59.discussions and it would be in the Government's interest in having a
:10:00. > :10:05.good relationship with us forward saying we can do this. Do want to be
:10:06. > :10:09.conciliatory and you want them to be conciliatory? Absolutely. Let's see
:10:10. > :10:12.that and how it goes. The question for today
:10:13. > :10:16.is which dance move did Labour's Tom Watson appear to do
:10:17. > :10:24.during Prime Minister's Questions I know the answer to that! I'm might
:10:25. > :10:26.ask you to do the dance at the end. If I do it will give it away. At the
:10:27. > :10:29.end you can do it. At the end of the show, David
:10:30. > :10:39.will give us the correct answer. And Andrew will do the move.
:10:40. > :10:43.CHUCKLES Better than the other way around.
:10:44. > :10:44.That is not in The Daily Politics contract!
:10:45. > :10:46.Now, seven years after it was introduced, the Government remains
:10:47. > :10:49.committed to its target of getting net migration down to
:10:50. > :10:52.With Brexit, ministers believe they stand more of a chance.
:10:53. > :10:57.Today the Office For National Statistics has published its
:10:58. > :10:59.latest migration figures, taking in the period
:11:00. > :11:07.And up to the year ending at the end of last September.
:11:08. > :11:11.Net migration to the UK - the difference between the number
:11:12. > :11:14.of people coming to live in Britain and those leaving -
:11:15. > :11:17.has fallen but is still well above the Government's target
:11:18. > :11:23.In the 12 months to September, net migration
:11:24. > :11:30.This is down 49,000 from the previous year,
:11:31. > :11:35.which the ONS says is not statistically significant.
:11:36. > :11:38.Immigration to the UK was estimated to be 596,000.
:11:39. > :11:42.This is down very slightly, by 23,000 on last year's figures.
:11:43. > :11:44.Again the ONS say such a small fall is not significant.
:11:45. > :11:51.268,000 of these people were EU citizens.
:11:52. > :11:53.Including 74,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, the highest
:11:54. > :12:03.Earlier the Immigration Minister, Robert Goodwill said it
:12:04. > :12:07.shows the government can control immigration.
:12:08. > :12:13.Well these statistics are actually very encouraging and, indeed,
:12:14. > :12:16.it's just one quarter, so we don't want to read too much
:12:17. > :12:18.into them, but certainly, I think a combination of factors
:12:19. > :12:20.have contributed to this, particularly measures we've taken
:12:21. > :12:33.We're joined now by Alp Mehmet, Vice Chairman of Migration Watch.
:12:34. > :12:41.David Willetts is with us too. Let me come to you first. Is there any
:12:42. > :12:45.significance in these figures? I would hesitate before saying there
:12:46. > :12:51.is significance, there may be, but it is very early to tell. If we have
:12:52. > :12:54.the next two, three quarters showing the trend continuing, then perhaps
:12:55. > :12:59.we are heading in the right direction. It is a step in the right
:13:00. > :13:04.direction but we have a long way to go. It's quite a complicated picture
:13:05. > :13:10.because the net migration figure from the EU eight has come down, the
:13:11. > :13:16.eight who joined from Eastern Europe over a decade ago, but has gone up
:13:17. > :13:22.from among Bulgarians and Romanians. So overall there are now more EU
:13:23. > :13:28.people coming here on the net figures band non-EU people, was that
:13:29. > :13:36.what was meant to happen? Only 100,000. Overall it is even Stevens.
:13:37. > :13:41.Absolutely. But overall it is going up from Eastern Europe anywhere,
:13:42. > :13:45.20,000 from the eight, those who joined in 2004 and significantly
:13:46. > :13:53.higher from the Romanian and Bulgarian members who joined later.
:13:54. > :13:57.So there is a lot still coming in. Most of those are coming into going
:13:58. > :14:02.to lower skilled work and that's where we believe we can tackle
:14:03. > :14:08.numbers and bring them down. How would you do that? Work permit
:14:09. > :14:11.system. A work permit system that applies and is confined to those
:14:12. > :14:15.with the highest skills would actually reduce numbers, we reckon,
:14:16. > :14:19.by around 100,000 without any damage. Who would do those lower
:14:20. > :14:23.paid jobs? Those who are already here are not suddenly going to
:14:24. > :14:28.disappear. The evidence is that they come here, they remain. What if
:14:29. > :14:34.there is a demand for more lower paid jobs? Our unemployment rate is
:14:35. > :14:41.below 5%, the claimant count is historically low now. So, who would
:14:42. > :14:48.do these lower paid jobs if lower paid jobs are on the rise? We still
:14:49. > :14:53.have 1.6 million unemployed. We still have 1.1 million people who
:14:54. > :14:57.are in fact in part-time work. There is a lot of scope. You have to
:14:58. > :15:01.divide the part-time between those who are happy to be working
:15:02. > :15:05.part-time, which is a fair number, but those who are working part time
:15:06. > :15:08.that want to work more hours, that's the one that matters. There are
:15:09. > :15:12.still significant numbers I would argue who would like to work full
:15:13. > :15:15.time if they can. That is where I think paying a little bit more,
:15:16. > :15:19.changing the conditions of work would actually be a huge help in
:15:20. > :15:22.attracting people into the lower paid work.
:15:23. > :15:29.control we have a problem in this country which is that wages for most
:15:30. > :15:32.workers in real terms have barely moved. Not the living standards
:15:33. > :15:37.because of tax and other changes that may have changed, but actually
:15:38. > :15:47.the cache U-turn after tax, sorry, before tax, has barely moved -- the
:15:48. > :15:51.cash that you earn. I think this will put pressure on pay because of
:15:52. > :15:54.the go down this route, we have to find people born in Britain who want
:15:55. > :15:59.to do these kinds of jobs, I think we are going to have to pay them
:16:00. > :16:03.more and trained them more because otherwise how will we find care
:16:04. > :16:06.assistance and will have to pay them more and offer them better
:16:07. > :16:12.promotions becoming a nurse whatever? Not necessarily all of
:16:13. > :16:16.Britain, those who are already here, are not suddenly going to take
:16:17. > :16:22.flight. I suppose the wider overall picture for people watching this is
:16:23. > :16:27.that net migration is down but the ONS, the official body that says
:16:28. > :16:35.it's not statistically significant, partly because the way the figures
:16:36. > :16:43.are calculated are very suspect, so it's not reliable, but take the net
:16:44. > :16:51.273/5000 come into the country over 200,000 leaving, we get 273 net a
:16:52. > :16:57.year, that is equivalent to adding a Newcastle to Britain every year. And
:16:58. > :17:01.many people watching this think overall immigration is a good thing,
:17:02. > :17:05.they don't want to stop it altogether, but how can we add
:17:06. > :17:10.Newcastle every year? It is a big figure and that's why it has to be
:17:11. > :17:15.managed. But our economy has been growing. We have had, one of the
:17:16. > :17:20.reasons the government is committed to holding more houses is we need
:17:21. > :17:23.to... You say the economy has been growing but the politicians have
:17:24. > :17:27.allowed this to happen on both parties, but the politicians have
:17:28. > :17:31.not built their homes, but required, so home ownership amongst young
:17:32. > :17:39.people is now at record low levels in modern times, waiting lists for
:17:40. > :17:42.hospitals and particularly in A, is rising, and a lot of people will
:17:43. > :17:46.think you have allowed these huge numbers to come in and that may be
:17:47. > :17:52.good for the economy, that you're not build the homes and provided the
:17:53. > :17:57.hospital beds and the doctors that a Newcastle every year would demand. I
:17:58. > :18:00.think there is a lot in that and that's why this process needs to be
:18:01. > :18:06.managed. Some of these workers are coming in to fill gaps and work,
:18:07. > :18:15.most of them do come into work. That was not my argument. A lot of them
:18:16. > :18:19.are coming into work in the NHS so we have two be not so dependent on
:18:20. > :18:23.recruitment from abroad. You have had years to do this. The huge
:18:24. > :18:28.immigration started 17 years ago. You had all that time, your party
:18:29. > :18:33.has been in power for six years, labour, 13. The housing shortage
:18:34. > :18:39.gets worse every year. The NHS is now in the middle of a winter which
:18:40. > :18:43.is really stretching it. I'm not arguing for a moment the NHS's
:18:44. > :18:48.policies are all caused by immigration, but there is a huge
:18:49. > :18:52.demand for hospital services. This is the kind of shake-up we will have
:18:53. > :18:55.to have post Brexit. This is a time when reader far more radical
:18:56. > :18:58.approach to train more people, recruit more people and ensure they
:18:59. > :19:05.can move up in the British labour market. It has been a British policy
:19:06. > :19:09.failure I agree with you. Do you expect now, with figures coming
:19:10. > :19:16.down, the net figure is hugely misleading, including students as
:19:17. > :19:23.well, I may ask you about that in a moment, do you expect, having come
:19:24. > :19:30.down from over 300,000 down to 273, is this a trend? Will the net figure
:19:31. > :19:34.come down further? It can do. And in two years' time, if we are serious
:19:35. > :19:40.about reducing migration from the EU particularly for the low skill
:19:41. > :19:46.unskilled workers, coming here, then, yes, we can certainly bring it
:19:47. > :19:52.down. Various and impact on non-EU migrants coming here as well.
:19:53. > :19:57.Particularly with students, where some of them have been bogus,
:19:58. > :20:03.colleges are being closed down. That is a significant impact on numbers.
:20:04. > :20:07.We are running out of time. The government has made a big deal from
:20:08. > :20:11.its early years as a coalition government, it says it closed down a
:20:12. > :20:15.lot of the bogus language colleges and so on, students were coming to
:20:16. > :20:20.this country are now coming to do proper courses and proper
:20:21. > :20:24.institutions of higher education. Why not take the students out of a
:20:25. > :20:28.migration figures then? You can measure them as part of the
:20:29. > :20:32.definition but I agree with your fundamental point. Trying to
:20:33. > :20:35.restrict the number of people coming to study, helping to fund
:20:36. > :20:39.universities, friends of Britain, when they are back in their home
:20:40. > :20:44.country, this is a great fish exported industry. Our second
:20:45. > :20:50.biggest export to China after motorcars is Chinese students coming
:20:51. > :20:52.to study in Britain. If it is legitimate, and there are genuine
:20:53. > :20:56.students and they leave afterwards, we should welcome them with open
:20:57. > :21:02.arms. These applications have gone up by 17% since 2010. University
:21:03. > :21:06.applications have gone up, they are not and there's never been any
:21:07. > :21:10.restrictions or constraint on students coming in, only bogus
:21:11. > :21:17.students. The third biggest exporter China, do you know what it is? Box
:21:18. > :21:19.sets of the Daily Politics. Your television programme, Andrew. Thank
:21:20. > :21:21.you for joining us. Now, since our guest of the day
:21:22. > :21:24.David Willetts retired as an MP, he's been busy blaming Britain's
:21:25. > :21:26.woes on the retired. According to his Resolution
:21:27. > :21:28.Foundation, they've taken all the houses, the money and now,
:21:29. > :21:30.in a report out today, they are suggesting the over 50s
:21:31. > :21:34.are taking all the jobs. We sent Jenny out with her moodbox
:21:35. > :21:37.to settle the matter of who's doing better in today's Britain -
:21:38. > :21:41.the young or the old? Some pensioners' incomes are ?20
:21:42. > :21:44.a week higher than those in work So I've come to this windy
:21:45. > :21:49.south-west London market to ask shoppers who is better off
:21:50. > :21:52.in today's Britain. I got a good pension
:21:53. > :22:04.out of the post office. If you want to pop it
:22:05. > :22:28.into the under 40s. There's less disposable income
:22:29. > :22:38.if you're under 40 because you've got families and that sort of stuff
:22:39. > :22:41.and house prices going up. I think it's a bit of
:22:42. > :22:44.a struggle at the moment. We are part of the lucky ones
:22:45. > :22:47.who have retired and have lived through better times
:22:48. > :22:50.than they are now. I see a lot of older people
:22:51. > :22:52.struggling, even struggling to maybe get enough to like even
:22:53. > :22:59.feed themselves properly. A couple of people I know,
:23:00. > :23:02.they can't eat properly and they're actually really hungry
:23:03. > :23:05.because they can't like get themselves enough supplies,
:23:06. > :23:08.get enough food on their pensions. It's getting wet and most people
:23:09. > :23:12.seem to think that the pensioners are better off and it's raining
:23:13. > :23:17.on the parade of the under 40s. Most people think that
:23:18. > :23:49.pensioners are better off. I'm off to join
:23:50. > :23:54.the queue for a kebab! We're joined now by Dr Jennie
:23:55. > :24:15.Bristow from Canterbury Our mood box, unscientific as it is,
:24:16. > :24:18.seems to back your broad theme but successive generations have always
:24:19. > :24:21.end more than a generation before them in general but no longer so
:24:22. > :24:25.those born in the 1980s are currently earning no more than those
:24:26. > :24:30.born 15 years earlier were earning at the same age, so why'd you think
:24:31. > :24:35.that is? This report today at the Resolution Foundation tried to look
:24:36. > :24:39.at that. One thing is the frequency of moving jobs, young people used to
:24:40. > :24:43.move on and move up and it looks as if country to the population, they
:24:44. > :24:48.are stuck in a job for longer and there's less chance of your income
:24:49. > :24:50.rising and it looks as though the expansion of education which
:24:51. > :24:55.happened for generation after generation, the growth of skills
:24:56. > :24:58.relating to what we talked about earlier, people going to university,
:24:59. > :25:03.the expansion is not so rapid and they have to put a lot of their
:25:04. > :25:06.earnings generated by companies into plugging pension deficits rather
:25:07. > :25:11.than receiving it in pay. Pension schemes, they're not even members
:25:12. > :25:17.of. And you blame the baby boomer generation, those born between 1945
:25:18. > :25:22.and 1965. You say they took their children's future and should give it
:25:23. > :25:27.back. Why is their fault? I should declare I am a baby boomer myself. I
:25:28. > :25:31.don't think it was a deliberate plot that we hate young people. We did a
:25:32. > :25:33.lot of things without realising the consequences for the children and
:25:34. > :25:38.grandchildren, things like opposing new house-building, when we need
:25:39. > :25:43.more houses. Regulating pension schemes so they are so generous for
:25:44. > :25:47.us, the companies are closed for future generations, and in the jobs
:25:48. > :25:51.market there is evidence Britons are not training their younger workers
:25:52. > :25:54.as much as they used to. Do you accept things these days are skewed
:25:55. > :25:59.to the older generation at the expense of the young? No, I don't,
:26:00. > :26:03.it's problematic and divisive to look at the problems we have today.
:26:04. > :26:06.I accept there numbers of problems and I think the resolution
:26:07. > :26:11.foundation 's report does indicate those and there's a problem with
:26:12. > :26:15.wages, with the overinflated cost of housing, with inequality and all of
:26:16. > :26:18.these things and issues plague our society today. But these are not
:26:19. > :26:21.generational, these are big issues to do with problems with social
:26:22. > :26:26.policy, problems with the economy and I think to point the finger at
:26:27. > :26:31.the older generation and say, give it back, that's granny muddying the.
:26:32. > :26:36.It's not a positive approach to how we solve the problems of our
:26:37. > :26:40.society. If you look at the devices of society, we are so familiar with
:26:41. > :26:45.those arguments, there is a divide of ethnicity, social class, gender,
:26:46. > :26:47.but no one was thinking about the differences between different
:26:48. > :26:51.generations and the evidence is overwhelming that that is a very
:26:52. > :26:56.powerful one. I don't want it, I want is to bridge the divide, but
:26:57. > :26:59.we've got to recognise there is a problem. The baby boomers have got a
:27:00. > :27:03.lot of wealth and it's hard to see how the kids are going to get a
:27:04. > :27:08.decent pension and get started on the housing ladder. If you look at
:27:09. > :27:14.housing, it is true that people like David Willetts, people like my
:27:15. > :27:18.parents, did extremely well as a result of their homes. They had free
:27:19. > :27:21.education, even at higher education levels, albeit fewer went to
:27:22. > :27:26.university than the current generation and now they have the
:27:27. > :27:29.trouble lock on their pensions. It's expensive. Are they not actually
:27:30. > :27:35.doing better at the expense of the young? You have to break it down a
:27:36. > :27:42.bit. First of all to use the category generation, it's very wide,
:27:43. > :27:47.not all old people are well not all told people are healthy. I accept
:27:48. > :27:51.that. There is a stereotype of a pension on a final salary scheme who
:27:52. > :27:57.owns a house, a middle-class wealthy pensioner, whose public board about
:27:58. > :28:03.1947. The 20 cohort David talks about when he talks about the baby
:28:04. > :28:09.boomers spans a wide range of ages, and this issues to do with people's
:28:10. > :28:13.lives. Is David saying the younger generation, none of them will have
:28:14. > :28:18.those opportunities that even the wealthier pensioner had? He might be
:28:19. > :28:26.saying that, by don't think that's true either. I think if you look at
:28:27. > :28:31.issues stratified by social class, and if you look at the discussion
:28:32. > :28:33.about housing for example, and this ongoing discussion about the bank of
:28:34. > :28:38.mum and dad, children of middle-class parents will be helped
:28:39. > :28:44.by their parents to get on the housing ladder and all of those
:28:45. > :28:48.things. I don't think that's a problem, I just think we have to do
:28:49. > :28:52.not conflate everybody within these broad categories of generation. Of
:28:53. > :28:56.course there are poor pensioners and I should make that clear. But the
:28:57. > :29:00.good news is there are many fewer poor pensioners than they used to
:29:01. > :29:05.be. That a great success of British social policy. We should now be
:29:06. > :29:08.focusing on poverty amongst working age families and the difficulties
:29:09. > :29:13.younger people have in jobs, because that is where the pressure is now
:29:14. > :29:18.and on average it's clear your programme just showed absolutely a
:29:19. > :29:24.view of the people out there which reflects reality. On the data, are
:29:25. > :29:30.you saying that today's millennial generation born in the 1980s, they
:29:31. > :29:35.are earning less in real terms than the previous generation? We are
:29:36. > :29:41.saying people who are now in their 30s can go back 15 years, are
:29:42. > :29:45.earning less, if you go back ten years, it's about the same, and
:29:46. > :29:50.that... That's not what the figures show and what the ISS has found
:29:51. > :29:55.either, which looked at that. The ISS fan, looking at those born in
:29:56. > :30:00.the 80s, found they have higher real household income than those who were
:30:01. > :30:05.born 20 years before. If you are looking to compare different
:30:06. > :30:08.generations, on incomes, the picture is very clear. Millennials have
:30:09. > :30:12.higher real incomes as young adults than their parents did the same age.
:30:13. > :30:21.If you go back ten or 15 years... I've gone back 20 years. The reason
:30:22. > :30:25.you picked 20 years is that is slightly different from the picture
:30:26. > :30:28.15 years but there is another 425 years but if you average that out it
:30:29. > :30:34.is clear that compared with progress we used to see generation after
:30:35. > :30:38.generation, going back 15 years we have a ?40 a week gap and going back
:30:39. > :30:47.ten years we have we have virtually no... The IFS is wrong? Her gum at
:30:48. > :30:50.the IFS is very similar, they are working with us and they are on our
:30:51. > :30:54.technical panel and it shows that compared with the kind of growth we
:30:55. > :30:59.were used to generation after generation it has basically come to
:31:00. > :31:03.a halt and on some comparisons it is actually worse. That is on income,
:31:04. > :31:09.not the whole package, looking in the round, you are saying just on
:31:10. > :31:12.incomes alone they are. There is another issue about assets, about
:31:13. > :31:20.pensions. Housing and pensions is clear. Our report today using the
:31:21. > :31:23.figures is about pay and labour market and we have not just shown
:31:24. > :31:30.again there is a problem, we have died down and showed what is going
:31:31. > :31:34.on, it is things like jobs. On the things like the pensions issue do
:31:35. > :31:36.you accept the triple lock is a generous guaranteed to pensioners
:31:37. > :31:40.hit at a time when the government argues there isn't that much money
:31:41. > :31:44.around? I think the discussion around the triple lock is a bit of a
:31:45. > :31:54.red herring. Which explain what the triple lock is but that's the
:31:55. > :31:57.increase of state pensions by 2% or the Consumer Prices Index whichever
:31:58. > :31:59.is higher. I do not have the knee jerk reaction that any pension
:32:00. > :32:04.reform is wrong because pensions and pension reforms should take into
:32:05. > :32:08.account changes in the labour market, increases in longevity and
:32:09. > :32:14.those things. I think how that is done is a question for policymakers.
:32:15. > :32:20.What I'm comfortable with is with all the ordinance against the triple
:32:21. > :32:26.lock is that again it seems to imply that if you scapegoat old people and
:32:27. > :32:29.say they have got this very, very generous amount of money, which
:32:30. > :32:35.doesn't seem that generous, they've got this generous amount of money,
:32:36. > :32:39.let's claw it back. Guaranteed increases, though. That would not
:32:40. > :32:43.solve the problems. Today's Resolution Foundation report points
:32:44. > :32:47.to wages for young people. It is to do with the economy and society and
:32:48. > :32:52.how far we are moving forward, not what people are getting towards the
:32:53. > :32:56.end of their lives. It is not just saying wages or openings, pensions
:32:57. > :32:59.go up by prices or owning scored two and a half percent whichever is
:33:00. > :33:05.higher, so it is a guarantee they will do better than people's
:33:06. > :33:10.earnings will do. If earnings are low it will be 2.5%. That tells me
:33:11. > :33:13.when you have limited resources, and politics is about priorities, you
:33:14. > :33:17.cannot do everything. Given there has been the success with
:33:18. > :33:20.pensioners, it is time to turn our attention to the younger generation
:33:21. > :33:22.and I think it is what a lot of pensioners worry about, they care
:33:23. > :33:25.about their children and grandchildren. We will have to end
:33:26. > :33:28.it there but thank you. Now, while the rest of the world
:33:29. > :33:35.is transfixed like a rabbit in the headlines by global affairs -
:33:36. > :33:38.Trump, Brexit, - the BBC has its eyes on what really matters -
:33:39. > :33:40.town and parish councils. A BBC investigation has found a hike
:33:41. > :33:43.in town and parish council precepts across England -
:33:44. > :33:46.in one case by as much as 3,000%. Our political reporter
:33:47. > :33:56.Fergus Hewison has more Fergus, welcome. Tell us what is
:33:57. > :34:03.going on here. 3000%. Is that true, or is it fake news? It is absolutely
:34:04. > :34:07.not fake news, Andrew, no. It is absolutely right. This was a parish,
:34:08. > :34:12.a town council in Northamptonshire, desperate town council which
:34:13. > :34:16.increased its precept by 3400% over four years. We have had other
:34:17. > :34:22.examples of that, for instance a town council in Lancashire increased
:34:23. > :34:29.its precept by 872%. Another town council in Cornwall increased its
:34:30. > :34:33.precept by 763% so there are really big increases here across the board,
:34:34. > :34:38.across the country of these kinds of figures by hundreds of percent, in
:34:39. > :34:43.some cases by thousands. If you were living in one of these parish
:34:44. > :34:47.councils, where the Bill is going up by 3000%, what does that mean in
:34:48. > :34:52.terms of the money that you will now have to shell out? In some cases
:34:53. > :34:57.these are percentage increases, so in some cases it may be going from
:34:58. > :35:01.paying a few pounds to a few pounds more, but for instance in Peterlee
:35:02. > :35:09.in County Durham in the north-east of England the band night average
:35:10. > :35:13.council tax Bill is ?300 on top of your council tax Bill on top of the
:35:14. > :35:17.other things you are paying for, so in some cases people are shelling
:35:18. > :35:20.out a lot of money for their town or parish council and these increases
:35:21. > :35:27.are adding to that. Why are they doing this? Town and parish councils
:35:28. > :35:31.say they are doing more and taking on more services so have to charge
:35:32. > :35:35.more money for it. In many cases they are taking over things like
:35:36. > :35:40.libraries, parks, play parks, all of these sorts of things, community
:35:41. > :35:43.centres, once paid for by a larger councils but as those larger
:35:44. > :35:47.councils are experiencing budget cuts they are passing on the costs
:35:48. > :35:51.and the responsibility to this layer of local government, to the town and
:35:52. > :35:55.parish councils, therefore these town and parish councils are putting
:35:56. > :36:00.a precept on and putting up precept very steeply in some cases to pay
:36:01. > :36:01.for those services. Fascinating, Fergus Hewison, thank you for
:36:02. > :36:05.joining us from Newcastle. Elections are always won
:36:06. > :36:07.from the centre ground, right? Well, that was the conventional
:36:08. > :36:10.political wisdom, but has it been shattered, like so much expert
:36:11. > :36:12.opinion, by Donald Trump's victory, the rise of Marine Le Pen
:36:13. > :36:15.in France and even Brexit? You don't have to be
:36:16. > :36:27.Sherlock to work out a few things about the political
:36:28. > :36:30.centre ground. There are a lot of people
:36:31. > :36:32.occupying it, probably about Most people in it
:36:33. > :36:38.prefer a drink with their mates rather than
:36:39. > :36:40.watching political telly. And because of the rapidly
:36:41. > :36:44.changing political and economic landscape
:36:45. > :36:48.we find ourselves in its and economic landscape
:36:49. > :36:50.we find ourselves in it's It's not really an ideological
:36:51. > :36:59.position, the centre ground, nor is it splitting the difference
:37:00. > :37:01.between the major parties' policy platforms, it's more of a sort of,
:37:02. > :37:05.more of a kind of, I guess, outlook where you'll basically vote
:37:06. > :37:07.for the person who's But as one senior political adviser
:37:08. > :37:11.put it to me, hitting the Or sweet spot, as he called
:37:12. > :37:15.it, is crucial for politicians looking
:37:16. > :37:18.to win elections. By occupying the centre ground,
:37:19. > :37:25.by modernising, by reaching out beyond our activists, we helped
:37:26. > :37:28.to turn the Tories, well, into a Our mission is anchoring Britain
:37:29. > :37:32.to the centre ground. The real centre ground
:37:33. > :37:34.of British politics right now is, who has got the answers
:37:35. > :37:37.to making sure Britain competes and But now the Labour Party
:37:38. > :37:42.has been accused by some of ignoring the centre ground
:37:43. > :37:45.alongside others shaking up the old political order like Ukip,
:37:46. > :37:47.the Greens and the SNP. So which political party
:37:48. > :37:49.is getting closest Elements of the centre ground
:37:50. > :37:56.are certainly being occupied by the right of the Labour Party and by
:37:57. > :37:59.some of the Liberal Democrats. But unfortunately
:38:00. > :38:01.for various reasons those two parties at
:38:02. > :38:05.the moment are not in that, whereas Theresa is occupying
:38:06. > :38:14.it in a very fully-fledged fashion. I want to set our party and our
:38:15. > :38:17.country on the path towards the new But at his last party conference
:38:18. > :38:24.in Liverpool Jeremy Corbyn made no There is no doubt
:38:25. > :38:27.that my election as Labour leader a year ago
:38:28. > :38:33.and re-election this month grew out of a thirst for a new kind
:38:34. > :38:35.of politics running the economy
:38:36. > :38:41.and the country isn't delivering One academic doubts his
:38:42. > :38:50.approach, along with the EU referendum result, will change
:38:51. > :38:53.the politics of the centre. Where people thought
:38:54. > :38:55.the centre ground was before the referendum was in a kind
:38:56. > :38:58.of liberal consensus But the centre ground isn't
:38:59. > :39:04.necessarily where the battle ground And I think that there
:39:05. > :39:08.are sort of a set been well reflected in mainstream
:39:09. > :39:12.debate. A lot of them are around
:39:13. > :39:15.immigration, but it's also about attitudes to civil disobedience,
:39:16. > :39:21.to the death penalty, and quite traditional values have
:39:22. > :39:23.not been a feature If politics is being fought
:39:24. > :39:29.rather off centre right now, what could help
:39:30. > :39:31.MPs who want to regain You're already seeing it cross-party
:39:32. > :39:40.in Parliament with pro-Europeans like me who want a
:39:41. > :39:42.sensible European deal, not one that's going to destroy our economy,
:39:43. > :39:44.working with our sensible Conservatives, Liberal Democrats,
:39:45. > :39:47.Greens and others to try to hold Perhaps a General Election
:39:48. > :39:50.will focus minds back on cultivating that
:39:51. > :39:53.centre ground vote. Or, perhaps, it's not actually
:39:54. > :40:08.where people think it is any more. Mark Lobel there. We are joined by
:40:09. > :40:13.political commentator and Jeremy Corbyn supporter, welcome to the
:40:14. > :40:17.programme. Is what we have traditionally thought of as the
:40:18. > :40:21.centre ground now not the place to be? It depends what questions we are
:40:22. > :40:25.asking about what this means of the Centre. If it means reflecting the
:40:26. > :40:28.values of the population and solving problems that resonate the centre
:40:29. > :40:32.has moved and I think we need to have a conversation about what that
:40:33. > :40:37.looks like. Where has it moved? Right on Brexit and right on
:40:38. > :40:41.immigration but left on economic issues, low pay, public services,
:40:42. > :40:44.utilities, nationalisation of rail. That is where the centre ground is
:40:45. > :40:49.and the big conversation about Jeremy Corbyn is, can he capture
:40:50. > :40:53.that vote? Can he capture that, I would say actually, 35% of the
:40:54. > :40:57.voting public would go for that although he's not doing that. Lots
:40:58. > :41:01.of the discussion around centrist politics by mainstream media
:41:02. > :41:04.generally looks as it is relational, between the far left and far right
:41:05. > :41:09.and I don't think that makes sense any more. As Labour left the centre
:41:10. > :41:12.ground? I think dramatically so but that's because where it was
:41:13. > :41:16.previously wasn't reflecting the values of people, it wasn't trying
:41:17. > :41:22.to address the major issues. So, if the centre ground is not the right
:41:23. > :41:26.place to be and Labour has left the centre ground because that's the
:41:27. > :41:30.sensible thing to do, why is it doing so badly in the polls? Well, I
:41:31. > :41:35.could invert the question and say why are the Tories doing so well?
:41:36. > :41:38.They have picked up Ukip votes. Let's stick with my question, why
:41:39. > :41:42.are they doing so badly in the polls if leaving the centre ground is the
:41:43. > :41:46.place to be? Three reasons, the first 3-6 months of the Corbyn
:41:47. > :41:48.leadership were weak and first depressions count, the media has
:41:49. > :41:54.been tough on him, particularly print media, and the Parliamentary
:41:55. > :42:02.Labour Party, the infighting. All of that explains an 80 point
:42:03. > :42:05.Conservative lead? A lot of that comes from Ukip voters, going back
:42:06. > :42:09.to the Tories, which does not reflect centrist policies, it is
:42:10. > :42:12.Theresa May going very right on Brexit and that is an electoral
:42:13. > :42:15.winner for her right now which compounds my point. May be the point
:42:16. > :42:19.is if you want to leave the centre ground, and that is a big if for any
:42:20. > :42:23.political party, there are more votes leaving by going to the right
:42:24. > :42:26.than to the left. Some of Jeremy Corbyn's critics from the left would
:42:27. > :42:30.say he has done that on Trident and Brexit. He has made big difficult
:42:31. > :42:34.calls and they are the correct call. What call has he made on Trident? It
:42:35. > :42:41.looks like Labour would renew it. Really? But he doesn't want to. He
:42:42. > :42:44.is talking about a different kind of leadership where he reflects the
:42:45. > :42:46.majority of opinion in the membership and amongst the
:42:47. > :42:51.Parliamentary Labour Party and he said he is quite open to renewal of
:42:52. > :42:58.Trident, I think. Really? I think he is open to it. Has he told you that?
:42:59. > :43:01.That would be a story. I just wonder. In my understanding he has
:43:02. > :43:05.not moved on Trident at all because he has all the spin against it and
:43:06. > :43:08.why would he change his mind? I would find this talk of the centre
:43:09. > :43:12.ground and people defining the centre ground and then politicians
:43:13. > :43:15.define themselves vis-a-vis it, I find it strange, because
:43:16. > :43:20.transformational politics, and I would name two important ones,
:43:21. > :43:24.Clement Attlee fought Labour and Thatcher for the Conservatives,
:43:25. > :43:27.they've redefined the centre ground, Clement Attlee after the war
:43:28. > :43:32.redefined and the Tories had to come to terms with the welfare state, the
:43:33. > :43:35.NHS, you know the work that was done in the late 40s by the Conservative
:43:36. > :43:39.research Department, as they redefined Tory acceptance of that,
:43:40. > :43:46.moving the centre ground left, and Ben Thatcher redefined it with
:43:47. > :43:49.privatisation, the sale of council houses, and Labour had to come to
:43:50. > :43:55.terms with that. So rather than accommodating it, my rather
:43:56. > :44:00.long-winded question, successful politicians should redefine it. You
:44:01. > :44:05.are right that what Margaret Thatcher did and I worked for her
:44:06. > :44:08.for a time. And you are right. It must be said that even Margaret
:44:09. > :44:11.Thatcher when she was doing that she had in her mind that there were
:44:12. > :44:16.voters out there that the previous Tory party had not appeal to, that
:44:17. > :44:21.she could appeal to. And the brilliance of what she did in the
:44:22. > :44:25.1980s was that she was getting Labour voters coming to her because
:44:26. > :44:28.of policies like pride in your country and the way she handled the
:44:29. > :44:35.Falklands, and also things like council house sales. Remember, it is
:44:36. > :44:39.a good strategy to do things which win over voters from other parties
:44:40. > :44:43.and she managed to do that whilst being radical. Your party was best
:44:44. > :44:47.at that when it's travelled the centre ground, Iwan three elections
:44:48. > :44:50.in a row. Putt moments you have talked about, Clement Attlee and
:44:51. > :44:56.Thatcher, respond to the prices of the previous economic models, 1929
:44:57. > :44:59.and 1971. We had a similar moment in 2008 and I don't think any political
:45:00. > :45:03.party has responded to it appropriately. I'm not saying Corbyn
:45:04. > :45:11.has all the answers to Clement Attlee or Thatcher Mark two in a
:45:12. > :45:14.post-financial crisis world, but Labour's success before the global
:45:15. > :45:18.crisis don't really stack up given that that has remade the Parramatta
:45:19. > :45:21.is of what we need to do now. Isn't one of the most remarkable
:45:22. > :45:26.phenomenon, since the financial crash of 2008 which was a clear
:45:27. > :45:30.crisis of capitalism, it wasn't an industrial prices, it was a
:45:31. > :45:37.capitalist financial crisis, it was an enormous opportunity for the
:45:38. > :45:49.left, with a capital L NOI Haatheq succeeded in taking advantage of
:45:50. > :45:53.that -- know where have they. It is a huge historic failure of the left.
:45:54. > :45:58.Absolutely. I think that comes from, this is going back a long way. Not
:45:59. > :46:02.too long for me! The failures of Stalinism meant clearly the modern
:46:03. > :46:07.left was very frightened about talking about the state, talking
:46:08. > :46:13.about solutions which meant being in power. There was a reversion to
:46:14. > :46:15.social movements, bottom-up democracy, horizontal listen, and
:46:16. > :46:19.that is all well and good but that is not a programme for a different
:46:20. > :46:26.kind of globalisation, different kind of economy when the free-market
:46:27. > :46:31.tanks and Lehman Brothers and AIG had a bailout by the US government.
:46:32. > :46:35.Wave your hands and... Why haven't left-wing politics captured the
:46:36. > :46:40.nation? There is an appeal out there but you haven't managed to get those
:46:41. > :46:45.voters. It will take another five to ten years. The problem for Jeremy
:46:46. > :46:47.Corbyn is he has come too early. That is the issue, the
:46:48. > :46:57.infrastructure and think tanks and intellectuals are not there. Are you
:46:58. > :47:01.being ageist? Just factual. Even friendly critics on the left would
:47:02. > :47:05.say precisely that. We have run out of time but come back and we will
:47:06. > :47:07.continue this because it is a great discussion. Meanwhile the Prime
:47:08. > :47:11.Minister is taking these Labour voters, that is what she's doing. We
:47:12. > :47:13.will find out about that, we're not sure yet, don't count your chickens
:47:14. > :47:17.before they are hatched. 94 coming. Some businesses and even some
:47:18. > :47:19.Conservative MPs are upset about the Government's current
:47:20. > :47:21.revaluation of the business The country is a nation
:47:22. > :47:24.of shopkeepers, Napoleon once said. And the Communities Secretary Sajid
:47:25. > :47:27.Javid drew on his own retail experience to expess empathy,
:47:28. > :47:31.while promising further help. Growing up above the family shop
:47:32. > :47:36.I saw for myself the impact an increase in rates can have
:47:37. > :47:39.on small businesses. A rise in costs lowered the mood
:47:40. > :47:42.of the whole family. Even as a child
:47:43. > :47:45.I knew that it wasn't good when I found a stack
:47:46. > :47:47.of bright red final reminders hidden away
:47:48. > :47:48.at the back of the draw
:47:49. > :47:51.and my dad was never shy about sharing about
:47:52. > :47:52.what he thought about out-of-town
:47:53. > :47:56.retail parks and how from his shop in the high
:47:57. > :48:03.street in Bedminster. If he were alive today I'm sure that
:48:04. > :48:06.he'd be the first to phone me up and lobby me about
:48:07. > :48:09.the business rates revaluation. In particular, I could
:48:10. > :48:11.just imagine him telling me about the treatment of
:48:12. > :48:14.large and online retailers and how that compares to more traditional
:48:15. > :48:25.shops on our high street. I have always listened
:48:26. > :48:26.to businesses and It's clear to me that
:48:27. > :48:30.more needs to be done to level the playing field
:48:31. > :48:34.and to make the system fairer. I'm working closely
:48:35. > :48:36.with my Right Honourable determine how best to provide
:48:37. > :48:39.further support to businesses facing We expect to be in
:48:40. > :48:46.a position to make an announcement at the time of
:48:47. > :49:01.the budget in just two weeks' time. That sounds like a desperate plea to
:49:02. > :49:05.the Chancellor to help me out of a hole in this evaluation. It does.
:49:06. > :49:10.Because of his increases for individual businesses are very
:49:11. > :49:14.steep, even though overall it isn't an increase in the total amount as a
:49:15. > :49:18.result of revaluation, but a dramatic redistribution between
:49:19. > :49:21.different businesses. If you are having to compensate that much,
:49:22. > :49:24.presumably there will be money found in the budget for those businesses,
:49:25. > :49:30.hasn't been properly thought through? I don't know. The only
:49:31. > :49:35.thing I'd do know is there's always a problem in government doing a
:49:36. > :49:38.revaluation of property and there's always pressure to delay it because
:49:39. > :49:43.it's going to be difficult. The longer you delay, when you finally
:49:44. > :49:47.do it, the changes are far greater so we should do more frequent
:49:48. > :49:53.smaller changes. You have some sympathy for Sajid Javid free? Yes,
:49:54. > :50:00.and there's a danger people could never did do a revaluation every
:50:01. > :50:02.game which would be the wrong lesson. Conservative MPs
:50:03. > :50:06.interestingly seem to be more upset than Labour MPs and I've suppose
:50:07. > :50:09.that because of business. It's a sad reflection on them because they
:50:10. > :50:13.should care about businesses, particularly small businesses.
:50:14. > :50:16.Now, speaking of the centre ground, Theresa May has apparently banned
:50:17. > :50:19.civil servants using the word "JAMs" - the acronym used to describe
:50:20. > :50:21.the "Just About Managing " voters she talked about as she entered
:50:22. > :50:25.The PM wants them described as "Ordinary Working Families"
:50:26. > :50:27.instead which Whitehall mandarins are no doubt already
:50:28. > :50:36.Theresa May is not the first political leader to identify
:50:37. > :50:38.a particular group of the electorate in that way.
:50:39. > :50:40.Whilst deputy Prime Minister, Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg,
:50:41. > :50:42.appealed to "alarm clock Britain" as opposed, no doubt,
:50:43. > :50:45.to people who are woken up by their dog or their children.
:50:46. > :50:48."Hard working families" has to be one of the most
:50:49. > :50:50.well-worn phrases, promoted by Gordon Brown, amongst others.
:50:51. > :50:58.But when will a politician stand up for lazy single people?
:50:59. > :51:03.Political strategists working for Labour are credited
:51:04. > :51:05.with identifying "Mondeo Man" who apparently contributed to
:51:06. > :51:08.If that phrase excluded half of the electorate,
:51:09. > :51:11.then welcome "Worcester Woman", a working class woman in her 30s
:51:12. > :51:15.apparently with two children who worries about quality of life
:51:16. > :51:18.issues, as opposed to men and those living outside Worcester who don't
:51:19. > :51:26.American Politics, of course, has its "Soccer Moms" and in Alaska
:51:27. > :51:29.where they use sticks to hit balls, tough talking vice presidential
:51:30. > :51:31.candidate Sarah Palin asked what the difference between a hockey
:51:32. > :51:49.We can welcome our guest, who used to work for Harriet Harman. Let's
:51:50. > :51:54.talk about those particular phrases. Was it right for Theresa May to drop
:51:55. > :52:00.JAMs? I think it was weird, something to do with sugar,
:52:01. > :52:05.diabetes, sugar tax coming in sort of things. Not a good look. As you
:52:06. > :52:08.kind of said earlier, every political party tries to find
:52:09. > :52:15.something to capture hard-working families. Who play by the rules.
:52:16. > :52:18.That was our thing in labour. Every new political strategy team comes in
:52:19. > :52:25.and says these other people to chase. The squeezed middle with Ed
:52:26. > :52:31.Miliband. Was that successful? It was an ultimately successful because
:52:32. > :52:34.we lost the election. As a slogan? It was an interesting diagnosis and
:52:35. > :52:39.analysis about what was going on in the country. In a sense he was ahead
:52:40. > :52:49.of his time because the squeezed middle then became squeezed. Yes,
:52:50. > :52:52.bless, Ed. It seems to be on the squeezed middle, it worked better
:52:53. > :52:59.than just about managing. Is that because it's more than eight double
:53:00. > :53:09.two "Just About Managing"? It's a definition problem about how to the
:53:10. > :53:14.finest. The squeezed middle was better from that point but we always
:53:15. > :53:19.tried to chase these people. Recall people normal people, what is
:53:20. > :53:24.normal? Ordinary people. It's a minefield politically. You do need
:53:25. > :53:31.phrases if you want to target particular groups of people. Mondeo
:53:32. > :53:36.man. It's risky I would have thought at the time when trying to pick a
:53:37. > :53:44.phrase that would attract people. Yes, at the resolution foundation we
:53:45. > :53:50.talk about 2-5, which is... That's very catchy! That actually does get
:53:51. > :53:56.to the reality which means we're not talking about the poorest 10% of
:53:57. > :53:59.people, but the next 40%, up to the middle point, you do find a lot of
:54:00. > :54:03.people there who incomes have not gone up since the crash and that's
:54:04. > :54:09.the crucial thing where politics comes in. It has to be based on a
:54:10. > :54:13.real problem. The pay in the middle is not rising. And later bought. You
:54:14. > :54:18.can't trust the Tories were the NHS and don't give the keys back to the
:54:19. > :54:23.people who crash the car, talking about labour after the crash, do
:54:24. > :54:27.those work? The Tory attack on the Labour Party I think was very
:54:28. > :54:33.effective and something David Cameron, who was regularly at PMQ
:54:34. > :54:36.'s, it became a defining thing, so sometimes you have those phrases
:54:37. > :54:43.which do stay in people's minds. Take back control was a highly
:54:44. > :54:51.effective yet simple and also quite emotional things. Very general. You
:54:52. > :54:56.can read into it what you wanted. One nation, having been used by all
:54:57. > :54:59.sides probably. It seems to encapsulate whatever you would like
:55:00. > :55:05.it to be. It can be what you wanted to be. It goes back to the 1920s,
:55:06. > :55:13.and a very specific rhetoric falls it says it not two nations, but one
:55:14. > :55:20.nation. It's a very important stage in Tory thinking. Who knows that
:55:21. > :55:26.apart from you and a few others? It can also mean to most people one
:55:27. > :55:31.nation, and one... All of these have the reach promotions. That's why
:55:32. > :55:36.Brexit means Brexit didn't quite strike that cord. OK.
:55:37. > :55:38.Don't go away, Ayesha, because with awards season in full
:55:39. > :55:41.flow, it seems that there's barely a celebrity who's not having
:55:42. > :55:49.Last night it was the turn of Katy Perry at the BRIT Awards.
:55:50. > :55:58.# It goes on and on and on
:55:59. > :56:04.# It goes on and on and on
:56:05. > :56:27.That was the Brit awards. We've had the BAFTAs, we have got
:56:28. > :56:34.the Oscars, the Tony's, have we had the BAFTAs yet? Yes, the Perrier
:56:35. > :56:37.awards, I mean, people are going to get fed up if they'll turn into a
:56:38. > :56:45.party but will broadcast for the anti-trump party. I think there will
:56:46. > :56:51.be a bit of fatigue. Trump fatigue. I think it's a very trendy for
:56:52. > :56:54.celebrities to be political. It is invoked to be political at the
:56:55. > :56:59.moment. I was at the Brit awards last night and I've is confused and
:57:00. > :57:04.we were all a bit confused because we had been drinking at that point
:57:05. > :57:10.but we thought, we are making a particle statement. What was the
:57:11. > :57:14.point of that houses? Maybe the housing crisis? We couldn't work it
:57:15. > :57:21.out, but one of the houses fell off the stage. That is symbolic. I hope
:57:22. > :57:28.the person is OK. The media and a lot of these stars, it's quite
:57:29. > :57:30.hypocritical. They're making a fortune out of Donald Trump. The New
:57:31. > :57:38.York Times added 274,000 subscriptions in the last quarter of
:57:39. > :57:40.last year, and trump has totally reinvigorated a rather dead
:57:41. > :57:45.formulaic late-night American television. Absolutely, for somebody
:57:46. > :57:52.who does stand-up comedy, he does provide a great lot of material.
:57:53. > :57:56.He's very good for business. There was always the criticism that if you
:57:57. > :58:00.are a celebrity you shouldn't talk about politics but you can't silence
:58:01. > :58:02.people. Of course, that's the last thing we want to do. Let's see what
:58:03. > :58:05.the result was. There's just time before we go
:58:06. > :58:08.to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which dance move
:58:09. > :58:11.did Labour's Tom Watson appear to do during Prime Minister's Questions
:58:12. > :58:31.in the House of Commons. The Dab. Andrew, over to do. I think
:58:32. > :58:35.it is like that. Invest in our NHS! Blink and you would miss it.
:58:36. > :58:40.I'll be back tonight at 11.45pm with a This Week
:58:41. > :58:43.by-election special, so we'll be on into the wee small
:58:44. > :58:45.hours to give you the results of today's by-elections
:58:46. > :59:04.I've searched the world to find these extraordinary people.