:00:37. > :00:44.Good morning, and welcome to The Daily Politics.
:00:45. > :00:47.Theresa May visited Donald Trump back in January, and invited him
:00:48. > :00:50.for a state visit to Britain - today, we understand it will go
:00:51. > :00:54.The Prime Minister has been launching a government review
:00:55. > :00:57.into working practices - so, what will it mean for those
:00:58. > :01:00.at the bottom end of the labour market, and does it go far enough?
:01:01. > :01:03.MPs say they're facing increasing levels of abuse and intimidation -
:01:04. > :01:10.some say they're now living in "genuine fear".
:01:11. > :01:14.And how long do most prime ministers stay behind that famous black door?
:01:15. > :01:17.We'll be taking a look at some of the shortest and the longest
:01:18. > :01:29.All that in the next 45 minutes of end-to-end political action
:01:30. > :01:35.to whet your appetite for the tennis.
:01:36. > :01:37.And with me to discuss all of it is the anti-poverty
:01:38. > :01:39.campaigner, crossbench peer and Big Issue founder John Bird.
:01:40. > :01:51.First today, Donald Trump could be coming to Britain next year,
:01:52. > :01:54.The US president accepted the Queen's invitation for him
:01:55. > :01:56.to come on a state visit when Theresa May visited
:01:57. > :01:58.Washington in January, but there's since been little public
:01:59. > :02:00.discussion about the trip, leading to speculation it
:02:01. > :02:04.The two met at the G20 gathering of world leaders
:02:05. > :02:10.Mr Trump said he and the Prime Minister had developed a "very
:02:11. > :02:12.special relationship", and he expected a post-Brexit trade
:02:13. > :02:17.deal to happen between the two countries very quickly.
:02:18. > :02:20.Mrs May said that dates for his visit were still being looked at.
:02:21. > :02:22.So, we now expect it to be sometime next year,
:02:23. > :02:26.and it will be a huge event when it happens.
:02:27. > :02:31.Let's talk now to the BBC's deputy political editor, John Pienaar.
:02:32. > :02:38.Have you got a date in your diary for 2018? I have got 2018 in the
:02:39. > :02:43.diary, but even that is in pencil! You never quite know. Normally you
:02:44. > :02:50.would know about a big state visit like this well in a dance, but you
:02:51. > :02:54.do not often see the words Donald Trump and normal in the same
:02:55. > :02:58.sentence. Indeed you don't. It was going to be this autumn, and now it
:02:59. > :03:02.has been pushed back to next year - will it happen at all? We know that
:03:03. > :03:09.there probably would be major protests, something he did not want,
:03:10. > :03:13.and also, 2 million people signing a petition calling for his invites to
:03:14. > :03:17.be rescinded. I think the protests would be an absolute certainty. The
:03:18. > :03:23.visit you could scarcely imagine would be put off indefinitely.
:03:24. > :03:27.Although the Prime Minister first announced to visit back in January,
:03:28. > :03:31.and she was very keen to keep on the right side of Donald Trump, and that
:03:32. > :03:35.remains the case. Lots of reasons for that. Major partner in a
:03:36. > :03:39.post-Brexit world, in particular a trade deal, is a very high priority.
:03:40. > :03:45.She wants to stay on the right side of Donald Trump. And this is part of
:03:46. > :03:49.that. But there are those complications. And what about things
:03:50. > :03:56.like policing you were at the G20, what was the reaction there? Well,
:03:57. > :04:01.the reaction was, as you saw on the news, and heard on the radio,
:04:02. > :04:05.running skirmishes between police and demonstrators through the entire
:04:06. > :04:09.G20. You would hope that Donald Trump, when he comes, will not be
:04:10. > :04:13.accompanied by precisely that kind of scene, but it will be enormously
:04:14. > :04:17.controversial, and clearly you could imagine a reticence on his part to
:04:18. > :04:21.face all of that, although the White House denies that that is the reason
:04:22. > :04:26.for the postponement. He has been invited, he should come? This is
:04:27. > :04:30.diplomatic, it is nothing to do with politics, it is nothing to do with
:04:31. > :04:33.anything, other than the fact that Theresa May wants to make the most
:04:34. > :04:38.of her premiership. And she needs the old Alliance, the people who
:04:39. > :04:42.saved us in the Second World War, and we shouldn't forget that, even
:04:43. > :04:48.though this man is from ugly the most peculiar person who has ever
:04:49. > :04:55.held that office. They have had some pretty strange and some horrible
:04:56. > :05:01.presidents, you know, Kings in fact, because they're monarchs. People
:05:02. > :05:07.like Andrew Jackson was an absolute scumbag. You look at all of the kind
:05:08. > :05:11.of things, Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly playing the full hand. This
:05:12. > :05:16.guy almost seems to be all the worst things that you could put into one
:05:17. > :05:20.hand. But they have a special relationship, according to the White
:05:21. > :05:29.House and probably according to No 10? When the UK lost America, we had
:05:30. > :05:34.a king who was losing the plot, and in many senses, the war still went
:05:35. > :05:39.on, the separation still went on. Things happen in politics sometimes
:05:40. > :05:44.with the most god-awful people, and this man is probably one of them.
:05:45. > :05:49.You mentioned the trade deal between the two of them, that is going to be
:05:50. > :05:53.crucial, this is going to happen after we have left the EU, but that
:05:54. > :05:57.will be part of cementing that special relationship? Enormous
:05:58. > :06:03.priority. Andrew Jackson, by the way, was a general who confronted
:06:04. > :06:05.the British, and he was given to pointing his pistol at people. We
:06:06. > :06:11.haven't had that from Donald Trump so far! Donald Trump has said there
:06:12. > :06:14.will be a trade deal very, very quickly, which was exactly what
:06:15. > :06:19.Theresa May was hoping to hear. Just how quickly that actually means, we
:06:20. > :06:27.don't know. These trade deals, on the best day, can take years to
:06:28. > :06:31.conclude. This will be bilateral... Hamsik he is in favour of bilateral
:06:32. > :06:35.deals? Of course, America first is the motto of Donald Trump, so you
:06:36. > :06:42.would not think it would be easy for Britain. Will you be welcoming him?
:06:43. > :06:48.I would like to get him, and grab him and take him someplace real,
:06:49. > :06:54.rather than a golf course. I do think that we seem to have more and
:06:55. > :06:57.more people who are just so, so outside of reality, and this man
:06:58. > :07:02.takes a lot of beating. Time now for our daily quiz, and it
:07:03. > :07:05.might cheer up the Prime Minister. She's reached something
:07:06. > :07:08.of a milestone today, equalling the term in office of one
:07:09. > :07:10.of her predecessors. Is it a) Gordon Brown,
:07:11. > :07:18.b) William Pitt the Younger, c) Alec Douglas-Home,
:07:19. > :07:19.or d) fictional prime Later on in the show,
:07:20. > :07:31.John will hopefully give us John Birt, that is, not John
:07:32. > :07:32.Pienaar. Although he may know it, too.
:07:33. > :07:36.Last October the Prime Minister commissioned the former Labour
:07:37. > :07:38.adviser Matthew Taylor to report on modern working practices -
:07:39. > :07:40.specifically, how to ensure a rapidly changing economy doesn't
:07:41. > :07:43.disadvantage certain kinds of workers.
:07:44. > :07:45.Well, this morning, Theresa May has joined Matthew Taylor
:07:46. > :07:51.He says the UK has a "great record on creating jobs" but hasn't paid
:07:52. > :07:53.enough attention to the "quality" of those jobs.
:07:54. > :08:09.Mr Taylor says it's time for an end to the "cash in hand" economy,
:08:10. > :08:14.which is worth up to ?6 billion a year - much of it untaxed.
:08:15. > :08:17.He says payment for traditional cash jobs like window cleaning should now
:08:18. > :08:25.be made digitally. He's also recommending that people
:08:26. > :08:28.who work in the gig economy - that's certain kinds of freelance
:08:29. > :08:31.or short-term contract work - be classed as workers
:08:32. > :08:33.and not self-employed. That change in classification
:08:34. > :08:35.for more than one million people would mean some firms could have
:08:36. > :08:38.to pay millions of pounds in national insurance
:08:39. > :08:39.contributions every year. However, he doesn't call -
:08:40. > :08:41.as some unions wanted - for the banning of zero-hours
:08:42. > :08:43.contracts. Nor does he argue fees that workers
:08:44. > :08:46.pay to take employers The Government, of course,
:08:47. > :08:50.does not have to accept all of the recommendations
:08:51. > :08:53.in the review, but Theresa May says reforming work practices involves
:08:54. > :08:57.finding "the right balance Meanwhile, the Government has
:08:58. > :09:06.reached a settlement on teachers' pay in England and Wales,
:09:07. > :09:12.which will mean a real-terms cut for most teachers as they're limited
:09:13. > :09:16.to a 1% pay rise over the next year, although those at the bottom
:09:17. > :09:25.of the scale can receive a 2% rise. by Labour's Chi Onwurah -
:09:26. > :09:28.she's the Shadow Minister For Industrial Strategy -
:09:29. > :09:38.and by the Conservative What can you confidently expect to
:09:39. > :09:43.change in your working conditions? I think you can expect the Government
:09:44. > :09:46.to look carefully at this report. We commissioned it because we recognise
:09:47. > :09:49.that people working in the so-called gig economy do not have the rights
:09:50. > :09:52.that other people do. The flexible book economy is a good thing because
:09:53. > :09:56.it creates jobs but we need to make sure people are looked after. Things
:09:57. > :10:01.like having them paid national insurance but also get benefits like
:10:02. > :10:05.sick pay and holiday pay I think is a really interesting idea. He also
:10:06. > :10:11.says that people working for, say, Uber, are definitely getting the
:10:12. > :10:14.minimum wage. The minimum wager has gone up by 26% under the
:10:15. > :10:18.Conservatives. I am proud of that but I am keen to make sure that
:10:19. > :10:21.everybody, including people in the gig economy, benefit from that
:10:22. > :10:25.enormous increase in the minimum wage. But they will not necessarily
:10:26. > :10:30.accept all of these recommendations, the Government? That's right. We are
:10:31. > :10:33.hoping, by the way, that there will be constructive engagement from the
:10:34. > :10:38.Labour side as well. And I hope many of these ideas will get taken
:10:39. > :10:41.forward. But you have got to be very careful to make sure the balance is
:10:42. > :10:44.struck between giving extra rights to low paid workers but not
:10:45. > :10:48.destroying jobs at the same time. Over the summer, I think the
:10:49. > :10:55.Government will be making sure that it strikes the right balance. Most
:10:56. > :10:59.workers in the gig economy, as independent contractors, have no
:11:00. > :11:03.protection against unfair dismissal, no right to redundancy payments, no
:11:04. > :11:10.right to receive the minimum wage, you used the example of Uber, no
:11:11. > :11:15.right to paid holiday and no bite to sickness pay. If their status is
:11:16. > :11:20.reclassified, as Matthew Taylor suggests, will they get all those
:11:21. > :11:26.things? That is what the Government is going to look at. What do you
:11:27. > :11:28.think? If somebody is in paid employment with one employer who
:11:29. > :11:33.directs their activity, to all intents and purposes, they are that
:11:34. > :11:37.person's boss, then in my view, yes, they should get those rights. We
:11:38. > :11:40.have to draw the line be somebody who is essentially an employee
:11:41. > :11:44.versus someone who is a genuine freelance tractor working for lots
:11:45. > :11:52.of different people. We have got to draw the line in exactly the right
:11:53. > :11:56.place. Which part of the report, Chi Onwurah, would a Labour government
:11:57. > :12:02.implement? The fundamental principle is that everyone is entitled to a
:12:03. > :12:06.fair and decent, who is that they should be treated as human beings
:12:07. > :12:12.and not as cogs in a machine. That is the fundamentals. The problem is
:12:13. > :12:16.that, regardless of what Chris has been saying, for the last seven
:12:17. > :12:21.years, we have not seen that, we have seen the greatest undermining
:12:22. > :12:29.of working rights for decades. Which rights have been undermined? For
:12:30. > :12:33.example, no access to tribunal fees, meaning that so many people can't
:12:34. > :12:40.establish what their rights are, they can't get access to justice, if
:12:41. > :12:43.you like. That was really a very underhand move by the Government in
:12:44. > :12:49.order to prevent workers from establishing their rights. So,
:12:50. > :12:54.that's one right which Matthew Taylor has recommended should be
:12:55. > :12:59.reinstated. In terms of jobs that you mentioned, do you accept that
:13:00. > :13:02.there has been a massive move in job creation over the last seven years,
:13:03. > :13:07.it's not the Government, it is business, but you could say
:13:08. > :13:15.government created the conditions, that is a good thing? It's good to
:13:16. > :13:19.have jobs, but jobs should be a route out of poverty. What this
:13:20. > :13:23.government has done is changing that, so it is no longer at route
:13:24. > :13:28.out of poverty, because there are so many low-paid jobs. We see people,
:13:29. > :13:33.nurses who are working but who are having to use food banks. I have
:13:34. > :13:37.constituents having to have two low-paid jobs to make ends meet and
:13:38. > :13:44.at the same time, not having the protection that you spoke about. I
:13:45. > :13:50.have got to put the facts on record. We have created 2 million new jobs,
:13:51. > :13:56.unemployment is at a 40-year low... People are poor. The minimum wage
:13:57. > :14:01.has gone up by a staggering 26% under the Conservatives. And the
:14:02. > :14:05.poorest paid 6 million have been lifted out of income tax entirely.
:14:06. > :14:11.Basic rate taxpayers, including nurses and teachers and fireman, are
:14:12. > :14:15.all paying ?1000 a year less in tax. You have got to put all of that
:14:16. > :14:17.together. Given the mess we inherited, and given what is
:14:18. > :14:21.happening in the rest of Europe, that is a fantastic achievement on
:14:22. > :14:26.jobs, in very difficult circumstances. People are on average
:14:27. > :14:33.?2600 a year poorer because of what you have done, tax increases, VAT,
:14:34. > :14:36.you increased that, and also the absence of any wage rises amongst
:14:37. > :14:41.both the public and the private sector. We have said that we will
:14:42. > :14:46.put in place a ?10 minimum wage, you can't match that because you're
:14:47. > :14:51.actually not even going to meet the promises that you have made. So,
:14:52. > :14:53.people need to share this prosperity that you're talking about - and they
:14:54. > :15:02.don't. Let's talk about another aspect of
:15:03. > :15:08.protections and rights. There has been a lot of debate between the two
:15:09. > :15:13.main parties about zero-hours contracts. Do you think there are a
:15:14. > :15:21.good thing and should stay? 75% of the new jobs are full-time job. Only
:15:22. > :15:24.3% are zero-hours contracts. There was a survey recently amongst
:15:25. > :15:28.McDonald's employees, who are many of them on these flexible contract,
:15:29. > :15:32.an 80% found it suited their lifestyle. What was wrong was when
:15:33. > :15:37.their work so-called exclusive contracts where someone was tied to
:15:38. > :15:41.a job, couldn't get employment elsewhere despite being guaranteed
:15:42. > :15:45.no work, and we legislated to ban those, and it was the right thing to
:15:46. > :15:50.do. Do you accept that many workers want that flexibility? Very strong
:15:51. > :16:05.position it will evidence that says that with the right protections
:16:06. > :16:14.people like that. -- strong statistical evidence. We want to
:16:15. > :16:21.retain flexibility. Can't zero-hours contracts work if you have the right
:16:22. > :16:24.protection? Zero-hours contracts give the flexibility and the control
:16:25. > :16:32.of that flexibility to the employer. We look at the New Zealand model
:16:33. > :16:43.that allows for flexibility and gives money hours. Is possible. --
:16:44. > :16:49.minimum hours. Jobs are the best way of lifting people out of poverty but
:16:50. > :16:57.only have the right protections? Jobs can take you places and leave
:16:58. > :17:02.you there, and that is why at The Big Issue, we are always trying to
:17:03. > :17:08.move people on. You really have to see jobs as a stage up. Where I'd
:17:09. > :17:15.agree with most of the ugly, left and right, is if someone said to me,
:17:16. > :17:21.I want a job, and I'm waiting around, can you give me a job? And
:17:22. > :17:24.applied for the job. I would probably put them with the rest of
:17:25. > :17:30.the pile, but if they said to me, I'm working in Poundland, I don't
:17:31. > :17:34.like the hours or what I'm doing, but I'm doing it because I have got
:17:35. > :17:39.to do something to keep myself hail and hearty. I would pick that person
:17:40. > :17:47.because that is someone who is going to make the most of it. Most of the
:17:48. > :17:51.Poundland jobs are for people who are stuck, and we have to do
:17:52. > :17:57.something about that. The people who are stuck, and for people who want
:17:58. > :18:01.to grow and progress, is it right that gig economy companies are the
:18:02. > :18:06.ones that should be paying National Insurance contributions, and will
:18:07. > :18:14.the Government make that change? If someone is an employee, and people
:18:15. > :18:19.who work for Uber more than 20 or 30 hours a week are, we need to look at
:18:20. > :18:23.that. We need to make sure that national insurance is paid. We have
:18:24. > :18:27.a massive deficit we need to close, and it is only fair that those
:18:28. > :18:31.workers get the kinds of rights you mentioned, such as sick pay and
:18:32. > :18:36.holiday pay. We need to make sure the workers have those protections.
:18:37. > :18:39.We're here, and I hope Labour are as well, to stand up for those people
:18:40. > :18:48.and make sure they are protected. If we push too far, the jobs miracle
:18:49. > :18:57.may be put at risk. Mathieu Taylor also said we should end the cash in
:18:58. > :19:03.hand economy. A lot of people do that - do you think it should stop?
:19:04. > :19:06.The cash economy has been much exaggerated. I think people will
:19:07. > :19:12.continue to use cash. The issue is when taxes and pensions
:19:13. > :19:16.contributions are paid. Some of the points that Mathieu Taylor is making
:19:17. > :19:32.around using technology to empower workers so that when you pay people,
:19:33. > :19:35.there is a pension contribution. Technology has been about taking
:19:36. > :19:40.power away from working people, but Labour will make sure that
:19:41. > :19:48.technology works to empower people. Some of this is based on the working
:19:49. > :19:57.practices of companies such as Uber. One of your colleagues today said
:19:58. > :20:01.that it wasn't morally acceptable - do you agree? She says their working
:20:02. > :20:10.practices are not morally acceptable. It is really important
:20:11. > :20:17.to look at what the companies are doing and how they are treating
:20:18. > :20:20.their working people. I say that Uber and other companies deliver
:20:21. > :20:26.real benefits, and particularly if you're a woman on her own... Summit
:20:27. > :20:28.is not morally unacceptable? You want the services, but you want to
:20:29. > :20:38.make sure that their working practices are the right ones. You
:20:39. > :20:44.need to talk to the drivers. If you do, probably 50% think it is good.
:20:45. > :20:50.We have got to lift the Uber economy up. That is a fair point, John, and
:20:51. > :20:57.that is hopefully what this will do. 100% of Uber drivers have chosen to
:20:58. > :20:59.do that. We could do the whole programme on this, and we will at
:21:00. > :21:00.some point! But with MPs now regularly reporting
:21:01. > :21:03.cases of serious abuse, has the normal rough and tumble
:21:04. > :21:06.of political life turned Well, that's the subject
:21:07. > :21:10.of a debate to be held in the Commons later this week,
:21:11. > :21:12.but here's the Conservative MP Sheryl Murray asking about it
:21:13. > :21:15.at Prime Minister's Questions last Over the past months, I've had
:21:16. > :21:18.swastikas carved into posters, social media posts like "burn
:21:19. > :21:21.the witch" and "stab the C", people putting Labour Party posters
:21:22. > :21:25.on my home, photographing them and pushing them
:21:26. > :21:29.through my letterbox, and someone even urinated
:21:30. > :21:31.on my office door - Can my right honourable friend
:21:32. > :21:41.suggest what can be done to stop these things, which,
:21:42. > :21:43.Mr Speaker, may well be putting off good people
:21:44. > :21:45.from And at the weekend, the Labour MP
:21:46. > :21:53.Yvette Cooper gave a speech about the "vitriolic abuse"
:21:54. > :21:55.being dished out to many We're joined now by the MP who's
:21:56. > :22:01.called this week's debate - he's Simon Hart -
:22:02. > :22:03.and by Tulip Siddiq, who has said female MPs need
:22:04. > :22:17.training to deal with what are known We've heard a lot about this over
:22:18. > :22:22.the last few years. Simon, you have this abuse on Wednesday about abuse
:22:23. > :22:28.faced by candidates in elections - how is this different from previous
:22:29. > :22:34.campaigns? Between 2015 and 2017, 2015 was a civilised election. You
:22:35. > :22:38.had a passionate debate, shook hands and went to the pub. It has become
:22:39. > :22:44.more personal. The purpose of this is not to provide an MP and
:22:45. > :22:53.opportunity to whinge... It might be genuine. Possibly, but it is members
:22:54. > :22:58.of the public - people who want to put a poster up or make a donation -
:22:59. > :23:02.they are being abused, getting broken windows and they are being
:23:03. > :23:07.driven away from politics at a time when we need them. Who is doing it?
:23:08. > :23:20.You say it was civilised in 2015, so what changed in two years? There is
:23:21. > :23:23.a partisan element. There is quite a lot of anti-Semitism, homophobia,
:23:24. > :23:31.sexism. It is not just left versus right. In my experience, it has been
:23:32. > :23:37.typified by people feeling they have been given permission by the silence
:23:38. > :23:44.from political leaders to engage in this without repercussions. Is there
:23:45. > :23:47.a sense that Momentum, this grassroots organisation backed by
:23:48. > :23:52.Jeremy Corbyn, feels it has a licence to be abusive to people who
:23:53. > :23:55.don't agree with their view? I think that is absolutely ridiculous, and I
:23:56. > :24:00.think it's an easy way to cover up the fact that things are getting
:24:01. > :24:04.worse. I have been abused since 2010 online, long before most people knew
:24:05. > :24:09.who Jeremy Corbyn was, and it was directed at me, mostly because I was
:24:10. > :24:14.a female politician. In the last two years, it has gotten worse, but it
:24:15. > :24:19.tends to get worse around major events. Around Brexit, it got worse,
:24:20. > :24:25.around Donald Trump's election, and during the general election. There
:24:26. > :24:29.are people who are tweeting saying things like, you can't be a mother
:24:30. > :24:35.and an MP, and then a string of swear words. Sorry, don't blame that
:24:36. > :24:46.on Momentum. There was our online internet trolls. Yvette
:24:47. > :24:53.Cooper had someone tweet about her about being in a first-class
:24:54. > :24:57.carriage on a train. Who is that, in your mind, and what are they trying
:24:58. > :25:06.to say? I don't know. I could give you an example of someone who
:25:07. > :25:14.tweeted me yesterday, saying, go back to where you belong, Bongo-
:25:15. > :25:18.Bongo - land. I don't blame Theresa May for one tweet sent by someone
:25:19. > :25:26.who vote Conservative. It is easy to blame leaders for what people are
:25:27. > :25:33.doing in their name. Are left-wingers getting it from the
:25:34. > :25:40.right as much as the converse? I think it has played a significant
:25:41. > :25:44.part, but it is not exclusive. Political leaders have a unique
:25:45. > :25:48.platform to stand up and say, not in my name, not in my party's name.
:25:49. > :25:53.Anyone who does this in the name of me and my party has no place on the
:25:54. > :25:56.political stage. At the moment, there has been silence on this
:25:57. > :26:03.topic. Tomorrow and the debate this week is about rectifying that and
:26:04. > :26:06.forcing leaders to say, this will not be accepted. Jeremy Corbyn
:26:07. > :26:13.tweeted in 2016, I completely condemn abuse of MPs of any kind. He
:26:14. > :26:19.said on Question Time, there should be no online abuse, no abuse in
:26:20. > :26:30.political debate. I don't make personal attacks on anyone. Yvette
:26:31. > :26:35.Cooper has stipulated the left versus Right campaign, and how
:26:36. > :26:39.Labour if it wanted to be credible needed to address this. What is
:26:40. > :26:45.Jeremy Corbyn doing about it? What is he doing about it? He spoke up
:26:46. > :26:48.during the election very strongly. He personally tweeted when I was
:26:49. > :26:54.getting abuse saying it was unacceptable and that we should be
:26:55. > :26:57.forcing women are flying, and he stood in solidarity. I think a
:26:58. > :27:03.deafening silence is absolutely the wrong phrase to use. Is he giving
:27:04. > :27:10.enough? Theresa May said yesterday that she was surprised by Jeremy
:27:11. > :27:15.Corbyn's fell year to condemn vandalism. There are examples of
:27:16. > :27:21.swastikas being drawn on Conservative posters. Should he do
:27:22. > :27:27.more? I think he has done plenty. He rang me personally after the abuse.
:27:28. > :27:31.I sort of feel we are missing the point by blaming leaders of
:27:32. > :27:37.political parties. The fact is, Twitter and Facebook have to take
:27:38. > :27:41.responsibility. If they want us to use their networks, they should take
:27:42. > :27:46.responsibility. Facebook was very quick to get rid of a picture of a
:27:47. > :27:49.woman breast-feeding, but when I reported a fake account set up in my
:27:50. > :27:53.name, two weeks later I got a response. They should be acting
:27:54. > :27:57.faster. Therefore, and we have had a lot of female MPs who have long had
:27:58. > :28:06.vitriolic abuse against them, so a missed origin this -- a misogynist
:28:07. > :28:17.strain. You can't change a culture that has happened for years. Is
:28:18. > :28:21.absolutely not. We need to measure the extent of this and the impact it
:28:22. > :28:27.is having. Rain-mac isn't it to do with the fact that ten years ago you
:28:28. > :28:32.didn't have these means where every little person in every little
:28:33. > :28:36.corner, every little freak and weirdo, as well as the general
:28:37. > :28:43.public, having the chance to actually grabbed the debate and to
:28:44. > :28:48.do things against people like yourself? And we really need to be
:28:49. > :28:55.thinking about this kind of freedom - is it a freedom to be used
:28:56. > :28:59.properly or improperly? There is existing legislation. If you want to
:29:00. > :29:03.take someone to task, it is expensive and risky, so people are
:29:04. > :29:08.disinclined to do it. I agree about social media, because this extends
:29:09. > :29:12.beyond the bullying of MPs. It is about online bullying in general.
:29:13. > :29:14.There will come a time when we will look back at this because we will
:29:15. > :29:21.have invented the means of controlling this horrible, horrible
:29:22. > :29:25.manifestation of ugliness. The laws exist, they have just not been
:29:26. > :29:30.implemented as much. And you are calling for training? Training, but
:29:31. > :29:36.also Twitter and Facebook need to take responsibility. If there is a
:29:37. > :29:42.need for a change in legislation, perhaps this is one point on which
:29:43. > :29:44.Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn can be in the same voting lobby.
:29:45. > :29:48.Cross-party consensus after all! Now, over the last 50 years,
:29:49. > :29:51.Britain has become a richer place. But even in one of the wealthiest
:29:52. > :29:54.countries in the world, one in five of us is classed
:29:55. > :30:14.as living in poverty. It's the sort of thing you might
:30:15. > :30:19.expect from the Victorians, a map of London, colour-coded by area
:30:20. > :30:23.according to wealth or poverty. The black colour was what would you
:30:24. > :30:28.define as the worst colour back then, and that was describe as
:30:29. > :30:35.vicious. Although apparently, vicious did not mean that they would
:30:36. > :30:42.attack you, it just meant they were prone to vice, drinking, gambling,
:30:43. > :30:47.that kind of stuff. Lunesdale the wealthy shipping magnate Charles
:30:48. > :30:51.Booz commissioned the maps in the 1880s, updating them ten years
:30:52. > :30:57.later. They revised them by accompanying bobbies on the beat,
:30:58. > :31:01.walking the area, so again, more experts. People who would walk
:31:02. > :31:05.around the area on a regular basis and they knew what a street was
:31:06. > :31:10.like, if it had woken windows, if the children had mud on their faces.
:31:11. > :31:15.They knew it would not necessarily be that salubrious place. Booth
:31:16. > :31:19.found more than 30% of Londoners were living in poverty at the end of
:31:20. > :31:23.the 19th-century. The stats have changed since then, but so is the
:31:24. > :31:26.way poverty is measured. Absolute poverty is the fraction of people
:31:27. > :31:34.who have an income below a given line. A couple of hundred pounds a
:31:35. > :31:39.week, for example. And that line goes up with inflation but doesn't
:31:40. > :31:45.change other than that. A relative poverty line is a line which changes
:31:46. > :31:51.depending on how rich the whole country is. So, it's 60% of the
:31:52. > :31:57.middle income. As the country gets richer, the poverty line goes up,
:31:58. > :32:01.and therefore, it is a measure of inequality between middle income and
:32:02. > :32:07.low income people. Latest official figures suggest that after housing
:32:08. > :32:11.costs, 20% of people in the UK live in absolute poverty, while 22% of
:32:12. > :32:18.people live in relative poverty. Over the next few years, projections
:32:19. > :32:24.show some increases in poverty. That's partly because employment
:32:25. > :32:32.gains which have happened over the last few years are expected to peter
:32:33. > :32:37.out. And cuts to working age benefits are really falling upon low
:32:38. > :32:40.income families with children, and that suppresses their incomes as
:32:41. > :32:44.well as. It was cuts to some benefits that led Iain Duncan Smith
:32:45. > :32:47.to resign as Work and Pensions Secretary last year. But before
:32:48. > :32:52.that, he changed the way child poverty was measured. The previous
:32:53. > :32:55.Vale government having defined a child is being poor when it lives in
:32:56. > :33:02.a household with an income below 60% of the UK average. My problem with
:33:03. > :33:06.the 60% line was, it the only told me one thing, which is, you are
:33:07. > :33:11.below it all you are above it. What I was trying to do was to say, look,
:33:12. > :33:13.this is something where we need to say, what is the measure going to
:33:14. > :33:19.be? Educational failure, dysfunctional family background,
:33:20. > :33:23.family break down, find really good measurements, and then we can begin
:33:24. > :33:29.to have a framework to say, now we know what we have to do, to get that
:33:30. > :33:32.family, sort it, and moving out - that's the key, moving out. Dealing
:33:33. > :33:37.with the causes of poverty might be more complicated than measuring it.
:33:38. > :33:42.Even the Victorians realised there is more to it than just income. John
:33:43. > :33:50.Bird, what does living in poverty in Britain in 2017 look like to you? To
:33:51. > :33:58.me, it looks like people who are stuck on a very, very small amount
:33:59. > :34:02.of money, who are not able to take advantage of some of the things,
:34:03. > :34:05.like democracy. Poverty, if you're in poverty, you are not in
:34:06. > :34:11.democracy, because democracy doesn't cover poverty. You are marginalised
:34:12. > :34:15.in every way? Yeah, you're not involved in the debate, largely
:34:16. > :34:20.because you are in some senses worn down, eroded, by what is happening
:34:21. > :34:24.in life. You are living a stopgap life, you're living a life where
:34:25. > :34:29.there is very little future and there's very little opportunity.
:34:30. > :34:33.Your children are not preparing for higher education or further
:34:34. > :34:40.education, so what happens is that you are stuck, and it seems that all
:34:41. > :34:46.the cards are stacked against you. And is the way out of that trap, as
:34:47. > :34:51.it seems, the way you have describe it, is money the answer? Money is
:34:52. > :34:58.the answer, but it's not necessarily just to dump a couple of thousands
:34:59. > :35:02.pounds a week on people. We have got to go back. What we have got is, we
:35:03. > :35:04.have got a failing system of government which is largely
:35:05. > :35:10.responsible for this almost institutional poverty. If you look
:35:11. > :35:13.at the way that we respond to children and families in need and
:35:14. > :35:18.children who were in abuse, we take them out, we put them into care, we
:35:19. > :35:23.spend thousands of pounds, maybe ?3000 a week on them, we spend ?1
:35:24. > :35:28.million on them... And stick and you put them back in that failing home?
:35:29. > :35:32.At the age of 16, they come out with the reading age of 12-year-old. You
:35:33. > :35:38.have schools system which fails 37% of the children... Even though there
:35:39. > :35:44.have been improvements and there are more children in our schools? Yes,
:35:45. > :35:49.these are Justine Greening scenes figures, I thought it was 30, she
:35:50. > :35:53.says it is 37. But the point is, if you have a mechanism, a government
:35:54. > :35:59.that cannot respond to that, that uses social security not as social
:36:00. > :36:03.opportunity... Tax credits, for instance, were you a fan of those,
:36:04. > :36:11.which Gordon Brown believed would help families who were just about
:36:12. > :36:15.managing? I am a great believer in using social security for social
:36:16. > :36:21.opportunity. I don't think there is enough given to get people out of
:36:22. > :36:26.the quagmire of poverty, lack of education, lack of... If you go back
:36:27. > :36:30.to the school, the failing 37%, they're the people who fill up our
:36:31. > :36:34.prisons and our long-term unemployed, the people who fill up
:36:35. > :36:39.the A department, who use it as a drop-in. How helpful are these
:36:40. > :36:44.measures of poverty, absolute and relative poverty? The figures are
:36:45. > :36:47.quite stark, 22% living in relative poverty. But is it, as the
:36:48. > :36:52.contributor said in the film, more about inequality, as parts of the
:36:53. > :36:58.population get richer, begging those at the bottom look even poorer, is
:36:59. > :37:03.it a helpful measure? I'm not too happy on the way people measure
:37:04. > :37:07.poverty. I think the way you measure poverty is, you measure it on the
:37:08. > :37:11.basis of the individual, what can the individual do in their lives to
:37:12. > :37:14.change their lives, to feed their children, to improve their children?
:37:15. > :37:21.I don't think any of the devices that have been used, even those
:37:22. > :37:26.which were mentioned, they were very broad brush. We tend to reduce
:37:27. > :37:29.people to statistics. What we should be doing is, not creating all of
:37:30. > :37:33.these ghettos, like we did at Grenfell Tower, pushing people into
:37:34. > :37:39.social security, rather than using it as an opportunity, a way of
:37:40. > :37:44.getting out of poverty. It was invented for that purpose. So, we
:37:45. > :37:47.get this really, really weird world, a lot of the poverty could be
:37:48. > :37:52.changed if the Government changed the way in which it dealt with
:37:53. > :37:56.people in need and Hilton them so that they can get out of need and
:37:57. > :38:02.instead of being rescued, they could themselves become rescuers. While we
:38:03. > :38:06.have been on air, the Prime Minister has been speaking, as we said
:38:07. > :38:10.earlier, at the launch of the review into working practices. Let's take a
:38:11. > :38:13.look between the nature of employment is central both to our
:38:14. > :38:18.national economic success, but also also to the lives we all lead. From
:38:19. > :38:22.the end of our childhood, until the years of retirement, if we don't win
:38:23. > :38:27.the National Lottery jackpot, the vast majority of us will expect to
:38:28. > :38:34.devote at least half of our waking hours on most days of the week to
:38:35. > :38:36.work. A good job can be a genuine vocation, providing intellectual and
:38:37. > :38:42.personal fulfilment as well as economic security. With good work
:38:43. > :38:45.can come dignity and a sense of self-worth. It can promote good
:38:46. > :38:50.mental and physical health and emotional well-being. Theresa May,
:38:51. > :38:56.responding to the report she commissioned into working practices.
:38:57. > :38:59.Now, it's time to find out the answer to our quiz.
:39:00. > :39:02.And today the Prime Minister has reached something of a milestone,
:39:03. > :39:04.equalling the term in office of one of her predecessors.
:39:05. > :39:09.A) Gordon Brown, b) William Pitt the Younger c) Alec Douglas-Home,
:39:10. > :39:10.or d) fictional prime minister Jim Hacker?
:39:11. > :39:28.But unlike Theresa May, he never won an election. Well, it is right to!
:39:29. > :39:31.Yes, Theresa May has today clocked up 363 days in office,
:39:32. > :39:33.meaning she draws level with Alec Douglas-Home.
:39:34. > :39:36.I wonder if they've had a whip-round and got her a cake.
:39:37. > :39:39.Let's have a look at some of the shortest and longest
:39:40. > :39:42.The shortest serving Prime Minister ever was George Canning,
:39:43. > :39:45.who lasted a total of 119 day before his death in August 1827,
:39:46. > :39:47.although his successor, the Viscount Goderich,
:39:48. > :39:53.Unable to hold Canning's coalition of Tories and Whigs together,
:39:54. > :40:02.In the 20th century, while Sir Alec Douglas-Home lasted
:40:03. > :40:05.just 363 days in Downing Street before losing the 1964
:40:06. > :40:09.In fact, there was a shorter residency of No 10.
:40:10. > :40:12.Bonar Law managed only 211 days in office because of ill health,
:40:13. > :40:14.despite winning a clear majority in the 1922 election.
:40:15. > :40:16.Winston Churchill was resident in Downing Street for eight
:40:17. > :40:18.years and 239 days, although that was split
:40:19. > :40:30.He was surpassed by Tony Blair, who lasted for a grand total of 10
:40:31. > :40:33.years and 56 days before he decided to hand over to Gordon Brown.
:40:34. > :40:36.Yet even he did not manage to overtake Margaret Thatcher's term
:40:37. > :40:40.She is still only the seventh longest-serving Prime Minister,
:40:41. > :40:44.as the record is still held by the first official resident
:40:45. > :40:49.of No 10 Downing Street, Robert Walpole.
:40:50. > :40:52.He served for a total of 20 years and 314 days until -
:40:53. > :40:55.at the great age of 65 - he was considered too
:40:56. > :40:59.old by his opponents to carry on in office.
:41:00. > :41:03.Well, we're joined now by Catherine Haddon,
:41:04. > :41:08.who is the resident historian at the Institute for Government.
:41:09. > :41:14.Is longevity a sign of success for a Prime Minister? Not necessarily. I
:41:15. > :41:17.think there are several ways of characterising success. It is really
:41:18. > :41:23.the modern premierships, it is things like party management, public
:41:24. > :41:29.persona, the policies which are well remembered, and then finally,
:41:30. > :41:33.intellectual matters. So, you would automatically think, they must have
:41:34. > :41:37.been successful if they keep winning elections? Absolutely, and for that
:41:38. > :41:42.reason, staying in office for a long period of time, but there's many
:41:43. > :41:45.factors coming into that. Some very well remembered Prime ministers who
:41:46. > :41:52.lasted only a short period, they might be well remembered for
:41:53. > :41:59.failings. With talking almost a year of Theresa May's premiership. And a
:42:00. > :42:04.lot has happened! It has. But you look back two years, and we had
:42:05. > :42:07.David Cameron on the first Conservative majority since John
:42:08. > :42:10.Major. He looked in a very commanding position, he had a strong
:42:11. > :42:14.Chancellor. The Conservative Party were very grateful for the wind that
:42:15. > :42:17.they had. He had managed to coalition government, and he seemed
:42:18. > :42:24.to be developing his own arsenal premiership. And then... It was all
:42:25. > :42:28.over, after the referendum! The idea of having a Prime Minister for 20
:42:29. > :42:33.years seems alien to us, do you think that could happen again? I
:42:34. > :42:38.would never rule anything out. As your graphic showed, if you look
:42:39. > :42:41.back to the 19th century, the 18th-century, we had a lot of
:42:42. > :42:45.premierships could last a year, maybe a bit longer and a lot of
:42:46. > :42:49.turnover. Then you have periods where you do have one which lasts
:42:50. > :42:54.for a period of time, perhaps because there is something which is
:42:55. > :42:57.going on, a war or some big policy area, or a lack of contenders. That
:42:58. > :43:02.is the other thing, the other contenders. Do you think longevity
:43:03. > :43:07.is a good thing? If you are in for a long time, you can affect real
:43:08. > :43:13.change? My problem is this, as we witnessed earlier over the Taylor
:43:14. > :43:19.report, that there are these entrenched as Asians, and often, the
:43:20. > :43:25.truth is in the middle. So I'm much more interested in looking at
:43:26. > :43:28.coalitions. I think we need a coalition now, I think we need a
:43:29. > :43:32.cabinet of talents, because I think we are in the greatest place oddly
:43:33. > :43:37.we have been in since the Second World War. And you would like to see
:43:38. > :43:40.a grand coalition? I would like to see a grand coalition. A grand
:43:41. > :43:43.coalition we three are! Thank you very much for coming in today.
:43:44. > :43:48.Thanks to all our guests, especially John Bird.
:43:49. > :43:51.I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage