12/09/2013 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/09/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



is the makings of a deal to get Syria to relinquish its chemical


weapons, weapons its finally acknowledged it has. While


President Assad negotiates on Russian TV. Tonight we meet some of


the millions of refugees sheltering in Lebanon. Too much too soon? The


education ministers doesn't admit that starting school at the age of


education ministers doesn't admit seven is much better for children.


She will tell us why. seven is much better for children.


# Bicycle # Bicycle


Stkpwhrk is the economy picking up speed?


We ride around the personal indicators.


The economics of confidence are like riding a bike, one minute it


is all wobbly, worrying about doom, the next minute you are sailing


along and on the upside. It is all about momentum.


I will be checking the confidence levels with my guests.


The Chinese puzzlele, too many men and not enough women. Marriage in


China seems like a distant fairytale, we hang out with the


love hunters. TRANSLATION: There is a lot of competition, the girls are


demanding a prefer tall guys. Good evening, in the last few


minutes we have learned that Twitter will sell shares to the


public. The company made an announcement in a tweet, and the


on-line world is abuzz tonight. In a minute we will hear from the


Lebanese border. First there is no doubt that the momentum of Syria is


with President Putin now, indeed the Republican leadership have


wasted no time in sticking the boot in into President Obama, claiming


he used Syria as a distraction from domestic bugetry business. The


caravan has moved to Geneva, where the US secretary and his Russian


counterpart have been joshing over who is calling the shots. After


Assad's star appearence on Russian TV, the UN said it had a request to


join the chemical weapons ban. How significance is that? Signing


join the chemical weapons ban. up to the chemical weapons


convention is important. A week or two ago Syria was barely


acknowledging those weapons. That is a key thing. Yet we still hear


this rhetorical diplomacy from President Assad this morning saying


they won't do this unless the threat of American force is lifted


and they stop supplying arms to the rebels. Today, bizarrely enough the


Washington Post leaked the story that arms have started arriving


from the Americans through the CIA with the rebels this very day. So


you would think how can they reconcile these particular


you would think how can they positions these political stands.


you would think how can they We got more of that from John Kerry


soon after he arrived in Geneva. Only the credible threat of force


and the intervention of President Putin and Russia based on that has


brought the Assad regime to acknowledge, for the first time


that it even has chemical weapons, and an arsenal and it is now


prepared to relinguish it. President Obama has made clear that


should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade


should diplomacy fail, force might Assad's capacity to deliver these


weapons. So is it actually going nowhere? No, it is going somewhere,


that is the fascinating thing. Despite the rhetoric we heard from


John Kerry, we know working groups are sitting in Geneva with Russian


chemical warfare experts and American ones deciding practically


chemical warfare experts and how would you do that, if we can


agree it in the Security Council. John Kerry has an inside into the


American thought process. He thought about firstly


internationally safeguarding the stocks, then removing them from


Syria for destruction elsewhere. We stocks, then removing them from


are getting insights into the process they have in mind. What is


the Russian game here, is it keeping America away? Well, there


is a view that this process, even if we accept it is being sincerely


entered in to. Of course the state department and others would not


accept that of President Assad, they are still casting doubtds


about his motives, if it was completely sincere and the process


went ahead, under the conditions of civil war, it could easily take a


year or more to carry it out. During which time we know that


year or more to carry it out. President Assad and Russia are


insistent on the point there can be no American strikes while this


process is going ahead. The dilemma is that price worth aPremier League


for President Obama. Effectively it then -- it allows President Assad a


free hand in a war that has already claimed 117,000 lives. Is there any


way that President Obama can wrest any glory from this? If this is


what it seems to be, which is an increasingly viable and practical


diplomatic discussion about how this can be done, yes, if it comes


through. Because securing those chemical weapons is a vital


national interest to the United States. If that process goes ahead


he can say to the American people we have done this. The question,


what will he have had to give up in order to do that, and will he be


seen as selling out the suffering people, those in the refugee camps


in Syria, who have been pleading to American help in order to get that


over the past few years. Let's hear more about that, a deal on chemical


weapons might be on the table. There is no sign the conflict


itself and the dreadful damage inflicted on Syrians by


itself and the dreadful damage conventional weaponry will let up.


Thousands are still fleeing out of the country, more than two million


people. Many escaping to Lebanon. Jeremy has been to a refugee camp.


The bishop has more on his mind than usual. His diocese straddles


the Bekar Valley, the route by which refugees flee Syria, across


the border and into Lebanon. They say the fields and orchards of the


Bekar Valley fed the Roman empire. Just over the hills in the distance


is the frontier with the Assad dynasty. Since Islamist rebels fell


like a wolf on the Christian fold of Maaloula, such as can throw


themselves on the bishop's mercy. This refugee needs help to pay the


rent, the bishop promises that if she gives her name, she will go on


to a list and when aid arrives they will be in touch. Those who make it


here are offered a place to weather the storm. They start to stay with


the people, and we tried to find them somewhere to live. We tried to


find jobs for them. We try our best really. I'm afraid if there is an


attack in Syria, we will have more ref refugees in will he be I don't


know. That is why I called the international community to stop


sending arms to Syria. To work together with the Syrian people for


sending arms to Syria. To work the peace. Otherwise we don't know


what will happen. Not only in Syria, in Lebanon, in Turkey, and all the


Middle East. Fear knows no creed and Christians are a minority among


the refugees. Most of those fleeing the fighting are Muslims. Three-


quarters of a million refugees have reached Lebanon, and the promise of


sanctuary. The lucky ones shelter in small


sanctuary. camps, this one is home, if that's


the word, to 80 families who live in rented tents in an orchard. No-


one wants to stay here, but the tents are beginning to look


depressingly permanent. 1-2-3-4-5- 6-7-8-9-10. Some of the children


have seen things no-one should ever have had to see. All have read the


fear and desperation in the eyes of their parents. In the impromptu


school, students have volunteered as their teachers. They must have


seen some terrible things? Yes, of course, but they are children. You


know and we cannot stop their imagination of the children. Things


that happened and in themselves and their growing is peace, they want


peace, they don't want war and terror. Most of these people seem


to blame Assad. But whatever their feelings life has to go on. This


couple, who sold sweets for a living in Syria had a baby in the


camp. They called him Jihad. I would like to ask you what it was


like having a baby in the camp here? TRANSLATION: Very hard, it


was freezing. There was a lot of snow, so it was really hard. When


was freezing. There was a lot of do you think your son will go back


to Syria? TRANSLATION: Of course, God willing, he will return, even


if we his parents don't ever, his generation will go back. Even if


if we his parents don't ever, his there is only rubble left, he will


go back. Even if it is just to plant one rose. Le


What is a -- what is a home, they have light, water and half-a-dozen


or so lavatories between 400 of them. Parents and children do what


they can, but a home is surely somewhere you feel you belong, and


no-one belongs here. Yet this morning in Beirut there


no-one belongs here. were hundreds and hundreds more


learning the patience every refugee needs before officialdom can


acknowledge your existence. Over half those fleeing are children.


Lebanon's schools health and housing services are already


stretched to near breaking point. There is now a real risk of Syria's


war setting off instability across the region. When these people made


the decision to lead everything behind them, a missile strike and


who knows what else seemed terrifyingly imminent. It didn't


happen or it hasn't happened yet, at least, but neither has the war


ended. When you have nothing but the clothes you stand up in,


diplomatic games seem very remote indeed.


Still they come, the old, the young, the millions in whom hope has been


driven out by fear. The makeshift shelters give way to the concrete


floor and the shortened horizons of lives lived from day-to-day. So


very many small tragedies. Now we know that Newsnight viewers are


pretty smart. But you might want to put a pen and paper together for


the end of the programme. Right now though try to work out what age you


were when you first went to school, are you four? Five? Six? The law


now says that children must be in school by the age of five. But


according to an influential group of educationalists writing in the


Telegraph today, that is just too early for formal learning, never


mind testing. Tomorrow they jaunch a Too Much Too Soon campaign, and


point to the Scandinavian education system that starts at six or seven,


and where children consistently achieve better education results,


and where children consistently they say, as well as higher levels


of well being. At the moment I will be asking the education minister if


we have the whole thing wrong. First we have this.


If you are six in Finland you can play all day. This morning these


children were in kindergarten, now play all day. This morning these


they are at their club. They won't start school until their seven.


There are so many things you have to be able to do in school, sit


still, receive orders and to fulfil them. To understand abstract


concepts and most of those you have to do at the same time. So at the


age of five they are still kids. Last year Finland's education


system was ranked the best in the world. Based on how the students


did in tests and how many went to university. Not surprising, then,


that many in Britain are keen to copy them. When it comes to


education questions this is a hardy perennial, do we start our children


too early in formal education? And could this help explain the serious


problems we have like poor literacy amongst boys or the achievement gap


between rich and poor children. The head of this nursery thinks it can.


Along with over 100 leading figures in education, she signed an open


letter today saying our approach could cause profound damage to


children's self-image and attitude to learning. The letter argues


children should spend more time in high-quality nursery schools,


learning informally, getting involved in active, outdoor,


creative play. You don't need a structured environment, you needed


a dults who are understanding how that child -- adults who are


understanding how that child is learning, and using the early years


understanding how that child is foundation stage. If a child is


able to read at three then the adult supports that, if the child


wants to do anything that they are interested in, calculus at four!


That's fine. These parents agreed. Even in schools they don't play,


they don't play enough. More play is always better, it gets them


thinking, using their brains and different areas. That is what I


feel. In eight European countries, including Finland, children have to


be in school at seven. In 23 countries they have to be in school


when they are six, in most of Britain and Cyprus it is five. In


Northern Ireland school starts at four.


Not everyone in education agrees with the letter writers, here, a


cop of miles from the nursery, another -- a couple of miles from


the nursery, another disadvantaged area of London, an educational


charity believes the best way for children to learn is putting them


in a structured environment as early as possible. Jacob's only six


but he has been becoming to the Learning Store for two years, he's


out tisic, he spends part of every estimate -- out tisic, he spends


half of Saturday in the Blur fly Class, improving his reading. I


don't want him to fall behind that is why I put him in the class. So


he gets the extra help. Katie has run the classes for 14 years,


mostly for children failed by their schools. They are saying that if


you start teaching them in any formal way before age seven it is


too much too soon. I would say that what we are doing at the present


still isn't good enough, it is too little too late. Children has a


very young age are very ready to learn in a formal manner. Yes they


like to play, but they love to learn, they like to be taken


seriously. They are extremely intelligent and I think we


seriously. They are extremely underestimate them. There is


another lesson from Finland. Teaching is highly competitive, and


a masters degree is required even for primary school. Many would


argue it is the quality of teaching across the system which make the


difference, not the age children start formal school. We're going to


talk to the Education Minister Liz Truss in a moment. First let as


talk to Dr Mary Bousted, the General Secretary of the teachers


union, the ATL, who backs this move. Isn't the issue that children at


the age of five are sponges, they want to learn, they seek to learn,


and that is what the system provides them with, a chance to


learn? Well, they are sponges, but they need to have a strong grasp of


key concepts before they can actually go on to formal learning.


key concepts before they can For example let me just take the


example of maths. Before you understand the importance of number,


you have to know what number is. You have to understand the concept


of more or less. And the way to understand that is through playing


and through real live expeerence of what that means. Can you --Real


live expeerence of what that means. Can you get that in school? We are


in a period of where children are taught and tested. If there is a


test for five-year-olds, how will that work? The Government will have


to explain what is proposed as a baseline test at five to understand


where they are and a more baseline test at five to understand


formallised curriculum that will be further tested through a phonics


test at six. If the Government has its way through every child in the


country being ranked in percentages of where they are in respect of the


national population at 11. We are entering a more testing period.


national population at 11. We are Isn't it up to primary school


teachers to cope with this and interpret it in the way they think


best for the chin in their class? It is, but when you are under a


strong accountability regime and having to meet particular standards,


it can be very difficult to teach in way that does develop the


ability of children to learn properly. The accountability regime


imposes certain formallised approaches to teaching. Many


schools are really under that regime at the moment. Won't your


ideas, your plans hit less privileged children? No they won't.


The evidence shows that countries which adopt a less formal approach


to early years education, where children get a better grasp of


concepts and they then approach the more formal concepts more ready to


understand them. There is less of a gap between disadvantage and the


advantaged children. How are those comparable, these two aren't


comparable? The international system and this system? You can


only compare systems by looking at another system, if they achieve


better results, saying how is it and what are they doing. Most


countries in western Europe start school later than us, and those


that do very well have a less formal curriculum when children are


very young. Thank you very much indeed. Well Liz Truss, the


Education Minister is here. Too much too young, the idea is you are


force-feeding formal education, no matter the level the child is at.


Every child is at a different level? That is absolutely true, we


have given teacher more flexibility in the new national curriculum to


find the right level for the child and teach in the right way. If you


go into a reception class you will find that children are playing,


they are learning how to play together, they are learning how to


take turns. What I think the issue is that too many children are


arriving at school, not with those skills that Mary talked about, not


ready to learn, so what we need to do is improve early years education


to make sure that rather than the do is improve early years education


33% of children who arrive at school without communication skills


make sure they have them. So you believe the state should,


essentially be in loco parentis? We are recruiting early years teachers


for our nurseries. 96% of children take up early age education at


three and four. Let's make sure it is high quality so children have


the skills and vocabulary and learn how to take turns, and they start


school ready to learn. We shouldn't delay the start because we haven't


done the preparation beforehand. This Government and other


Governments have always praised the Scandinavian system of education


because of what comes out the other end. So therefore if you embrace


some aspects of it, why can't you embrace the idea that the best way


to start a child is to start a child informal low and then


to start a child is to start a actually move to formal education


at seven. It seems to work for Scandinavia and other countries in


Europe. It is a complete misrepresentation of Scandinavia,


they have formal settings in countries like Sweden with highly-


trained teachers, an early years teachers are paid the same as a


primary school teachers. Here we have them paid less. You think


early years teachers should be better paid, a I hooer salary I


would like to see them better respecteded and better paid it is


really important. We are setting higher -- respected, and better


paid, it is really important. We are setting higher standards to


close the gap. If we can come back to the whole idea of the child,


what Mary Bousted is saying, I in terms of concepts and socialisation


and more and less, it means much more play, much less focused


learning, and yet you have started putting kids into test situations


at the age of five. Essentially you are putting them in pigeonhole,


even before the age of six? We're absolutely not doing that. There is


already an early years profile done at age four or five to see where a


child is. We do that through the current system. What we are doing


is we are saying schools can have a choice between using that and using


is we are saying schools can have a alternative methods to see where a


child is. But good teaching is all about finding what a child knows


already, how they are learning, how they are developing and building on


that. We're giving power to professionals to say this is the


way we want to approach it, and this is the way we want to help


children get on in their school career. Can I make the point about


play. We are not about play, we absolutely think about children


learning through play, the issue is whether it should be entirely


child-initiated or teacher-led. And parents supporting? When you had on


the film we will teach the child to read if they want to. I think that


the film we will teach the child to is the wrong approach. What you


will get is middle-class children with book on the balls, they will


be the ones learning to read, the children who may not have an


experience of reading will be the ones that are left behind. Are you


saying that poor people and working-class people aren't capable


of introducing their children to books? I'm saying that children on


free school meals do much worse at GCSE than children without. There


is a long tale of underperformance. Low income children arrive at


school less well prepared. We have evidence to show that. What you are


essentially saying is this policy is simple low because you believe


that poorer children -- simply because you believe that poorer


children need the Government to step? I'm saying we need to make


sure that every child succeeds. Basically part of the problem with


it is you need women to come into the work force, you just do, and


therefore what you are offering is three and four-year-olds, places in


nursery and form yamalised because that suits the economy, rather than


child-centered which the UN believes the rights of the child


won. We know 66% of mums go out to work, that is a fact of life. We


know early education benefits all children. There is a study showing


that early education has benefits far into a child's life, right


through to 18. But it has to be high-quality early education, that


is why we are raising the standard for early years teachers, we are


giving professional autonomy. We are not saying how we want teachers


to teach, what we are saying is we are going to allow you to get the


best outcomes for children, to see where a child is, to offer much


more flexibility. Let me give you an example. I can't have an example,


we have run right out of time I'm sorry. All manner of indicators


would suggest there is a new optimisim in the country, those


popular folk, estate agents, are being recruited by the budgetload.


The monthly consumer confidence bore barometer is at its highest in


four years, and GDP is up to since the first quarter. How does it feel


to you? Given the UK real wages have fallen by 5.5% since 2010, is


confidence measured in hard data or is something else in the air. Be it


the Olympics, a football match, an autumn day, or the joy the economic


editor gets from riding a bike? The job market is moving, growth is


accelerating and house prices are rising. But these are just the


tangible side of the recovery, what we are waiting for is the return of


something called "confidence", to invest, to spend, to take risk. But


that is hard to quantify. The economics of confidence are a bit


like riding a bike, one minute it is all wobbly, you are worried


about doom, the next minute you are sailing along and everything is


amplified on the upside. It is all about momentum. I have been


amplified on the upside. It is all covering the economic crisis since


it started. Here is what I think about when I think about confidence.


Number one, pubs. Five years ago when Lehman Brothers went bust my


local pub emptied, there was a dramatic loss of confidencek even


though I don't think anybody there actually worked for Lehmans. Now,


the economy is clearly coming back, but I still think a lot of pubs are


struggling. If you look at the statistics on people's spending


power there is a reason why. So what we found out over the last


five years the average household has been squeezed by a prolonged


period of inflation with essential items running ahead of regular pay.


Pay growth all the way back since January 2010 has been running


behind inflation, that has seen spending power squeezed


considerably in the last three years. Number two is estate agents,


house prices are rising, but the ones in the window are always a


little bit optimistic. It is once estate agents start recruiting that


you know the market is recovery. -- recovering. This week's job figures


showed 380,000 private sector jobs have been created in that year.


Staggeringly 77,000 of those were estate agents.


And that, to me, is confidence. Number three might seem a bit close


to home, but it is job adverts for journalists. I have come to


London's Silicon Roundabout, home of the tip and techno-savvy to meet


a man who can tell me what's happening in the recruitment market.


We have seen some big investment plays by big players in the market.


We have the Mail on-line, the website for the Daily Mail is out


there recruiting 100 journalists for a big expansion. A lot of it on


the back of the US. We have got the Evening Standard launching a TV


station there, a good amount of journalism jobs there, and the Sun


on-line coming to the market as well. Is journalism the canary in


the coal mine when looking at an advertising upturn? They have to be


confident about revenues coming through, on-line revenues are very


much advertising that. Number four is a graph, the consumer confidence


index, it is always a negative number, what now? This graph shows


the last five years, it is recovering fast, that is because


there is more credit in the economy. Of course, on my bike, I'm not


really seeing outside London. The recovery beyond the M25 is patchy.


That means a lot of people are not really confident there is a


recovery at all. My final barometer of confidence is Twitter. Because


every time a report like this goes out saying the statistics show


signs of recovery, a lot of people tweet me saying basically I'm a


Cameronite, Osbourneist full of propaganda. When that stops I will


say confidence has returned. There is momentum and a bit of movement,


but the magic ingredient of total confidence is till missing. Paul


will be back with us soon when we explore that Twitter sale story.


Are there reasons to be cheerful? Here is the assistant editor of the


Financial Times and in New York we have the economist and director of


the Earth Institute. You both look happy. Welcome to the studio. First


of all, Gillian, is Paul right? Is there a feel-good factor, what is


your equation for confidence? Paul is definitely right in the sense


your equation for confidence? Paul that optimisim is rising. We have


just seen the highest optimisim level for the last four years and


the most significant increase, the fastest-pace of increase in decades


that is striking. The level of optimisim is always relative, we


have just been through a very bad recession. Frankly it is not


surprising that people are feeling more confident. To me the big


question is, who is feeling confident. Is it just the people


who have assets that are being buoyed by qoosing. Or is it young


people -- quantative easing, or is it young people as well, we don't


have that breakdown. Where you sit in America, is confidence a self-


fulfiling prophesy? It is a little bit more than that. I think there


really is a recovery under way after the hard knocks of 2008/2009.


The UK, and the eurozone that suffered badly, Japan and the


United States are healing. There are still lots of wounds and


structural imbalances like high inequality of income and lack of


opportunities forepeople with lower skills or educational training. --


for people with lower skills or educational training. There is a


real recovery under way, and the real pessimists yelling at the


Chancellor until recently, saying you are wrecking everything and


driving the economy over the cliff have been proved wrong. Does it


look different sitting in tech areas like San Francisco and New


York and sitting in Nebraska or outside Detroit? Of course, so we


are suffering from very, very, deep divides and widening inequality


that has been widening for divides and widening inequality


than two decades, even more than that. Our politicalcy thems have


not wanted to look very deeply at. This is a real underlying -- it has


left people without jobs on low incomes, it is not fair and right,


the rich have just prospered incredibly and we need more balance,


that is not yet soft. Is it true the people in Idaho and Nebraska


that is not yet soft. Is it true don't matter as much. The boom and


that is not yet soft. Is it true recovery here might look better in


London than in North Shields? The answer is of course they matter. It


is disgraceful to imagine we can have a society where the rich get


richer. If you are living in London it is easy to feel confident, house


prices are rise, partly due to foreign money coming in. The gap


between the old and the young is perhaps the most important issues


right now. If you are old and have assets, you are benefiting. If you


have savings that earn very little interest. But if your house price


is going up it offsets it. A fascinating study from the Bank of


England last year, suggesting that fascinating study from the Bank of


40% of the gains from quantative fascinating study from the Bank of


easing have gone to the wealthiest 5%, they own stocks and houses. In


the US in particular when stock markets go up confidence goes up


too, particularly amongst people who are wealthier. Stock markets go


up and people take huge risks we have problems then and it happens


all over again? Absolutely, I don't think we are in bubble territory


right now. Let's come back for housing, Jeffrey housing is up 12%


in America as well. Part low because of the help to buy. And now


we have Vince Cable so you better watch because of a housing bubble?


That is a bit of an exaggeration. Take it from an American


That is a bit of an exaggeration. perspective, house prices going up


12% but still much, much lower than they were in 208. Yes we had a


megabubble and collapse. And now we have some recovery because it has


been a number of years of not building houses and finally people


are earning some more income and coming back into the market. I do


think the point is those who were panicking that we are going over


the cliff, that's not the case. We see moderate growth in many, many


important economies around the world, but I don't think we should


therefore be complacent regarding these deeper problems of high


unemployment among young people, very low wages if they have a job.


People with the lower skills, we have to work on making our


societies more fair. We also have to start looking at the long-term.


Because in the meantime we are also still wrecking the environment and


many other things, we haven't attended to any of those longer


term issues. Always driven to the very short-term. Now that we have


both feet on the ground, there is a bit of a recovery, let's think


about the quality of the growth. Would you learn from history? I


think certainly there have been a number of lessons learned. Let's


not lose sight of the fact that it is good news that people are


feeling more cheerful. Whether it was the summer, or Andy Murray


winning Wimbledon, or a new baby in the palace. Danny Finkelstein said


last night, he was talking about the Government last night and the


recovery, he was saying it was very, very important for George Osborne


and David Cameron not to talk up the recovery too much because that


is what they have going for them, the continued idea of a recovery.


You don't want to talk too soon? Maybe, but the enof the day, the


thing that matters now is not so much our British consumers rushing


thing that matters now is not so out and buying new sofas, it is are


companies feeling confident enough to hire, invest in new plant and


equipment and get the real economy growing as again. That is a key


equipment and get the real economy question, we need to watch that


closely and say house prices. We question, we need to watch that


have an incredible short memory, over the last four years we have


learned a lesson, or have we? No more Masters of the Universe?


Tragedy is that quantative easing, pumping money into the economy and


the rich have got richer, that is one of the ironies, dealing with


the rich have got richer, that is that will be a challenge for


politicians for years to come. Thank you very much for joining us.


The news that Twitter is to share sell shares to the public has


happened. Paul is here. What is the story did we expect it to happen so


quickly? It has been rumoured for the last few days. Let me explain


what is going on. An initial public offering is where you sell shares


in a company to anyone who wants to buy them. What you are expecting is


to make eight, ten fold back, invested by the original people who


set the company up. Those moments are big signal moments, with


capitalism, 1 up had had hundredors ago Goldman Sachs brought


Woolworths, it dominated the 20d century. What we are looking at --


20 years ago, a company in San Francisco was open opened up, has


filed documents under a confidentiality clause which is is


only available for companies that take less than a billion dollars a


year. This is a country with 200 million user. It has been valued at


8-10 billion. That is a ten fold increase put into it by the private


investors. Look this company is, via these things, the new service


of the world. There is two views of it, either it is a low-ref few tech


company that nobody knows how it will make money. This is the radio


of the 21st century. Who decides who will make money? It will be a


big challenge to the company. Interesting fact, since Twitter was


formed there have been 430 billion tweets dispatched across the world.


£4 30 billion. It is an extraordinary triumph of technology


and entrepenural driving the economy forward. The big question


is for Twitter how to make money on The Tweets. Facebook have had the


challenge, they managed to get our tentacles in our every day lives,


we reply on them and use them but tentacles in our every day lives,


don't want advertising on it. How do you monetise that? I think the


don't want advertising on it. How answer to that has become clear in


the past few days, Twitter acquired a company called Mo Pub, reported


low the market leader in mobile advertising. Advertising on devices


is so technological choices, if will be used to outFacebook


Facebook. A lot of people who use Twitter doesn't want to be


interrupted or bothered. Two ways to do it, put adverts on to the


tweets, the creepier way is to actually start sorting people into


groups and use algorithms to look at their behaviour and sell things


more subtley. What is fascinating now is seeing the same geeks doing


finance a decade ago and getting involved in using their mats to


read how markets are going, they are trying to lead us to do the


same. Twitter needs to hosepipe the data to sort us all out. There will


be a real jarb lash about that? This company don't tell us what the


user base is. 200 million is the starter figure. The point thing is


they posted a live BOt may not be making much money yet, it is all


about the belief of making money in the future. Essentially they can


read our new addiction and find ways to profit from that. The


addiction to Twitter is different to Facebook, and they were using


one more than the other? This is the crack of on-line addiction,


Twitter is it. For a lot of people like me. When the last bank was


floated and then it was sickness and gone down. Not just for all the


addictions but the stock market more broadly, that will have a big


impact. Interesting we have just been talking about confidence,


something like Twitter floating a new contract, seven years old, this


will lead to business confidence. If you want to basically see 21st


century innovation and growth and business building in action. Things


like Twitter are encouraging. Twitter won't be like that with Pin


to Rest and all these other things. The signal moment it represents,


not just because it is a big tech, it is the tech ifpt PO we have been


waiting for. We are talking about the Royal Mail floating, it makes


£200 million a year. This company makes reportedly £330 million. It


is about the same as the Royal Mail in business terms. If 25 years


hence we are still twittering you will guarantee that the scale of


the revenue will be fast. What is the scale of growth? It is doubling


its user base and tweets every year to eight months in the seven years.


The critical question is those 450 billion tweets that they have


already sent sitting in databases, who will use them, how will they


already sent sitting in databases, use the information and can it


Monetorise. That is to do with vive -- monitorise, that is to do with


advertising. That is what we make a deal with every operating system we


use. So the cards are packed? We are analysing our data and we don't


mind making that because we get a lot from it. You might want to have


your pen and paper handy for the end of the programme. First the


papers: That is all tonight. Tonight's


Twitter news meant we were unable to show our film from China.


Apologies for that. Before we go the Government's communications


centre, GCHQ, has issued a cryptic code and invited potential recruits


to break it. We asked our crack team to set a challenge of our own.


There is a coded message hidden in our closing credits and tomorrow


night we will name the first person to tweet it with the hashtag




Download Subtitles