21/03/2016 Newsnight

If ever the words "get a grip" had a use, it's now.

Three days after the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith,

the Government's still trying to fight its way out of a corner.

We will continue with this approach in full, because we are a modern,

compassionate, one-nation Conservative Government

and I commend this statement to the House.

But it's been a day of retreat and discomfort.

Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that this will be

the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last Budget?

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan is with us to bring order

We don't view Cuba as a threat to the United States.

I hope that my visit here indicates the degree to which we're setting

a new chapter in Cuban-American relations.

President Obama goes to Cuba, but will his political foes at home

permit him this foreign policy legacy?

Will we still be bothering to tweet at 20?

You are talking to a lot of people who are already converted

to your cause, particularly for the left.

Twitter is a very big echo chamber of conversations.

If you haven't followed, there are essentially three threads

A big U-turn on welfare cuts, which it has to be said,

was announced in some confusion and ambiguity.

A full-blown crisis of Government authority, with pervasive

back-biting and negative briefing, and an appearance of disarray,

all of which justifies those "Tories in turmoil" headlines.

And thirdly, there's a drama concerning the personalities,

in particular, Chancellor George Osborne's hopes of rising

Let's start with him and the politics of this

Here's our political editor, David Grossman.

In that well-worn Westminster cliche, there is a hole

in the Chancellor's Budget, but really, set

in the context of total Government spending,

There is a gaping void in the Government, or more

specifically, the Chancellor's reputation.

Labour managed to drag a minister to the Commons today to answer

a question on this Budget disarray, but it wasn't the Chancellor,

Does the Shadow Chancellor really want to talk

The Government, though, has climbed down on not only 1. ?1.3 billion

worth of disability benefit cuts, but also, to make sure it wins

tomorrow's Budget vote, it's conceding Opposition amendments on

VAT on tap upons and on -- tampons and on solar panels and insulation,

putting the Government in possible conflict with the European

Commission. The Budget has a big hole in it. It's up to the Prime

Minister to persuade his great friend to either come here and

explain how he's going to fill that hole or perhaps he should consider

his position and look for something else to do, because clearly, he

hasn't been very successful at producing a balanced Budget in the

interests of everyone in this country, particularly those with

disabilities. This was easily the worst weekend for the Government

since the election. The departing Work and Pensions Secretary laying

into the Government and the Chancellor in a round of interviews.

Talk to enough Conservative MPs around this place and it becomes

very clear that the disquiet in the party right now isn't about welfare

per se. Indeed, many of Mr Osborne's and Mr Cameron's severest critics

don't agree with Iain Duncan Smith on the matter. No, it's more about

the way that those at the top of the Conservative Party treat those lower

down, the allegation you constantly hear is they're too dismissive of

those with traditional conservative views. There was still no sign of a

Chancellor in Downing Street today. Instead the Prime Minister was

leaving for the Commons to make a statement on last week's EU Summit,

after apparently reacting with a four letter tirade at Iain Duncan

Smith resignation last Friday, today he was complimentary about his

former Cabinet colleague My right honourable friend contributed an

enormous amount to the work of this Government and he can be proud of

what he achieved. Mr Speaker, let me say this, this Government will

continue to give the highest priority to improving the life

chances of the poorest in our country. That tone was well received

on the Conservative benches, where many are feeling bruised and even

insulted, particularly by the way the Chancellor and the Prime

Minister have treated Conservative advocates of leaving the EU. I don't

wish to be critical of the Prime Minister. I think there's plenty of

time to get this right. I think his judgment of the mood in the House

today is a sign that he's perfectly able to get it right. He was very

respectful of people who wish to leave the European Union. He

understands our passion for a more democratic, freer country that can

spend more of its own money. He just happens to think there are arguments

on the other side. That's the tone he has to strike so that the party

comes together easily after all the exertions of the referendum through

to June. Another blow to George Osborne came from Iain Duncan Smith'

replacement at work and pensions, Stephen Crabb. In confirming a halt

to the planned disability benefit cuts, he took a swipe at Government

by balance sheet. As the Prime Minister indicated on Friday, I can

tell the House that we will not be going ahead with the changes to PIP

that had been put forward. I am absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, that a

compassionate and farewell fair system should not just be about

numbers. Behind every statistic there is a human being. And

perhaps... Perhaps sometimes in Government we forget that. There

was, though, some confusion as to whether the Government was now

abandoning all welfare cuts for the rest of the Parliament. The

Chancellor-shaped hole in today's events will be filled tomorrow by

the man himself, who will speak in defence of his Budget and his

reputation. Something to look forward to.

Well, the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, is here to help us

understand what's going on in her Government.

Very good evening to you. Goning. Good evening. Do you think the

Government lost sight of compassionate conservatism agenda in

the last couple of years, that it became too much about saving money,

at any expense, even from vulnerable people? No, I don't think that at

all. Certainly not in my area of reg indication reform, where we -- of

education reform. Where we are making sure that every child,

regardless of birth or background, gets the education they're entitled

to. Not in terms of the Treasury, or in terms of the manifesto. One of

the biggest things has been about taking people out of paying income

tax. 31 million people are paying less tax now than in 2010. The

introduction of the national living wage, all of those things and many

other reforms announcements demonstrate that we are, as the

Prime Minister said at the end of his statement, a modern,

compassionate Conservative Government. I want you to look at a

graph. This is from the IFS. On the left the incomes of the poorest and

how they're going to change with tax and benefit cuts over this

Parliament. On the right, the incomes of the richest. As you go

from left to right, the poorest to the richest and the big downward

bars are the percentage losses in net income. What you basically see

is that the poorest are losing 5% to 8% or more of their net income. The

top people on the right, the richest, are losing almost nothing,

with the proposed changes. What do you make this afternoon graph? I

think that tells one story in terms of the changes, but actually there's

another graph, which I think is very important in the distribution

analysis impact published alongside the red book, which shows the the

impact of the different per centiles. The richest are paying

more in terms of making contribution to filling the black hole left by

the last Labour Government. Absolutely, correct to say that the

pattern would have been different if we had taken other periods of

coalition or Labour Government measures. This is the 15 to 20, this

is this Parliament, this is the pure Conservative Government. I'm

wondering whether there was a - did you know, for example, that the poor

were bearing the brunt this Parliament and the rich bearing none

of it? It's the first time I've seen the graph. I haven't seen the

workings behind it. It is something that I do look at very carefully,

every time having been in the Treasury, every time a red book and

OBR is published. The fact is by the end of this Parliament, the top 20%

in this country will be paying more in tax than the other 80% put

together. I don't want to get stuck in statistics. This graph describes

what's happened in this Parliament. In effect, shouldn't we worry that

you, in the Cabinet, nodding through these things, have not seen the most

basic distributional analysis of what the Government's plans are for

this Parliament. I agree you can go back to other parliaments and the

picture is more progressive, but this is what you're planning for

this Parliament. It was never described that was. It was never set

out as a now we want to give back to the rich, but is that we're all in

it together? I haven't seen the detailed analysis that goes

alongside this. I look carefully at the distributional impact analysis

published by the Treasury alongside the red book last week, the issue

about people at the top paying more, the top 1% paying 28% of income tax.

But look the broader point you're making - These are the changes, I

appreciate that, but these are the changes. This is what your

Government is planning for this Parliament. Are you happy to call

that one nation conservatism, compassionate conserve Tim --

conservatism, we're all in it together, up to 8% cuts in the

bottom and slight increase in the people in the richest. I don't know

because you haven't shown me this chart before I have sat here on live

TV. I don't know how this takes account of the things like the

raising of the income tax threshold. It includes that. I could have put

the living wage in. That is a huge step for a xapgsate Conservative

Government in terms of helping people to have a living national

wage. It doesn't look much different if you put that in. They all look

like this. You, the minister, Secretary of State, don't even know

that's what the Government is, because you're not presented with

that data. I've made it clear to you that I look at the distributional

ill pact analysis, as I'm sure do colleagues, that's published

alongside the red book. I don't study the IFS figures. I'm looking

at the figures produced by the Treasury and the statistic that the

top 20% are paying more in tax, the top 1% paying 28% of income tax. We

made very clear last year, in the general election campaign, that yes,

we were elected to continue to put a balance back in the economy, to pay

down the deficit, to eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt. We are

not going to do that off the backs of the most vulnerable in society.

Actually Iain Duncan Smith was right to say, wasn't he, that actually the

welfare cuts were being made to cut capital gains tax, 600 million, to

cut tax rates for the people around the higher rate threshold who will

pay less tax, less 40% tax. That's what the pay squeeze was about, not

deficit reduction at all. No, it wasn't about that. There is an issue

with the introduction of the independence payments and the way

that they have worked. We were elected as a Government to bring

control to welfare spending. I think that's still what people very much

expect us to do. They also expect us to get investment from companies for

people to be recognised if they are making investments and they're

employing people. That's also what we've got to do. One of the great

achievements of the last Government and this current one is the

continuing growth in the number of jobs, two million more people

employed. That doesn't just happen overnight. That happens from people

making investment decisions to come here to employ. Some of those

people, as well, who have been helped back to work, by, I might

add, Iain Duncan Smith's reforms when he was secretary for work and

pensions, a record he can be enormously proud of. On Thursday on

Question Time, you described the PIP changes as we've got to finish our

consultation. Yes. Did you misspeak or had you been told to say that?

They did look like policy in the Budget then you turned them into

consultation on the Thursday night. No, I didn't misspeak. What I was

saying was that we still had more conversations to have about those

changes with members of Parliament, with disability groups, with those

who were affected. Yes, the formal consultation had finished, but there

was - But they were in the Budget book as policy and then they were

consultation. I mean, this is the second Budget actually George

Osborne has given, because last year he put tax credit changes that had

to be u turned. Does he not take a big knock to his reputation that

basically every time he announces a Budget we now expect some of it is

going to be withdrawn, or some of it will be described as consultation a

day later? There wasn't a consensus around the proposed changes to the

personal independence payments, not to tax credits last Autumn. Actually

I think it's a measure that the Government list beings to what

people are -- listens to what people are saying and makes changes. The

Chancellor took on a broken economy, not only are there two million more

people employed, the deficit will be down two thirds at the start of the

next financial year, we're the fastest growing economy in the

developed world. These are significant achievements. The only

reason we could spend 1. ?1.6 billion more on schools last week is

because we have that strong economy. That's the same for colleagues

across Government in terms of their departments. Those are big

achievements of this Chancellor. Just to clarify, last point, to

clarify, where there was confusion earlier this evening, Stephen Crabb,

new DWP secretary says no plans to change welfare. Most of us thought

he meant this Parliament. Is that how you interpripted it? Yes, I

think what he's saying is that there are no planned changes. There are

changes that have been set out to welfare previously. Already, yes.

Which have to work their way through, like the full

implementation of universal credit. Obviously, I think any of your

viewers watching would say it would be madness to - It could happen but

no plans. No plans. If everything goes to plan, more or less we've had

all the welfare cuts we're going to have. That is my understanding.

That's your understanding? If you don't understand, you're in the

Cabinet! How are we meant to understand if it's not clear. This

is the day the whole thing was meant to be resolved, you're fighting

back. The new Secretary of State for work and pensions was very clear.

There are no planned changes to welfare in this Parliament. We've

announced some changes. I think Stephen Crabb will be a fantastic -

it's a shame to have lost Iain, but Stephen will be a good Work and

Pensions Secretary. Thank you. Well, you may blame the problems

the Government is facing today on its own manifesto

from the general election last year. It wasn't a suicide note exactly,

more a guide to shooting yourself Well, those twin ambitions

of running a budget surplus and cutting ?12 billion in welfare,

so useful at election time in making Labour look weak,

have proved awkward in power. The words petard and

hoist come to mind. So, let's focus a little more

on where we now stand on welfare, and how far Iain Duncan Smith got

in delivering the Government's aims. Here's our policy

editor, Chris Cook. Working age welfare has been cut

time and again since 2010. Protests against the cuts to disability Ben

have become a regular occurrence. Yesterday, the now resigned Work and

Pensions Secretary seemed to agree with the placard wavers. So why is

it that George Osborne keeps going back to the welfare budget? He

really has few choices, he has boxed himself into that position. First of

all, he said he would like to run a budget surplus in 2019, which would

require spending cuts or tax rises to achieve, but he has said he

doesn't want tax rises, in fact he has pencilled in some tax cuts. And

there are some budget he won't touch, such as pensions and the NHS,

so he has very few options other than a few unprotected departments,

and the working age welfare budget. George Osborne has always believed

you can cut as much as you like for working age benefits and there is no

political pain, because overall the electorate don't really mind, the

people who vote are not affected and they just don't care. Still, it

wasn't supposed to be like this. The tree was we could save money on

welfare by reforming it, getting people into work and making sure

that money is focused on people who need support. I think we are showing

you can come up with some very radical answers if you take Welfare

Reform Bill, radical reform of the welfare state since Beveridge for 60

years, I think it will have a transformative effect, making sure

that everyone is better off in work and better off working rather than

on benefits. An emblem of this reform was the work capability

assessment. Mr Duncan Smith accelerated existing plans to check

whether most incapacity benefit claimants should really be on

welfare. Idea was the work capability assessment would save

money. Here is the DWP 2011 forecast what would happen to the incapacity

benefits Bill after WPA kicked in. You can see it falling, and the

savings just around the corner, and here is 2013, much the same, savings

to come in the future. But they never arrived. The WC a failed. Here

is the OBR's latest forecast of what this bill will look like. You can

see it is rising. The assessments for those benefits are incredibly

conjugated, and what looks simple and Whitehall department isn't that

simple when you get to people's everyday lives, the complexities of

physical and mental health conditions, the complex co-morbidity

when people have all sorts of different problems affecting them,

and the relatively low qualified people doing the assessments just

can't cope. One of Mr Duncan Smith's other ideas to reform disability

benefit and save money was the so-called Personal Independence

Payment, the idea it would replace the disability allowance and save

20%. In practice, the replacement of DLA with PIP has only saved 5%. The

planned savings were only an entry on a spreadsheet, there was never a

plan to deliver them, they could only be delivered by having a much

more stringent medical test, and that wasn't practical. Universal

credit is a slightly different story. That wasn't a plant a

short-term savings, it was a plan to overhaul the whole welfare system,

merging six in work and out of work benefits for working age people.

There were supposed to be 5.5 million people on universal credit

by this point. So far, there are only 200,000. It is way off track,

and I have been questions about whether the Government without Mr

Duncan Smith to push it through will keep going with universal credit.

When it was first planned, it was going to be more generous than tax

credits, so the Treasury didn't mind that much that it got delayed and

delayed. Now it will be less generous, so there is a strong

incentive to the Treasury to push it through. The Treasury now projects

that if it can get universal credit approach, it can save ?2.5 billion

per year this Parliament. Roger Osborne will need that to help it is

surplus target, because in the last few days, it became harder to watch

-- cut working age Alfei any further. Chris Kirkland.

I'm joined by Andrew Mitchell MP, and Charlotte Pickles,

who was an expert advisor to Iain Duncan Smith under

the coalition Government, and is now senior research director

Good evening. Charlotte, two objectives, saving money, just

getting money out of the welfare budget, and reforming welfare. Do

you think they put too much money on saving rather than reforming? I

think that is what ended up happening, yes. If you look at what

Iain Duncan Smith went into Government to do, it was to deliver

a better welfare system that got better outcomes for the people that

received those monies. That tension with the Treasury wanting to save

money, to take billions out of welfare, clearly made that very

difficult, and I think the best illustration is universal credit

where division is absolutely right but we are seeing that constantly

chip away at because savings are needed. Do you accept that? I accept

completely the tension between reforming the system and saving

money, and we have to save money in tackling the deficit, and welfare

was where the money is. But there will always be a tension between the

Treasury, there was 20 years ago when I was a minister in what was

then not DWP but Social Security, there is always that tension, and at

a time of austerities, that tension is very great indeed. Which

Charlotte, you're not just blaming the Treasury for the failures of

Iain Duncan Smith and you working for him to actually deliver the

reforms? Everything he touched didn't quite go to plan, did it?

Universal credit is a fraction of what it should be, the work

capability assessment didn't work, ESA didn't save the money they

expected, so none of it has really worked. I don't think anyone would

say this is a difficult task, but he is a man who is incredibly

principled and committed to trying to deliver a better welfare system,

and if you look at the early indications, the evaluations of

universal credit, people who are on it are getting into work faster,

staying in work longer and earning more competitive people who are not

on it. The WC a hasn't worked, we need a different model, but it was

designed by Labour, and we picked that up. But the things that didn't

work were not not working, because the Treasury had tried to save

money. Was it the not saving money that stopped it rolling out, all the

work capability assessment failing? They were misconceived. With

universal credit, there have been well rehearsed challenges around IT,

problems in that. You can't blame the Treasury. Based on a challenge

where you have a different department that is constantly coming

back, budget after spending review after Autumn Statement Sane, give us

more money, the distraction that causes, the focus that you have on

trying to say, trying to deliver all the time, but they are important

reforms. Andrew Mitchell, did you see any weight in the IDS argument

about pension benefits, that the balance between working age and

pension cuts has been far too heavy on working age population? I think

it is an issue, but we were clear in the general election that we would

maintain those pension benefits, and politicians should stand by the

promises they make. But you would rather they haven't made that

promise? I think it is important to look after pensioners because they

have much less flexible to in their earning and spending power, and

there needs also increase, and most of them have given this country a

great deal in their working life, so I wouldn't say that was a part of

the problem, but there is always this tension, and these big

projects. They are always bedevilled by problems, I think universal

credit is a good change and we have to persevere with it and get it

right. Compassionate conservatism. Who is the guardian of this? Is it

Iain Duncan Smith who many think of as being on the right of the party,

the more harsh, you would say, or is it George Osborne who is now being

portrayed as the guy who is trying to slash benefits? I am absolutely

clear that it is both and they both have a different role to play, the

role of Iain Duncan Smith is to reform the system. He has after all

got 150,000 disabled people back into work for the first time in each

of the last two years, and the George Osborne, a one nation

compassionate conservatives certainly because he has to make

sure we don't imperil the future of the next generations by the debts we

have run up on the size of the deficit today which have got to be

tackled. Who do you think is the more compassionate of those two? You

can't do compassionate conservatism without of economy that is working,

and the Prime Minister made that point today. You can't have

opportunity of jobs are not there, and that is what we have had, we

have had an incredible jobs growth that has enabled people to go to

work, so I will sidestep that and recognise that there is value in

both. Thank you both very much indeed.

When President Obama steps aside in ten months' time,

to who knows what, what will his foreign policy legacy be?

America's hostility to the country had looked anachronistic,

And President Obama has rectified that by opening relations.

But how big a deal is that, given that in geopolitical terms,

Cuba is not as significant as it used to be in the Cold War?

Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has been wondering.

What it takes to build a foreign policy legacy these days anyway? The

White House has put its own footage out underlying the historic nature

of this visit. But while there was plenty of excitement in the

presidential party, they Havana glanced in these shots look near

deserted, controlled, a stage for a tightly scripted political drama.

The road ahead will not be easy. Fortunately we don't have to swim

with sharks in order to achieve the goals that you and I have set forth.

As you say here in Cuba, despite the difficulties, we will continue to

move forward. It is a historic visit. We will see how

transformative the policy, obviously there is still resistance in Cuba in

certain areas, resistance here in the United States. The payoff is

going to take some time, but I think as a policy wager it is a reasonable

one. But with today's ceremony at a monument to Cuba's revolutionary

heroes, Mr Obama found himself overlooked by shade of are and under

fire at home. -- Che Guevara. The charge that he is consorting with

the dictator country. He is trying to address an issue that is

important to his ideological and of the spectrum, the far left who sees

Castro is some kind of romantic figure, and more to the point, the

United States as doing wrong by the Cuban people. I think that shows his

misunderstanding of the reality. With Cuba as with many other aspects

of what the president might hope for is his legacy, parties -- partisan

clashes could lead a president to force on a policy that the Obama

administration has invested much in. I think it is interesting that it is

not simply between the parties but within the parties. You have the

foreign policy divide between Secretary Clinton and Senator

Sanders just the same way you have them between Mr Trump, Ted Cruz and

Senator Kasich. That is a reality that all too often has come to

characterise my nation's capitol, and has made it harder for the

United States to be consistently reliable. Events have also

frustrated key elements of the Obama agenda, like trying to get out of

Iraq and Afghanistan. Even today in Havana, he had to pay tribute to a

US Marine killed in Iraq at the weekend, and the Pentagon

acknowledged it now has nearly 4000 troops trying to stabilise the

country the president had once pulled them out of. If Cuba has been

a success for the President's policy, reconciling with adverse

arrays has been an even bigger one in the shape of the Iran nuclear

deal. But that has taken a huge amount of diplomatic and political

effort, dominating the diplomacy of his second term. And some would

argue it has led him to make too many concessions to countries like

Russia and Iran who fundamentally do not stand for the same interest as

the United States. And it's the turmoil in the Middle East that

leads even supporters to accuse Mr Obama of aggregating leadership. The

world is such that unless the United States leads, the bad guys show up,

and we sat on the sidelines in Syria not wanting to really get involved,

for understandable reasons, but we are strong on diplomacy, stronger on

trying to work with the opposition, or else recognise that Assad is in

power and our number-1 goal to get ices out of it safe haven in Iraq

and Syria. -- Isis. And that is where we should have been four years

ago. Ending a blockade on Cuba that hasn't made sense the decades might

seem like a small victory to celebrate, but it is a message of

how hard it has been for Mr Obama to craft distinctive foreign policy

legacy that at this stage he is working it to the max.

Only ten years old today, and yet it's already almost passed

through the whole life cycle of a technology company,

from hope, to excitement, to ubiquity and now to many

Once upon a time, ten years ago, in fact, a little bird was born. Its

USP, tweeting in only 140 characters.

When it comes to breaking news it's hard to imagine operating without

Twitter, even the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound was unknowingly

tweeted by an IT consulted nearby. First tweeted, "Helicopter hovering

here is a rare event." Following that was it clear what he had heard.

Then there's the service Twitter offers as an information

disseminator. Take the Japanese tsunami in the same year, with many

mobile networks and telephone land lines down after the earthquake,

terrified residents went to Twitter and of course, Facebook, for

guidance. Evacuate to higher ground was the advice from government. Many

got that and other information about what to pack in an emergency kit

from social media. But recently, this little bird has had many an

obstacle in its path. The word is that Facebook, Twitter's bigger,

more predatory rival, is winning out. It's been hard to Monday ties

Twitter's value and once the market wised up that growth in users was

slowing, the share price plummeted. Twitter's reputation is built on its

influence on popular opinion. The Arab Spring, seen by some as

possibly its biggest coup, was dubbed the Twitter revolution. That

meant the site was harnessed to spread the word, to galvanise the

people. We can't talk about a Twitter revolution. We cannot talk

about a Facebook revolution. It's the revolution of the people on the

ground, people who faced the tear gas and the bullets. Tunisia,

Twitter is not very popular in comparison to Facebook. But let me

say that Twitter helped enriching international media. For some time,

not just the international media, but politicians too really believed

that Twitter was a powerful tool to connect with those difficult to

catch demographics, particularly the young. Four more years tweeted

Barack Obama on his second term win. Within an hour it was the site's

most popular tweet. This president, Twitter's fourth most followed

person, considered by many to have harnessed the power of social media.

But four years on, certainly when it comes to British elections, Twitter

hasn't played the role that was expected. Linton Crosby the

Conservative election strategist reportedly didn't believe in it as a

campaigning tool. Labour learned hard lessons about Twitter's

influence. I think we did think Twitter was important. We relied on

it a bit too much. I think we got a false impression because we were

getting a very good, strong feed back from Twitter, I think we

thought that's the way the whole country was going. Of course, that

didn't happen as we found to our shock and horror when that exit poll

dropped at 9. 55pm. A lot is asked of this little bird. If questions

mount over its ability to influence opinion, it could find itself not a

bird who can fly but a dead duck. Joining me in the studio now

is the feminist activist Caroline Criado-Perez,

who has 35,000 followers on Twitter. And live from New York,

financial journalist Felix Salmon, Nobody told necessity was going to

be a competition! Not a competition. Forget the business model for a

moment, we will talk about that. But as a service, how do you rate

Twitter and what it does and delivers? It's inexpensible. I would

rather have my tweet deck open than have a bloomburg, which is worth

$20,000 a month. It's the only way to keep up with what's going on, to

have conversations with the people who are in the heart of things, to

have - it has an incredibler is endipity engine. -- serendipity

engine. It's nothing like it has ever existed and it's amazing. You

use it a lot, don't you? I use it a fair amount. People suggested to you

you could attach your keys to your dog, so that you wouldn't lose your

keys. It's full of really useful insight. That's true. I absolutely

agree. Yeah, this morning I turned to Twitter because again I locked my

self-out of my flat and you decided there must be a solution. Twitter is

all of those things. But obviously, it has its drawbacks. The draw backs

are that people are really angry on there. It's not just about rape and

death threats. I was thinking the other day, I tweeted about putting,

a guy replied telling me that feminism was cancer. It was a nice,

happy tweet. I didn't really understand it. There's a lot of

anger. You got a lot of nasty stuff, didn't you, after you led a campaign

to have Jane Austin on a banknote. That was the Bank of England's

choice. It was just female representation, just any way, never

mind. But it was horrible. I'm amazed you stayed on. You were

having death threats. I did, I had three weeks' worth of a bombardment

of graphic and detailed rape and death threats. They found an address

and were posting that all over the internet, all over Twitter. It was

terrifying. I stayed on for a number of reasons, one is I'm incredibly

stubborn. The other reasons is what Felix was talking about. It's an

incredibly useful and important tool. It's a journalist, a political

activist, nothing can replace what Twitter does at the moment. It would

be nice if it didn't come with the side order of rape threats. You said

it's not just an echo chamber. For a lot of people it is just an echo

chamber, isn't it? No, I feel, I mean you can set it up that way, if

you want. I feel like you can discover so much with Twitter that

because people are constantly lirchinging out and retweeting

people and linking to sites you've never been to before, remember, it's

a path to the broader internet. This sets it apart from Facebook,

Instagram, Snapchat, all the other social networks because they-to be

enclosed, self-contained. Twitter is much more - it has its fingers

deeper in the web. You learn new things and discover new sites every

day on Twitter. Now Felix, just the business plan, because the business

isn't really rocking in the way that I think the people who bought shares

originally might have hoped. What is wrong with the business plan? Well,

when Twitter went public, I was quite voke alabout the -- vocal

about the idea that the best way to get value out of Twitter was just to

use it rather than buy shares in the hope they would go up. Maybe it

doesn't make a lot of sense as a $30 billion corporation. All

corporations have some kind of value. Twitter's value might be

lower than what the stock market is saying right now. It might be

higher, who knows. I feel that the problem with Twitter is that it went

public and now people are judging it by its share price instead of

judging by the effect it has in the world. Just compare it briefly to

Facebook. How do you use the two, separate the two? I think that I

probably speak more freely on Facebook because of the - You

control your circle more. I control who see it's. I don't have to worry

about rape threats or telling me I'm cancer because I spoke about

pudding. 1. 6 billion monthly users on Facebook, 320 million on Twitter.

I use Twitter to get my message to a wider audience. In Facebook I'm

preach is to the converted. On the whole they agree with emany. With

Twitter I have a chance to talk to people who don't agree with me.

That's an important tool. Thank you both very much indeed.

Newsnight is back tomorrow. I'm here then. Good night.

Hello. It looks like a chilly start to the day on Tuesday, with a touch

of frost in a few spots and patches of mist and fog. Apart from that

it's a bright start to the day. Cloud amounts increase into the

afternoon, leaving southern and eastern areas with a few spells of

sunshine. Further north and west you are, it's likely to be cloudy, but

dry in Northern Ireland. The odd spot of light rain or drizzle for