:00:00. > :00:00.It was the big idea for repairing broken Britain
:00:07. > :00:15.The Troubled Families Programme - dealing with neighbours from hell,
:00:16. > :00:18.turning lives around. Tonight, we can tell you whether our money
:00:19. > :00:22.Councils said they were getting 99% success rates in the programme.
:00:23. > :00:40.We have seen the official assessment and it makes for grim reading.
:00:41. > :00:42.In effect, it achieved nothing at all.
:00:43. > :00:45.We'll ask David Cameron's Youth and Crime Advisor how and why
:00:46. > :00:48.Jeremy Corbyn's re-election chances improved today, when Labour's new
:00:49. > :00:52.But did his much bigger victory lie in the new National Executive
:00:53. > :00:54.members, like this one, who were elected today?
:00:55. > :00:56.And finally, sofa surfing Rio's Olympics.
:00:57. > :01:05.Steve Smith and Will Self sit on tonight's Throne of Games.
:01:06. > :01:13.I do not know if you have emotional crescendo is like that when you
:01:14. > :01:20.writing. When you calling a good metaphor, you punch the air. As if I
:01:21. > :01:27.have beaten other matter for writers. -- metaphor.
:01:28. > :01:30.On this night five years ago, 2011, riots were erupting
:01:31. > :01:35.What had started as local trouble in Tottenham had triggered a chain
:01:36. > :01:37.reaction of violence, theft and destruction.
:01:38. > :01:41.For a lot of us, it was a shock to think that lawlessness
:01:42. > :01:47.An indication of a broken Britain, perhaps.
:01:48. > :01:50.The then newish Prime Minister, David Cameron, was determined to get
:01:51. > :01:53.a grip, and among the big ideas for preventing a repeat, was to pour
:01:54. > :01:59.money into something called the Troubled Families programme.
:02:00. > :02:02.Hundreds of millions of pounds aimed at turning the lives
:02:03. > :02:04.round of 120,000 families, who were said to have
:02:05. > :02:08.What a difference it could make, to sort out the really bad apples
:02:09. > :02:12.It seemed like a good idea, so how did it go?
:02:13. > :02:20.Our taxes have paid for an official assessment,
:02:21. > :02:22.but the Communities Department has sat on it for almost a year.
:02:23. > :02:26.But worse than that is that the Troubled Families programme
:02:27. > :02:46.Five years ago tonight cities and towns across the country were
:02:47. > :02:49.wracked by violence and looting. The government 's headline response to
:02:50. > :02:54.the virus that hit streets across the UK like the one behind me here
:02:55. > :02:58.in Salford, was the so-called Troubled Families Programme. The
:02:59. > :03:02.idea was there would spend around ?400 million assisting around
:03:03. > :03:06.120,000 families with difficulties. Then this was extended and
:03:07. > :03:10.eventually a further 400,000 families would be held at a cost of
:03:11. > :03:16.a further ?900 million. The scheme would eventually cost ?1.3 billion
:03:17. > :03:20.and help half a million families. But there's one problem. Newsnight
:03:21. > :03:25.has exclusively learned the government is suppressing evaluation
:03:26. > :03:33.of Troubled Families Programme which suggest that the scheme simply has
:03:34. > :03:37.not been working. Newsnight spent time with one family
:03:38. > :03:41.on the scheme in Greater Manchester a few years ago. This family thought
:03:42. > :03:47.it helped them but it seems their experience may not be the norm. Last
:03:48. > :03:52.autumn the local government department received its own
:03:53. > :03:55.evaluation. The official analysis is seen by Newsnight found no
:03:56. > :03:58.discernible impact on the percentage of adults claiming out of what
:03:59. > :04:03.benefits, either 12 or 18 months after starting on the programme. It
:04:04. > :04:07.found participation did not have any discernible impact on adult
:04:08. > :04:10.offending was up there was no detectable impact on child offending
:04:11. > :04:20.and any impact that the programme had on truancy was not robust. So
:04:21. > :04:23.what was it actually supposed to do? This was meant to deal with people
:04:24. > :04:28.who had not been at work, who were causing problems on the streets and
:04:29. > :04:33.costing the state a large sum of money. The solution really was to
:04:34. > :04:36.try to bring all the different disciplines together, social
:04:37. > :04:43.services, police, probation, even the Fire Service, together to deal
:04:44. > :04:48.with for one person to deal with one family and tried to get the kids
:04:49. > :04:53.into school. People into work and the amount of call-outs by the
:04:54. > :04:57.police reduced. Newsnight has previously raised concerns about the
:04:58. > :05:00.design of the Troubled Families Programme. It is not actually a
:05:01. > :05:06.scheme aimed at dealing with the kinds of people who took part in the
:05:07. > :05:10.Luiten for example this shop here in Manchester back in 2011. Rather each
:05:11. > :05:13.local authority was simply set a target number of families with
:05:14. > :05:17.multiple disadvantages that they had defined in the local area and work
:05:18. > :05:23.with. Hope was they could be turned around. But in the troubled families
:05:24. > :05:28.jargon, turned around is a funny idea. You can for example be deemed
:05:29. > :05:31.to have been turned around even if your family still has kids playing
:05:32. > :05:35.truant and committing crimes, just so long as they're committing fewer
:05:36. > :05:42.crimes and playing a bit less truant before.
:05:43. > :05:46.The payment system was also odd. Councils got ?3000 for each family
:05:47. > :05:52.on the scheme. And a bonus ?800 if they were deemed turned around.
:05:53. > :05:54.There were strong incentives for councils to claim successes. So
:05:55. > :06:01.Manchester City Council here found and worked with 2385 troubled
:06:02. > :06:09.families. And you will never guess how many they turned around, all
:06:10. > :06:15.2385. A 100% success rate. The same as they had in Salford, they turned
:06:16. > :06:19.around all 835 of their troubled families. 100% success rate, not
:06:20. > :06:24.something you normally see in social policy but something that you see a
:06:25. > :06:30.lot in troubled families. This analyst is one of many who was
:06:31. > :06:33.puzzled over previous claims of 99% success rate is nationally for
:06:34. > :06:37.troubled families. When you look at the published data you have these
:06:38. > :06:41.high percentage success rates, it just does not look right and when
:06:42. > :06:44.you dig deeper, you look at the published figures and numbers
:06:45. > :06:49.published in data releases and compare that to the data which local
:06:50. > :06:52.authorities hold, and I did that through Freedom of information
:06:53. > :06:54.requests. You find the significant differences in terms of
:06:55. > :06:59.straightforward things, basic monitoring. The number of families
:07:00. > :07:02.worked with, I found huge discrepancies between what they told
:07:03. > :07:06.me in freedom of information requests and what was published.
:07:07. > :07:11.What you say to people who have concerns about these high success
:07:12. > :07:15.rates? I have visited Salford and it was a slick organisation in terms of
:07:16. > :07:20.bringing people together in the same room. And they started to bear down
:07:21. > :07:27.on individual families. I would not be surprised at height 90% and in
:07:28. > :07:30.Salford, not at 100. But the official evaluation feels a long way
:07:31. > :07:34.from 100% access anywhere. Civil servants they had it been positive,
:07:35. > :07:37.it would have been published. But the government denies that the
:07:38. > :07:40.report has breast, stating that there were several strands to the
:07:41. > :07:47.evaluation work commissioned by the last government and is not yet a
:07:48. > :07:50.final report. The troubled families policy targeted resources at people
:07:51. > :07:52.who do need help. It is just not clear that it worked.
:07:53. > :07:55.Note that it was not ridiculous to target efforts at families
:07:56. > :07:59.It was not stupid to think that giving them proper attention,
:08:00. > :08:01.a caseworker in charge might be better than sporadic
:08:02. > :08:03.interventions from police or schools or social workers.
:08:04. > :08:10.We did ask the Government for an interview but were turned down.
:08:11. > :08:13.Instead, I'm joined by Shaun Bailey, who was David Cameron's Advisor on
:08:14. > :08:28.Good evening. When you saw those 99% success rate is coming back from
:08:29. > :08:33.local authorities, did you think you could take them seriously? I thought
:08:34. > :08:39.there could be different between what workers on the ground felt that
:08:40. > :08:45.any progress would look like a success and other things web local
:08:46. > :08:49.authorities were under serious pressure and saw it as a way of
:08:50. > :08:54.bringing new money into the work. But social policy at 100% success,
:08:55. > :08:58.it would be a first. And they were being paid for declaring themselves,
:08:59. > :09:01.marking their own homework and saying that they had turned them
:09:02. > :09:08.around. Of course, you do not have to be worldly wise, to know it is
:09:09. > :09:11.nonsense. In their defence as local authorities these families would be
:09:12. > :09:16.known to you. And to have the ability to spend more time and more
:09:17. > :09:19.money would probably feel like some kind of success. So they may have
:09:20. > :09:23.felt they achieved something. Last year the Prime Minister said, I can
:09:24. > :09:28.announce today, this is David Cameron, almost all of the 170
:09:29. > :09:33.families that we began to work with have now been turned around. Was he
:09:34. > :09:37.deluding himself or just trying to lighten the load? I think people are
:09:38. > :09:42.excited about the change. I have worked in this arena for a long time
:09:43. > :09:45.and can see how the finances gave a new impetus, there was new energy on
:09:46. > :09:50.the ground. Louise Casey was no nonsense in giving people what they
:09:51. > :09:55.thought was the go-ahead to do it. No nonsense, but this is complete
:09:56. > :10:00.nonsense. We are just been told complete and total nonsense, told
:10:01. > :10:06.but 99% success rate, these are like elections in the former Soviet
:10:07. > :10:13.Union. We have a serious analysis... Firstly I would say the analysis,
:10:14. > :10:16.the government set out to do that analysis and that allows them to
:10:17. > :10:21.move forward in the right direction. What must be stressed, no government
:10:22. > :10:25.until this one had come up with a coherent idea about moving these
:10:26. > :10:28.people on. You must remember that this is a massive cost to taxpayers
:10:29. > :10:32.and also it is about changing lives around because we cannot have a
:10:33. > :10:38.situation where we just accept that. So for the government to champion
:10:39. > :10:44.this and enjoy what may have been not quite as much success as they
:10:45. > :10:50.had been led to believe, I could see why that happened. No success, no
:10:51. > :10:54.detectable, measurable effect as opposed to the 99% success rate is
:10:55. > :10:58.that the Prime Minister told us. Did he know when he said almost all of
:10:59. > :11:05.the families had been turned around, did he know that they had not been?
:11:06. > :11:10.He would be acting from the statistics he was given, I cannot
:11:11. > :11:14.sit and defend what went on in the reporting, but what the government
:11:15. > :11:19.must not give up on now is this policy. We do have to focus on these
:11:20. > :11:25.sets of people. What is interesting, looking at a Democratic --
:11:26. > :11:28.demographic board of view, most people in that demographic work hard
:11:29. > :11:33.for the families so we have got to find a way of helping these few. By
:11:34. > :11:38.creating something which was effectively windowdressing, the
:11:39. > :11:42.Troubled Families Programme, where they did not use real criteria to
:11:43. > :11:45.find these families and to determine what help to give them, you have
:11:46. > :11:51.taken what seems like a good idea and basically discredited it. I
:11:52. > :11:56.completely disagree. The analysis that gave these figures, it
:11:57. > :12:05.identified the correct things. Where are your analysis was wrong, this
:12:06. > :12:09.was far bigger than the people involved in the riots. And many of
:12:10. > :12:16.those who were involved in the writing would not have been flagged
:12:17. > :12:19.up as a troubled family. The analysis was correct and it showed
:12:20. > :12:25.there was no silver bullet to address these families but we must
:12:26. > :12:30.try. And the statistics show we must continue to do do do that. But I
:12:31. > :12:33.agree that we need to shift the emphasis. Perhaps more sticks and
:12:34. > :12:39.carrots. Should the government published the analysis which Chris
:12:40. > :12:45.has been giving because the taxpayer, we have paid for this
:12:46. > :12:49.analysis, clearly there has been misleading information as to the
:12:50. > :12:53.effectiveness of the programme. Why not say dear taxpayer, you can have
:12:54. > :12:57.a look at this and assess. You called it brief that they have done
:12:58. > :13:04.the analysis, but they did not publish it. I would 100% publish. I
:13:05. > :13:08.would published to get the wider community and professionals and
:13:09. > :13:12.charities involved. Involved in the next step because there must be a
:13:13. > :13:17.next step, and secondly it has been paid for and we cannot just as the
:13:18. > :13:21.government for trying a thing to benefit the country. And when it
:13:22. > :13:24.does not quite work out then beat them up about the statistics. We
:13:25. > :13:28.must take the thing forward. I maintain it was a brave thing to do
:13:29. > :13:30.and we should do more of it. But it definitely needs to change.
:13:31. > :13:32.The Jeremy Corbyn wing of the Labour Party
:13:33. > :13:35.have had a good day - entrenching their hold on the party.
:13:36. > :13:38.You might have heard about a High Court judge telling
:13:39. > :13:40.the party it can't stop its recently signed-up members from
:13:41. > :13:42.getting a chance to vote in the leadership election.
:13:43. > :13:46.And there was a second boost, in elections for National
:13:47. > :13:49.Corbyn supporters took a little more control.
:13:50. > :14:04.Just a few weeks ago the rival factions of Labour spent 48 hours
:14:05. > :14:08.battling on the streets encouraging voters to pay a one-off fee. Support
:14:09. > :14:12.Jeremy Corbyn. They thought it was too late for people to become new
:14:13. > :14:19.members of the party and get a vote that way. But today's court decision
:14:20. > :14:22.changes that. Tonight, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the ruling that allows
:14:23. > :14:26.thousands of members who joined Labour after January 12 to take part
:14:27. > :14:30.in the ballot. From the judgment that was given today, the judge
:14:31. > :14:33.seemed very clear that his decision was that all members of the party
:14:34. > :14:37.should have a right to vote in the leadership contest. Surely that has
:14:38. > :14:42.to be the right decision. The Labour Party currently has around a
:14:43. > :14:48.whopping 500,000 official members. But around 130,000 of them joined
:14:49. > :14:52.within the last six months. The NEC ruled they wouldn't get a vote in
:14:53. > :14:59.the leadership contest. The only way they could is if they paid an extra
:15:00. > :15:04.?25 to become registered supporters. Now there's 130,000 back in. Labour
:15:05. > :15:08.looks likely to have to repay the ?25 fees any of them paid to become
:15:09. > :15:13.registered supporters. The The case for me and others was all about
:15:14. > :15:18.fairness and equality and inclusion in the political process. Unfairness
:15:19. > :15:21.being the main reason. It seemed very perverse that the Labour Party
:15:22. > :15:26.should manipulate the rules to exclude nearly a quarter of its
:15:27. > :15:32.membership. Yet at the same time offer memberships to those who could
:15:33. > :15:36.afford to pay the ?25. Current polling puts Corbyn ahead in the
:15:37. > :15:40.race. But whilst most agree the majority of more recent members back
:15:41. > :15:46.him, it's not clear just how significant allowing them to vote
:15:47. > :15:53.will be. Among this group of people who are voting in the leadership
:15:54. > :15:56.election, it appears at the moment that Jeremy Corbyn is in prime
:15:57. > :16:00.position. But we don't know for sure what this new group will bring to
:16:01. > :16:03.the voting. It's likely, my sense is that they will probably favour
:16:04. > :16:08.Jeremy Corbyn. We don't know how many of them have already signed up
:16:09. > :16:12.as ?25 members. There's a lot of uncertainty around that. But a lot
:16:13. > :16:18.could change as Owen Smith becomes better known. It was at a closely
:16:19. > :16:23.split NEC meeting last month that the decision was take ton bar recent
:16:24. > :16:28.party members from voting. The NEC is changing. Results in its election
:16:29. > :16:32.out tonight showed victories for Corbyn supporters. The current NEC
:16:33. > :16:37.has decided to appeal against today's court ruling. The Shadow
:16:38. > :16:40.Chancellor, John McDonnell, described that as a deeply
:16:41. > :16:47.disappointing decision Ayrad small clique of people behind closed
:16:48. > :16:50.doors. I don't think it's right for John or I to interfere in the ruling
:16:51. > :16:53.body of the Labour Party. It's for them to choose what they're going to
:16:54. > :16:57.do, whether they're going to appeal the ruling or not. Whatever the
:16:58. > :17:04.rules are, I'm just going to play by them and continuing to make my case.
:17:05. > :17:09.Some people see the NEC decision as effectively a deliberate attempt to
:17:10. > :17:13.disenfranchise Corbyn supporters. We don't know that's the case. I know
:17:14. > :17:16.lots of moderates were signing up to vote against Corbyn as well. It cuts
:17:17. > :17:21.both ways. The party has the right to appeal. Surely it should stand by
:17:22. > :17:26.the considered decision and the democratic decision that its ruling
:17:27. > :17:32.body took. That, if there's an appeal process, that could delay the
:17:33. > :17:36.whole leadership contest. People are saying that the appeal process would
:17:37. > :17:40.be dealt with, it could be in court as early as Thursday. Owen Smith has
:17:41. > :17:44.called for an extension of the leadership contest. But the whole
:17:45. > :17:49.process is getting rather messy. The more these internal rifts are played
:17:50. > :17:52.out in public, the harder it will be for the party to eventually come
:17:53. > :17:54.together. And the less time they have to focus on holding the new
:17:55. > :18:00.Conservative Government to account. Well, let's discuss the day's events
:18:01. > :18:03.now with Claudia Webbe, who was today elected
:18:04. > :18:04.to Labour's NEC. Also with us are the columnist
:18:05. > :18:09.and former advisor to Tony Blair, John McTernan, and the journalist
:18:10. > :18:21.and author, Rachel Shabi. If I can start with you, if I may,
:18:22. > :18:25.Claudia, look, it's been posseted as a kind of the hard left getting more
:18:26. > :18:31.of a grip on the party, today's NEC election. Is that how you see it?
:18:32. > :18:34.No, what I see is that what we've got now is to have an opportunity
:18:35. > :18:41.for a powerful voice for ordinary party members. I've been located to
:18:42. > :18:44.represent the voice of ordinary party members, the constituency
:18:45. > :18:47.Labour Party around the country and ensure that ordinary members get a
:18:48. > :18:50.say in the running and working of the Labour Party. It's about
:18:51. > :18:55.enabling that voice and that influence to be heard, to be
:18:56. > :18:59.recognised and to be supported. But what's - how would you like the NEC
:19:00. > :19:06.to change? What do you think of the way the NEC has been operating? How
:19:07. > :19:10.would you alter it? If I was on the NEC at the time it was making
:19:11. > :19:14.decision that's related to the voice of ordinary party members, the whole
:19:15. > :19:18.notion that we've had where members have not been able to, for example,
:19:19. > :19:22.vote in the forth coming leadership election, because of the ruling of
:19:23. > :19:27.the NEC, clearly, I would not be voting that way or I would not be
:19:28. > :19:33.directing the National Executive Committee to diminish the voice of
:19:34. > :19:38.ordinary party members. It's important that of those 33 members
:19:39. > :19:42.that rule the Labour Party that the voice of ordinary party members has
:19:43. > :19:45.much more of a say. You have to recognise that things have changed
:19:46. > :19:51.since Jeremy Corbyn became leader. There's been a huge increase in
:19:52. > :19:55.party membership. We're now at 500,000, half a million, members.
:19:56. > :20:00.Probably the largest party in the UK, if not western Europe. That
:20:01. > :20:04.voice therefore, that increase in voice of the members needs to really
:20:05. > :20:09.come through and be reflected. Thank you very much. Let's turn to the
:20:10. > :20:14.other two of you, if I might. John, isn't it obvious now that your wing
:20:15. > :20:17.of the party has lost control of the steering wheel. The other side have
:20:18. > :20:20.pushed you out of the way. They've got the wheel. They're going to
:20:21. > :20:24.drive the car in the direction they want. It's very hard to see how
:20:25. > :20:27.you're going to get it back, at least for a couple of decades.
:20:28. > :20:32.People who want to see a Labour Government, people like me who
:20:33. > :20:36.support clause one of the Labour Party, about being a Parliamentary
:20:37. > :20:40.party that wins power, today's a set back for us, the NEC elections are
:20:41. > :20:44.disastrous, as is the High Court ruling. There's no doubt in my mind
:20:45. > :20:49.that a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party with the kind of focus it's
:20:50. > :20:54.got now is not focussed on electability, on winning power, or
:20:55. > :20:57.winning elections. It may not take two decades, it's certainly going to
:20:58. > :21:02.take ten years to take the Labour Party back to where it be a
:21:03. > :21:06.presentable party. Do you agree that it is basically, essentially we've
:21:07. > :21:10.had two people wrestling over control and it's resolved in favour
:21:11. > :21:15.of the left. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that only one part of
:21:16. > :21:18.this equation is interested in electability. Of course Jeremy
:21:19. > :21:25.Corbyn and his supporters want to win power back. But do you think
:21:26. > :21:32.you're in control now? The left is in control and it's very hard for
:21:33. > :21:37.John McTernan to get control back. What I see, if we use the analogy,
:21:38. > :21:41.one side of the party taking hold of the steering wheel, of the Labour
:21:42. > :21:48.Party, repeatedly slamming it into a wall. Let's look at what's happened
:21:49. > :21:51.recently. We've had mass resignations and then the decision
:21:52. > :21:54.to have a leadership election, even though we've only just had one. Then
:21:55. > :21:58.saying that Jeremy Corbyn couldn't be on the ballot. Then saying that
:21:59. > :22:03.Labour Party members couldn't vote for him. Now, we have a High Court
:22:04. > :22:08.ruling saying actually, yes those members can vote. And the NEC
:22:09. > :22:12.response is to contest that using the Labour Party membership money.
:22:13. > :22:16.At what point are they going to say, hang on, we're a democratic party,
:22:17. > :22:24.this is not a democratic process any more. The McDonnell quote says it's
:22:25. > :22:26.a small clique behind closed doors who have openly expressed their
:22:27. > :22:33.opposition to Jeremy. Is it true, isn't it? No, I don't think people
:22:34. > :22:37.have been silent about their scepticism about McDonnell and about
:22:38. > :22:40.Jeremy Corbyn. They are people opposed to the tradition of the
:22:41. > :22:45.Labour Party that wishes to win elections. That's a perfectly decent
:22:46. > :22:48.tradition. They just shouldn't be in charge of the party. Jeremy Corbyn's
:22:49. > :22:52.poll ratings are some of the worst than any party leader has had. The
:22:53. > :22:56.Labour Party is 16 points behind the Tory party. Really, if you're
:22:57. > :23:01.judging by results, his Shadow Cabinet are alienated. 80% of the
:23:02. > :23:04.Parliamentary Labour Party have to work day in day out with him don't
:23:05. > :23:09.trust him and the public don't want to vote with him. That's before the
:23:10. > :23:11.IRA support, support for Ken Livingstone's anti-Semitism, all
:23:12. > :23:15.those things. We've barely scratched the surface. This is the same
:23:16. > :23:19.discussion we've been having for the whole of the summer. The John
:23:20. > :23:25.McDonnell quote, a small clique of people behind closed doors, couldn't
:23:26. > :23:29.we say that's the same of momentum - Claudia was a Momentum candidate.
:23:30. > :23:32.Isn't that what one would say about the clique who've taken over the
:23:33. > :23:38.Labour Party? I think that when you hear stuff like that, it just seems
:23:39. > :23:41.to be so disconnected from a fundamental change that has taken
:23:42. > :23:45.place in politics. Look at the number of people joining the Labour
:23:46. > :23:50.Party - half a million. That's amazing. That's the biggest party in
:23:51. > :23:55.Europe. That is a signal of change. That's not a clique. That is people
:23:56. > :23:59.who have been disconnected from politics for decades and they're now
:24:00. > :24:01.re-engaging, re-invigorated and actually want to create change.
:24:02. > :24:07.That's not a clique. That's a movement. How do you get to
:24:08. > :24:11.represent 500,000, it's basically been supported by momentum, being on
:24:12. > :24:17.their ticket and they you get the vote? I've been a Labour member for
:24:18. > :24:20.over 30 years. I'm a long standing Labour member. When you look at the
:24:21. > :24:25.membership of the Labour Party, it is wide and it is diverse. It is
:24:26. > :24:29.reflective of British society. Could you have been elected if you hadn't
:24:30. > :24:35.had momentum saying "vote for Claudia". They said who to vote for
:24:36. > :24:39.and you all got in. What you saw was a vote for Jeremy Corbyn's ideas and
:24:40. > :24:45.policies and the step in the right direction. Members voted last year
:24:46. > :24:49.in overwhelming ways for Jeremy Corbyn and that is what, in a sense,
:24:50. > :24:52.we're taking forward. Taking forward his ideas, but taking forward
:24:53. > :25:00.grass-roots democracy. That's what members chose to have. What is the
:25:01. > :25:04.plan as to how you win an election? Because you are behind in the polls.
:25:05. > :25:08.You do have a problem, the Shadow Cabinet doesn't trust your leader.
:25:09. > :25:11.You have the problem that you have not persuaded people like John that
:25:12. > :25:15.this is the man to run the party. Tell us the plan for winning, for
:25:16. > :25:20.victory? First of all, let's get this over with, because it's a bit
:25:21. > :25:25.ridiculous saying that the Labour Party's polling has fallen. It's a
:25:26. > :25:30.bit like derailing a train, wrecking it and saying, why can't the driver
:25:31. > :25:36.drive the train. You can blame them. Now I'm asking - what is your plan
:25:37. > :25:40.for getting the party located? I'm only pointed out - Let's deal with
:25:41. > :25:44.the blame. Put aside the blame. What is your plan. We unite. That's not a
:25:45. > :25:51.plan because it's not going to work. Then you campaign. Then you use your
:25:52. > :25:55.grass-roots movement, half a million people, to canvas, to campaign, to
:25:56. > :25:58.go into communities, to talk to people, to persuade them of the
:25:59. > :26:02.Labour argument. That is the plan, last word to you, because you're
:26:03. > :26:06.part of that plan. You basically have to unite for that plan to work.
:26:07. > :26:10.Opposing Trident, leaving the country defenceless, no plan for the
:26:11. > :26:17.economy, no answer on immigration or welfare and on top of that, being a
:26:18. > :26:21.mate of Ken Livingstone, who has anti-Semitic views, there's no
:26:22. > :26:22.chance that's sellable on any doorstep in the country. Thank you
:26:23. > :26:24.all very much. Are you getting into
:26:25. > :26:26.the Olympics yet? Sometimes takes a few
:26:27. > :26:29.days, doesn't it? But to help you, we have
:26:30. > :26:33.our own Stephen Smith. If there was a gold medal
:26:34. > :26:35.for couch-surfing, Here's his view from the sofa,
:26:36. > :26:57.in Throne of Games. Now Newsnight's Olympic coverage...
:26:58. > :27:02.Steven Smith's Throne of Games. Hi there. I'm getting the Newsnight
:27:03. > :27:06.safe house ready for our little feature Throne of Games or the
:27:07. > :27:14.Olympics from a sofa. It puts the pick into Olympics. And the "so"
:27:15. > :27:18.into sofa. DOORBELL RINGS I'm not alone. This is the Games
:27:19. > :27:26.round up they all want to be apart from... I mean a part of. Here's
:27:27. > :27:32.writer and journalist Will Self. There you go Will. Thanks. Thanks,
:27:33. > :27:39.that's great. Welcome to my Throne of Games. Well, there is every
:27:40. > :27:43.evidence that you've been engaged in watching some kind of sport. Yes. In
:27:44. > :27:45.this room. You picked that up. Yes, I have!
:27:46. > :27:51.COMMENTATOR: It's absolutely fantastic. Thomas Pieters takes
:27:52. > :27:57.Olympic gold for -- Adam Pieters takes limb -- Peaty takes Olympic
:27:58. > :28:01.gold. I'm aware of just how hard it is to stay afloat.
:28:02. > :28:07.COMMENTATOR: Come on, come on, cop on! Yes we will. He's got it. Two
:28:08. > :28:16.world records. He's living the dream. Extraordinary. I don't know
:28:17. > :28:20.if you have emotional crescendos like that when you're writing? When
:28:21. > :28:25.you coin a particularly good metaphor, you punch the air. Yeah,
:28:26. > :28:32.why not. It's hard won. As if I've beaten other coiners of metaphors.
:28:33. > :28:40.We can't name people. But Ian McKewon. Nowed so you Ian -- now sod
:28:41. > :28:46.you Ian. I have done a bit of fencing in my time. The basic rule
:28:47. > :28:51.is to pretend to stab your opponent, yeah? Yes. It's unusual really.
:28:52. > :28:56.Because looking to sport to encourage people in various forms of
:28:57. > :28:58.behaviour. Violence. And turn away from violence, you wouldn't have
:28:59. > :29:04.thought this was a very good example. You have to bear in mind,
:29:05. > :29:10.there is nothing comparable in the world of culture and the arts to
:29:11. > :29:16.this sort of event at all. You're not going to get hours and hours of
:29:17. > :29:21.footage of men and women typing in the run up to the - kind of action,
:29:22. > :29:28."Oh, look at that sentence! We'll just have to watch that one again."
:29:29. > :29:36.That would be great. What a lovely rhythm the fellow has, yeah. None of
:29:37. > :29:39.that. You know Montaigne said mistrust a man who takes games too
:29:40. > :29:43.seriously, it means he doesn't take life seriously enough. You're
:29:44. > :29:45.watching Newsnight, the programme that tested positive for a banned
:29:46. > :29:50.sedative. Steve will be back throughout the
:29:51. > :29:54.games. We leave you in Rio,
:29:55. > :29:58.with US women's gymnast Aly Raisman, or rather, her parents,
:29:59. > :30:00.Lynn and Rick, caught on camera by NBC in
:30:01. > :30:02.the audience as she performed. One can only imagine
:30:03. > :30:46.how it feels to watch. Good evening. Pretty cold up there
:30:47. > :30:51.with temperatures down into single figures eyed dawn. Already some
:30:52. > :30:57.showers across northern parts of the UK and becoming quite sharp in some
:30:58. > :30:59.places. More southern parts enjoying the brightest spell. Some showers
:31:00. > :31:00.across