08/08/2016 Newsnight

It was the big idea for repairing broken Britain

The Troubled Families Programme - dealing with neighbours from hell,

turning lives around. Tonight, we can tell you whether our money

Councils said they were getting 99% success rates in the programme.

We have seen the official assessment and it makes for grim reading.

In effect, it achieved nothing at all.

We'll ask David Cameron's Youth and Crime Advisor how and why

Jeremy Corbyn's re-election chances improved today, when Labour's new

But did his much bigger victory lie in the new National Executive

members, like this one, who were elected today?

And finally, sofa surfing Rio's Olympics.

Steve Smith and Will Self sit on tonight's Throne of Games.

I do not know if you have emotional crescendo is like that when you

writing. When you calling a good metaphor, you punch the air. As if I

have beaten other matter for writers. -- metaphor.

On this night five years ago, 2011, riots were erupting

What had started as local trouble in Tottenham had triggered a chain

reaction of violence, theft and destruction.

For a lot of us, it was a shock to think that lawlessness

An indication of a broken Britain, perhaps.

The then newish Prime Minister, David Cameron, was determined to get

a grip, and among the big ideas for preventing a repeat, was to pour

money into something called the Troubled Families programme.

Hundreds of millions of pounds aimed at turning the lives

round of 120,000 families, who were said to have

What a difference it could make, to sort out the really bad apples

It seemed like a good idea, so how did it go?

Our taxes have paid for an official assessment,

but the Communities Department has sat on it for almost a year.

But worse than that is that the Troubled Families programme

Five years ago tonight cities and towns across the country were

wracked by violence and looting. The government 's headline response to

the virus that hit streets across the UK like the one behind me here

in Salford, was the so-called Troubled Families Programme. The

idea was there would spend around ?400 million assisting around

120,000 families with difficulties. Then this was extended and

eventually a further 400,000 families would be held at a cost of

a further ?900 million. The scheme would eventually cost ?1.3 billion

and help half a million families. But there's one problem. Newsnight

has exclusively learned the government is suppressing evaluation

of Troubled Families Programme which suggest that the scheme simply has

not been working. Newsnight spent time with one family

on the scheme in Greater Manchester a few years ago. This family thought

it helped them but it seems their experience may not be the norm. Last

autumn the local government department received its own

evaluation. The official analysis is seen by Newsnight found no

discernible impact on the percentage of adults claiming out of what

benefits, either 12 or 18 months after starting on the programme. It

found participation did not have any discernible impact on adult

offending was up there was no detectable impact on child offending

and any impact that the programme had on truancy was not robust. So

what was it actually supposed to do? This was meant to deal with people

who had not been at work, who were causing problems on the streets and

costing the state a large sum of money. The solution really was to

try to bring all the different disciplines together, social

services, police, probation, even the Fire Service, together to deal

with for one person to deal with one family and tried to get the kids

into school. People into work and the amount of call-outs by the

police reduced. Newsnight has previously raised concerns about the

design of the Troubled Families Programme. It is not actually a

scheme aimed at dealing with the kinds of people who took part in the

Luiten for example this shop here in Manchester back in 2011. Rather each

local authority was simply set a target number of families with

multiple disadvantages that they had defined in the local area and work

with. Hope was they could be turned around. But in the troubled families

jargon, turned around is a funny idea. You can for example be deemed

to have been turned around even if your family still has kids playing

truant and committing crimes, just so long as they're committing fewer

crimes and playing a bit less truant before.

The payment system was also odd. Councils got ?3000 for each family

on the scheme. And a bonus ?800 if they were deemed turned around.

There were strong incentives for councils to claim successes. So

Manchester City Council here found and worked with 2385 troubled

families. And you will never guess how many they turned around, all

2385. A 100% success rate. The same as they had in Salford, they turned

around all 835 of their troubled families. 100% success rate, not

something you normally see in social policy but something that you see a

lot in troubled families. This analyst is one of many who was

puzzled over previous claims of 99% success rate is nationally for

troubled families. When you look at the published data you have these

high percentage success rates, it just does not look right and when

you dig deeper, you look at the published figures and numbers

published in data releases and compare that to the data which local

authorities hold, and I did that through Freedom of information

requests. You find the significant differences in terms of

straightforward things, basic monitoring. The number of families

worked with, I found huge discrepancies between what they told

me in freedom of information requests and what was published.

What you say to people who have concerns about these high success

rates? I have visited Salford and it was a slick organisation in terms of

bringing people together in the same room. And they started to bear down

on individual families. I would not be surprised at height 90% and in

Salford, not at 100. But the official evaluation feels a long way

from 100% access anywhere. Civil servants they had it been positive,

it would have been published. But the government denies that the

report has breast, stating that there were several strands to the

evaluation work commissioned by the last government and is not yet a

final report. The troubled families policy targeted resources at people

who do need help. It is just not clear that it worked.

Note that it was not ridiculous to target efforts at families

It was not stupid to think that giving them proper attention,

a caseworker in charge might be better than sporadic

interventions from police or schools or social workers.

We did ask the Government for an interview but were turned down.

Instead, I'm joined by Shaun Bailey, who was David Cameron's Advisor on

Good evening. When you saw those 99% success rate is coming back from

local authorities, did you think you could take them seriously? I thought

there could be different between what workers on the ground felt that

any progress would look like a success and other things web local

authorities were under serious pressure and saw it as a way of

bringing new money into the work. But social policy at 100% success,

it would be a first. And they were being paid for declaring themselves,

marking their own homework and saying that they had turned them

around. Of course, you do not have to be worldly wise, to know it is

nonsense. In their defence as local authorities these families would be

known to you. And to have the ability to spend more time and more

money would probably feel like some kind of success. So they may have

felt they achieved something. Last year the Prime Minister said, I can

announce today, this is David Cameron, almost all of the 170

families that we began to work with have now been turned around. Was he

deluding himself or just trying to lighten the load? I think people are

excited about the change. I have worked in this arena for a long time

and can see how the finances gave a new impetus, there was new energy on

the ground. Louise Casey was no nonsense in giving people what they

thought was the go-ahead to do it. No nonsense, but this is complete

nonsense. We are just been told complete and total nonsense, told

but 99% success rate, these are like elections in the former Soviet

Union. We have a serious analysis... Firstly I would say the analysis,

the government set out to do that analysis and that allows them to

move forward in the right direction. What must be stressed, no government

until this one had come up with a coherent idea about moving these

people on. You must remember that this is a massive cost to taxpayers

and also it is about changing lives around because we cannot have a

situation where we just accept that. So for the government to champion

this and enjoy what may have been not quite as much success as they

had been led to believe, I could see why that happened. No success, no

detectable, measurable effect as opposed to the 99% success rate is

that the Prime Minister told us. Did he know when he said almost all of

the families had been turned around, did he know that they had not been?

He would be acting from the statistics he was given, I cannot

sit and defend what went on in the reporting, but what the government

must not give up on now is this policy. We do have to focus on these

sets of people. What is interesting, looking at a Democratic --

demographic board of view, most people in that demographic work hard

for the families so we have got to find a way of helping these few. By

creating something which was effectively windowdressing, the

Troubled Families Programme, where they did not use real criteria to

find these families and to determine what help to give them, you have

taken what seems like a good idea and basically discredited it. I

completely disagree. The analysis that gave these figures, it

identified the correct things. Where are your analysis was wrong, this

was far bigger than the people involved in the riots. And many of

those who were involved in the writing would not have been flagged

up as a troubled family. The analysis was correct and it showed

there was no silver bullet to address these families but we must

try. And the statistics show we must continue to do do do that. But I

agree that we need to shift the emphasis. Perhaps more sticks and

carrots. Should the government published the analysis which Chris

has been giving because the taxpayer, we have paid for this

analysis, clearly there has been misleading information as to the

effectiveness of the programme. Why not say dear taxpayer, you can have

a look at this and assess. You called it brief that they have done

the analysis, but they did not publish it. I would 100% publish. I

would published to get the wider community and professionals and

charities involved. Involved in the next step because there must be a

next step, and secondly it has been paid for and we cannot just as the

government for trying a thing to benefit the country. And when it

does not quite work out then beat them up about the statistics. We

must take the thing forward. I maintain it was a brave thing to do

and we should do more of it. But it definitely needs to change.

The Jeremy Corbyn wing of the Labour Party

have had a good day - entrenching their hold on the party.

You might have heard about a High Court judge telling

the party it can't stop its recently signed-up members from

getting a chance to vote in the leadership election.

And there was a second boost, in elections for National

Corbyn supporters took a little more control.

Just a few weeks ago the rival factions of Labour spent 48 hours

battling on the streets encouraging voters to pay a one-off fee. Support

Jeremy Corbyn. They thought it was too late for people to become new

members of the party and get a vote that way. But today's court decision

changes that. Tonight, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the ruling that allows

thousands of members who joined Labour after January 12 to take part

in the ballot. From the judgment that was given today, the judge

seemed very clear that his decision was that all members of the party

should have a right to vote in the leadership contest. Surely that has

to be the right decision. The Labour Party currently has around a

whopping 500,000 official members. But around 130,000 of them joined

within the last six months. The NEC ruled they wouldn't get a vote in

the leadership contest. The only way they could is if they paid an extra

?25 to become registered supporters. Now there's 130,000 back in. Labour

looks likely to have to repay the ?25 fees any of them paid to become

registered supporters. The The case for me and others was all about

fairness and equality and inclusion in the political process. Unfairness

being the main reason. It seemed very perverse that the Labour Party

should manipulate the rules to exclude nearly a quarter of its

membership. Yet at the same time offer memberships to those who could

afford to pay the ?25. Current polling puts Corbyn ahead in the

race. But whilst most agree the majority of more recent members back

him, it's not clear just how significant allowing them to vote

will be. Among this group of people who are voting in the leadership

election, it appears at the moment that Jeremy Corbyn is in prime

position. But we don't know for sure what this new group will bring to

the voting. It's likely, my sense is that they will probably favour

Jeremy Corbyn. We don't know how many of them have already signed up

as ?25 members. There's a lot of uncertainty around that. But a lot

could change as Owen Smith becomes better known. It was at a closely

split NEC meeting last month that the decision was take ton bar recent

party members from voting. The NEC is changing. Results in its election

out tonight showed victories for Corbyn supporters. The current NEC

has decided to appeal against today's court ruling. The Shadow

Chancellor, John McDonnell, described that as a deeply

disappointing decision Ayrad small clique of people behind closed

doors. I don't think it's right for John or I to interfere in the ruling

body of the Labour Party. It's for them to choose what they're going to

do, whether they're going to appeal the ruling or not. Whatever the

rules are, I'm just going to play by them and continuing to make my case.

Some people see the NEC decision as effectively a deliberate attempt to

disenfranchise Corbyn supporters. We don't know that's the case. I know

lots of moderates were signing up to vote against Corbyn as well. It cuts

both ways. The party has the right to appeal. Surely it should stand by

the considered decision and the democratic decision that its ruling

body took. That, if there's an appeal process, that could delay the

whole leadership contest. People are saying that the appeal process would

be dealt with, it could be in court as early as Thursday. Owen Smith has

called for an extension of the leadership contest. But the whole

process is getting rather messy. The more these internal rifts are played

out in public, the harder it will be for the party to eventually come

together. And the less time they have to focus on holding the new

Conservative Government to account. Well, let's discuss the day's events

now with Claudia Webbe, who was today elected

to Labour's NEC. Also with us are the columnist

and former advisor to Tony Blair, John McTernan, and the journalist

and author, Rachel Shabi. If I can start with you, if I may,

Claudia, look, it's been posseted as a kind of the hard left getting more

of a grip on the party, today's NEC election. Is that how you see it?

No, what I see is that what we've got now is to have an opportunity

for a powerful voice for ordinary party members. I've been located to

represent the voice of ordinary party members, the constituency

Labour Party around the country and ensure that ordinary members get a

say in the running and working of the Labour Party. It's about

enabling that voice and that influence to be heard, to be

recognised and to be supported. But what's - how would you like the NEC

to change? What do you think of the way the NEC has been operating? How

would you alter it? If I was on the NEC at the time it was making

decision that's related to the voice of ordinary party members, the whole

notion that we've had where members have not been able to, for example,

vote in the forth coming leadership election, because of the ruling of

the NEC, clearly, I would not be voting that way or I would not be

directing the National Executive Committee to diminish the voice of

ordinary party members. It's important that of those 33 members

that rule the Labour Party that the voice of ordinary party members has

much more of a say. You have to recognise that things have changed

since Jeremy Corbyn became leader. There's been a huge increase in

party membership. We're now at 500,000, half a million, members.

Probably the largest party in the UK, if not western Europe. That

voice therefore, that increase in voice of the members needs to really

come through and be reflected. Thank you very much. Let's turn to the

other two of you, if I might. John, isn't it obvious now that your wing

of the party has lost control of the steering wheel. The other side have

pushed you out of the way. They've got the wheel. They're going to

drive the car in the direction they want. It's very hard to see how

you're going to get it back, at least for a couple of decades.

People who want to see a Labour Government, people like me who

support clause one of the Labour Party, about being a Parliamentary

party that wins power, today's a set back for us, the NEC elections are

disastrous, as is the High Court ruling. There's no doubt in my mind

that a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party with the kind of focus it's

got now is not focussed on electability, on winning power, or

winning elections. It may not take two decades, it's certainly going to

take ten years to take the Labour Party back to where it be a

presentable party. Do you agree that it is basically, essentially we've

had two people wrestling over control and it's resolved in favour

of the left. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that only one part of

this equation is interested in electability. Of course Jeremy

Corbyn and his supporters want to win power back. But do you think

you're in control now? The left is in control and it's very hard for

John McTernan to get control back. What I see, if we use the analogy,

one side of the party taking hold of the steering wheel, of the Labour

Party, repeatedly slamming it into a wall. Let's look at what's happened

recently. We've had mass resignations and then the decision

to have a leadership election, even though we've only just had one. Then

saying that Jeremy Corbyn couldn't be on the ballot. Then saying that

Labour Party members couldn't vote for him. Now, we have a High Court

ruling saying actually, yes those members can vote. And the NEC

response is to contest that using the Labour Party membership money.

At what point are they going to say, hang on, we're a democratic party,

this is not a democratic process any more. The McDonnell quote says it's

a small clique behind closed doors who have openly expressed their

opposition to Jeremy. Is it true, isn't it? No, I don't think people

have been silent about their scepticism about McDonnell and about

Jeremy Corbyn. They are people opposed to the tradition of the

Labour Party that wishes to win elections. That's a perfectly decent

tradition. They just shouldn't be in charge of the party. Jeremy Corbyn's

poll ratings are some of the worst than any party leader has had. The

Labour Party is 16 points behind the Tory party. Really, if you're

judging by results, his Shadow Cabinet are alienated. 80% of the

Parliamentary Labour Party have to work day in day out with him don't

trust him and the public don't want to vote with him. That's before the

IRA support, support for Ken Livingstone's anti-Semitism, all

those things. We've barely scratched the surface. This is the same

discussion we've been having for the whole of the summer. The John

McDonnell quote, a small clique of people behind closed doors, couldn't

we say that's the same of momentum - Claudia was a Momentum candidate.

Isn't that what one would say about the clique who've taken over the

Labour Party? I think that when you hear stuff like that, it just seems

to be so disconnected from a fundamental change that has taken

place in politics. Look at the number of people joining the Labour

Party - half a million. That's amazing. That's the biggest party in

Europe. That is a signal of change. That's not a clique. That is people

who have been disconnected from politics for decades and they're now

re-engaging, re-invigorated and actually want to create change.

That's not a clique. That's a movement. How do you get to

represent 500,000, it's basically been supported by momentum, being on

their ticket and they you get the vote? I've been a Labour member for

over 30 years. I'm a long standing Labour member. When you look at the

membership of the Labour Party, it is wide and it is diverse. It is

reflective of British society. Could you have been elected if you hadn't

had momentum saying "vote for Claudia". They said who to vote for

and you all got in. What you saw was a vote for Jeremy Corbyn's ideas and

policies and the step in the right direction. Members voted last year

in overwhelming ways for Jeremy Corbyn and that is what, in a sense,

we're taking forward. Taking forward his ideas, but taking forward

grass-roots democracy. That's what members chose to have. What is the

plan as to how you win an election? Because you are behind in the polls.

You do have a problem, the Shadow Cabinet doesn't trust your leader.

You have the problem that you have not persuaded people like John that

this is the man to run the party. Tell us the plan for winning, for

victory? First of all, let's get this over with, because it's a bit

ridiculous saying that the Labour Party's polling has fallen. It's a

bit like derailing a train, wrecking it and saying, why can't the driver

drive the train. You can blame them. Now I'm asking - what is your plan

for getting the party located? I'm only pointed out - Let's deal with

the blame. Put aside the blame. What is your plan. We unite. That's not a

plan because it's not going to work. Then you campaign. Then you use your

grass-roots movement, half a million people, to canvas, to campaign, to

go into communities, to talk to people, to persuade them of the

Labour argument. That is the plan, last word to you, because you're

part of that plan. You basically have to unite for that plan to work.

Opposing Trident, leaving the country defenceless, no plan for the

economy, no answer on immigration or welfare and on top of that, being a

mate of Ken Livingstone, who has anti-Semitic views, there's no

chance that's sellable on any doorstep in the country. Thank you

all very much. Are you getting into

the Olympics yet? Sometimes takes a few

days, doesn't it? But to help you, we have

our own Stephen Smith. If there was a gold medal

for couch-surfing, Here's his view from the sofa,

in Throne of Games. Now Newsnight's Olympic coverage...

Steven Smith's Throne of Games. Hi there. I'm getting the Newsnight

safe house ready for our little feature Throne of Games or the

Olympics from a sofa. It puts the pick into Olympics. And the "so"

into sofa. DOORBELL RINGS I'm not alone. This is the Games

round up they all want to be apart from... I mean a part of. Here's

writer and journalist Will Self. There you go Will. Thanks. Thanks,

that's great. Welcome to my Throne of Games. Well, there is every

evidence that you've been engaged in watching some kind of sport. Yes. In

this room. You picked that up. Yes, I have!

COMMENTATOR: It's absolutely fantastic. Thomas Pieters takes

Olympic gold for -- Adam Pieters takes limb -- Peaty takes Olympic

gold. I'm aware of just how hard it is to stay afloat.

COMMENTATOR: Come on, come on, cop on! Yes we will. He's got it. Two

world records. He's living the dream. Extraordinary. I don't know

if you have emotional crescendos like that when you're writing? When

you coin a particularly good metaphor, you punch the air. Yeah,

why not. It's hard won. As if I've beaten other coiners of metaphors.

We can't name people. But Ian McKewon. Nowed so you Ian -- now sod

you Ian. I have done a bit of fencing in my time. The basic rule

is to pretend to stab your opponent, yeah? Yes. It's unusual really.

Because looking to sport to encourage people in various forms of

behaviour. Violence. And turn away from violence, you wouldn't have

thought this was a very good example. You have to bear in mind,

there is nothing comparable in the world of culture and the arts to

this sort of event at all. You're not going to get hours and hours of

footage of men and women typing in the run up to the - kind of action,

"Oh, look at that sentence! We'll just have to watch that one again."

That would be great. What a lovely rhythm the fellow has, yeah. None of

that. You know Montaigne said mistrust a man who takes games too

seriously, it means he doesn't take life seriously enough. You're

watching Newsnight, the programme that tested positive for a banned

sedative. Steve will be back throughout the

games. We leave you in Rio,

with US women's gymnast Aly Raisman, or rather, her parents,

Lynn and Rick, caught on camera by NBC in

the audience as she performed. One can only imagine

how it feels to watch. Good evening. Pretty cold up there

with temperatures down into single figures eyed dawn. Already some

showers across northern parts of the UK and becoming quite sharp in some

places. More southern parts enjoying the brightest spell. Some showers

across