:00:00. > :00:07.John Major hits out at the Brexiteers, accusing them
:00:08. > :00:13.of attempting to silence the 48% who voted Remain.
:00:14. > :00:25.Freedom of speech is absolute in our country. It's not arrogant or brazen
:00:26. > :00:26.or elitist or remotely delusional to express concern about our future
:00:27. > :00:28.after Brexit. First amongst cheerleaders,
:00:29. > :00:31.Ian Duncan Smith tells me the former Prime Minister sounds angry
:00:32. > :00:41.and strangely bitter. Also tonight: The experts are
:00:42. > :00:47.terrible. I think the people in this country have had enough of experts.
:00:48. > :00:49.We kept hearing winning politicians say they've had
:00:50. > :00:54.What does Michael Gove think of experts now?
:00:55. > :01:01.Many of those making assertions on the Remain side were relying on
:01:02. > :01:08.people meekly submitting to authority as though we were still in
:01:09. > :01:11.the prereformation Catholic Church rather than making proper arguments.
:01:12. > :01:14.We'll speak to those who think Mr Gove was putting his
:01:15. > :01:16.finger on something. And, of course, the Oscars.
:01:17. > :01:20.I'm sorry. There's a mistake. Moonlight you won Best Picture. No,
:01:21. > :01:34.not that, this... The Oscar winner Best Documentary
:01:35. > :01:36.is about the civilian We'll speak to one
:01:37. > :01:39.of the White Helmets. For the first time since the UK
:01:40. > :01:43.voted to leave the European Union, former Prime Minister,
:01:44. > :01:45.John Major, has spoken out of his He warned of a real risk that
:01:46. > :01:50.Government would not achieve all that it had
:01:51. > :01:52.promised from Brexit. He said a comprehensive deal
:01:53. > :01:55.was unlikely by 2019 and that a failure to deliver would result
:01:56. > :01:57.in further distrust He launched an excoriating attack
:01:58. > :02:05.on the cheerleaders for Brexit. He accused of shouting down
:02:06. > :02:07.the legitimate comment We'll hear response to this
:02:08. > :02:13.carefully-timed interjection from Iain Duncan Smith in a moment,
:02:14. > :02:23.first let's go to our Nick, as I was saying, you don't
:02:24. > :02:28.hear from John Major that often, what did you make of it? This is a
:02:29. > :02:32.significant speech. John Major is normally very careful to ration his
:02:33. > :02:38.interventions. He's sensitive to the charge he would be criticising his
:02:39. > :02:41.successors in Number Ten. Don't forget, he's deeply scarred by his
:02:42. > :02:45.experience, after becoming Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher famously
:02:46. > :02:49.said she would make a great back seat driver. When David Cameron
:02:50. > :02:51.became Prime Minister, he had an informal understanding with David
:02:52. > :02:56.Cameron, who had worked for him in Number Ten in the early 1990s. The
:02:57. > :03:00.agreement was that John Major would only make intervention that's were
:03:01. > :03:05.helpful to him. Clearly he feels different about Theresa May, elected
:03:06. > :03:08.to Parliament in 1997, the year that he lost that election and ceased to
:03:09. > :03:12.be Prime Minister. He obviously feels there is a danger that she is
:03:13. > :03:17.presiding over potentially a damaging Brexit. So he's decided to
:03:18. > :03:21.speak out. This was his central message.
:03:22. > :03:29.I have two objectives this evening, to offer a reality check on our
:03:30. > :03:37.national prospects and to warn against an over optimism, that, if
:03:38. > :03:40.it is unachieved, will so further dis-- sow further distrust between
:03:41. > :03:45.politics and. Unlick at a time when trust needs to be rebuilt. It would
:03:46. > :03:54.be better to underplay rather than overplay expectations. The
:03:55. > :03:59.post-referendum debate has been deeply disspiriting. After decades
:04:00. > :04:07.of campaigning the anti-Europeans won their battle to take Britain out
:04:08. > :04:12.of Europe. But in the afterglow of victory, their cheerleaders have
:04:13. > :04:15.shown a disregard that amounts to contempt for the 48% who believed
:04:16. > :04:17.our future was more secure within the European Union.
:04:18. > :04:24.It's clearly heart felt, but what do you think more than that is driving
:04:25. > :04:26.it in terms of the timing? John Major profoundly believe that's the
:04:27. > :04:36.UK should have voted to stay in the EU. One of the first trips he made
:04:37. > :04:39.as Prime Minister was to the then capital of Germany Bonn and said
:04:40. > :04:44.Britain should remain at the heart of Europe. Some, though by no means
:04:45. > :04:47.all of the message in this speech, echos some of the concerns raised by
:04:48. > :04:51.Tony Blair, who unseated him in 1997. There's a faint echo of Tony
:04:52. > :04:56.Blair when he was saying that Theresa May is not driving the
:04:57. > :05:01.Brexit bus. It is being driven by those hard line Euro-sceptics who
:05:02. > :05:07.want a clean break from Europe and John Major obviously is haunted by
:05:08. > :05:12.those Euro-sceptics who gave him such grief on the Maastricht Treaty
:05:13. > :05:16.25 years ago. He warned Theresa May to face down those who favour total
:05:17. > :05:22.disengagement from the European Union. You've been gauging a bit of
:05:23. > :05:26.reaction to this as it came out Yes, a terse statement from Number Ten,
:05:27. > :05:30.challenging John Major who praised the Remainers and criticise the
:05:31. > :05:34.Leavers. Number Ten says, we're moving beyond the language of Leave
:05:35. > :05:38.and Remain because we want to unite the country. I spoke to some Remain
:05:39. > :05:42.ministers who privately welcome this. Interestingly, quite senior
:05:43. > :05:46.figures in the Government, who are fans of John Major are saying, this
:05:47. > :05:49.doesn't sound quite right. This is not in the spirit of what I was
:05:50. > :05:53.talking about earlier, where he tries to make constructive
:05:54. > :05:57.interventions. What these fans are saying are by all means raise your
:05:58. > :06:01.concerns about Brexit, but if you are seen to undermine the Prime
:06:02. > :06:05.Minister, then I'm afraid to say, you are only going to undermine your
:06:06. > :06:10.own position within the Conservative Party. Thanks very much. John Major
:06:11. > :06:12.talked about the Brexit cheerleaders.
:06:13. > :06:14.Earlier, I spoke to the former Cabinet Minister and stalwart
:06:15. > :06:16.of the Leave Campaign, Iain Duncan Smith.
:06:17. > :06:18.I asked him if John Major's speech made him think twice
:06:19. > :06:24.about what Brexit promised and what it is actually delivering.
:06:25. > :06:30.What I thought when I looked at this speech was that this was a peculiar
:06:31. > :06:34.speech in the sense that it looked backwards the whole time. It was
:06:35. > :06:37.almost like a refight of the referendum all the same threats and
:06:38. > :06:41.issues that came up during project fear were all in here. Strangely
:06:42. > :06:45.bitter, really. And almost really the speech of someone who simply
:06:46. > :06:48.refuses to accept that the British people should have made a decision
:06:49. > :06:52.such as they did and wants them almost to rerun it again until they
:06:53. > :06:55.get it right, which is rather sad. He doesn't seem to question the
:06:56. > :07:00.result. He says there's a growing concern the British public have been
:07:01. > :07:04.led to expect a future that's unreal and over optimistic, that obstacles
:07:05. > :07:08.have been brushed aside. He's asking Brexiteers to be more honest with
:07:09. > :07:11.the British public instead of pretending it's a walk in the park.
:07:12. > :07:15.I don't think anyone's pretending it's a walk in the park. Theresa May
:07:16. > :07:20.least of all. She's going to do the negotiations. I think she's taken
:07:21. > :07:23.this on in a very realistic way. What she's saying is the British
:07:24. > :07:27.people voted to leave. We must now deliver that. At the end of it all,
:07:28. > :07:30.we want a decent relationship with Europe. We're leaving the European
:07:31. > :07:37.Union, we're not leaving Europe. The speech was full of unrealistic
:07:38. > :07:42.rather angry threats. I can't see the point of that now. 69% of the
:07:43. > :07:47.public voted in a poll to get on it. They're not looking back. What do
:07:48. > :07:51.you thist threats? They're a rerun of - you know, oh, it's going to be
:07:52. > :07:54.a disaster, you're being too optimistic. What's the alternative?
:07:55. > :07:59.You go into the European Union saying this is all going to be
:08:00. > :08:02.terrible, help us out, it's a disaster, it's miserable. That's not
:08:03. > :08:06.the way to run a negotiation. When you look at the rhetoric used, John
:08:07. > :08:09.Redwood saying there will be no economic damage. Boris saying
:08:10. > :08:14.countries will be queueing up to be our trade partners. Michael Gove
:08:15. > :08:17.saying our best days are ahead. He's saying don't promise otherwise you
:08:18. > :08:21.create a distrust all over again between the public and politicians.
:08:22. > :08:25.I don't think the public expects this to be a complete walk in the
:08:26. > :08:29.park. The way it's sold, they would. I'm not so certain about that. If
:08:30. > :08:32.you look carefully at what's being said, what people are saying are
:08:33. > :08:35.that it's in the hands of the British people to do the best out of
:08:36. > :08:39.this and actually do well. It's in our hands. It's not in somebody
:08:40. > :08:43.else's hands now. That's the point. You can be optimistic going forward
:08:44. > :08:46.because you believe that the British people are capable of remarkable
:08:47. > :08:50.things. But to be pessimistic about them is the wrong attitude. I got
:08:51. > :08:55.from this speech a deep pessimism about the idea of the UK outside the
:08:56. > :08:59.European Union. But we've had that debate. We've had that vote. The
:09:00. > :09:03.point I'd simply make is, and I'm really sorry that he's chosen to
:09:04. > :09:07.couch this in really what I consider to be quite bitter terms about the
:09:08. > :09:11.process, and such a depressing forecast about the future, it would
:09:12. > :09:14.be far better that he should actually say, like the British
:09:15. > :09:22.people have made their minds up, let's get on with this. Let's make
:09:23. > :09:25.of most of this. Let's do the best. A former Prime Minister should have
:09:26. > :09:30.more faith in the British people. He points his finger at the Brexiteers
:09:31. > :09:33.who shout down disagreement, who claim to want Parliament to have
:09:34. > :09:37.sovereignty and have taken issue with anyone that has asked about
:09:38. > :09:41.amendments, questioned how Brexit will happen. That's crazy, isn't it?
:09:42. > :09:46.That's the nature of debate. That's what he says. He says you have shut
:09:47. > :09:50.it down. You talk about frustrating the will of the British people, or
:09:51. > :09:54.calling it a slap in the face if the Lords frustrate it. He says you have
:09:55. > :09:59.shut down debate. With a bit of respect to John Major, I was here 25
:10:00. > :10:03.years ago when the Maastricht Treaty was being pushed through. I seem to
:10:04. > :10:08.recall he and many of his Cabinet shouted down those concerned about
:10:09. > :10:12.Maastricht, which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. A bit of
:10:13. > :10:16.humility in this might not be a bad thing. The reality is that is the
:10:17. > :10:20.nature of robust debate. We're going to have this huge reform bill coming
:10:21. > :10:24.through. Everything will be debated ad nauseum. Then people will get a
:10:25. > :10:27.vote at the end of it on whether or not they agree with the agreement
:10:28. > :10:30.that Theresa May brings forward. When he says Brexit cheerleaders
:10:31. > :10:36.have shown a disregard that amounts to contempt for the 48% of those who
:10:37. > :10:39.voted Remain, you don't call that a disregard for what they're saying.
:10:40. > :10:43.You're encouraging them to do that, are you? I encourage everybody to
:10:44. > :10:50.debate. I'm happy with debate. Why do you call it a slap in the face,
:10:51. > :10:53.why call it shenanigans? Those who voted Leave will have their opinion
:10:54. > :10:58.on where we go in the future. I relish that. And amending if you
:10:59. > :11:02.need to after the debate? What are you going to amend? The difference
:11:03. > :11:06.is are you going to amend this short bill that says we want to trigger
:11:07. > :11:12.Article 50? There's no point in debate then. You can have a go at
:11:13. > :11:15.amending the other bill ad nauseum. Why do you think John Major entered
:11:16. > :11:19.the debate now? I don't know why he chose to speak. I would have hoped
:11:20. > :11:24.had John Major spoken he might have been a lot more positive. He might
:11:25. > :11:28.have actually said, there are going to be difficulties rgs thction what
:11:29. > :11:32.-- difficulties, this is what I would do, this is what we can
:11:33. > :11:35.achieve. I felt today's speech was a lost opportunity for someone who was
:11:36. > :11:39.the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, rather like Tony Blair, not
:11:40. > :11:42.harking back to what happened, not sounding bitter and angry, not
:11:43. > :11:45.looking like you don't have a lot rove inspect for what the British
:11:46. > :11:49.people are capable of doing and making the wrong decision. Instead
:11:50. > :11:53.of which saying, look, we can do these things. We have faith in the
:11:54. > :11:56.British people. After all, when we were elected in 1992 and John Major
:11:57. > :11:59.became the Prime Minister, I don't recall he turned around and said I
:12:00. > :12:03.really don't have a lot of time for the British voters. They seem to
:12:04. > :12:05.have made the wrong decision. He accepted their decision. Thank you
:12:06. > :12:08.very much. Michael Gove's claim that "people
:12:09. > :12:11.in this country have had enough of experts" was one of the most
:12:12. > :12:13.memorable lines of the EU But was it just a throwaway
:12:14. > :12:17.soundbite or did Mr Gove Are we really less willing to trust
:12:18. > :12:22.the people who were once And have we come to distrust
:12:23. > :12:26.all experts or just the kind who claim to know how
:12:27. > :12:28.the economy will behave? Our editor Ian Katz went
:12:29. > :12:35.in search of some answers. June 24th was a grim day
:12:36. > :12:39.in Britain's ivory towers. The Brexit vote a punch
:12:40. > :12:42.on the nose for an intellectual elite who had lined up
:12:43. > :12:46.in favour of staying in the EU. This will be affected
:12:47. > :12:49.for ordinary people. But did the referendum reveal,
:12:50. > :12:56.perhaps even cause, lasting change in our relationship
:12:57. > :13:00.with the people we once The Bank of England,
:13:01. > :13:13.the IFS, the IMF, the CBI and most of the leaders
:13:14. > :13:15.of the trade unions The working people of this country
:13:16. > :13:19.at last get a fair deal. I think the people in
:13:20. > :13:21.this country have had enough of experts with organisations
:13:22. > :13:24.and acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting
:13:25. > :13:26.it consistently wrong. Michael Gove may have trotted
:13:27. > :13:28.out a glib sound bite to deflect an awkward question,
:13:29. > :13:31.but it was one with potentially Have we ceased to believe
:13:32. > :13:37.that men and women with An assault on the very idea
:13:38. > :13:45.that society is built Those who are expert,
:13:46. > :13:51.who have the knowledge, who have the intellectual ability
:13:52. > :13:54.to dissect these difficult problems In recent years politicians
:13:55. > :14:00.have increasingly pushed experts to the fore,
:14:01. > :14:04.to justify their decisions. But in a world where experts lose
:14:05. > :14:08.trust, how can politicians tackle climate change or convince us that
:14:09. > :14:14.vaccinations are safe? Some even see in the anti-expert
:14:15. > :14:22.rhetoric a slippery slope that leads to the post fact morass of Trump's
:14:23. > :14:25.America. I've always wanted to say this,
:14:26. > :14:28.I've never said this before, all the talking we all do,
:14:29. > :14:31.all of these experts, we need an expert here,
:14:32. > :14:35.the experts are terrible. The assault on experts has
:14:36. > :14:39.implications for fields But it's economists who find
:14:40. > :14:46.themselves on the front line. We are right to question experts,
:14:47. > :14:50.particularly after what happened When experts said that consumer
:14:51. > :14:55.confidence would fall, the stock markets would fall,
:14:56. > :14:58.growth would cease, house prices would go up immediately,
:14:59. > :15:00.as a result of the vote, Do you think it's time we gave up
:15:01. > :15:06.listening to economists? I think we should pay a lot
:15:07. > :15:09.of attention to economists except when they're talking
:15:10. > :15:13.about the future. In 1949 a young economist
:15:14. > :15:23.from New Zealand built this He used bits of old Lancaster
:15:24. > :15:28.bombers and DIY skills picked up Phillips's machine, now
:15:29. > :15:34.at Cambridge University, uses flows of water to model
:15:35. > :15:37.the behaviour of the British economy, literally
:15:38. > :15:46.trickle-down economics. The economy comes out through here,
:15:47. > :15:49.around the pump at the back, Some of which goes off to savings,
:15:50. > :15:53.so this is the banking sector. It could be a perfect metaphor
:15:54. > :15:57.for what's wrong with economics. The embodiment of a mechanistic view
:15:58. > :15:59.that assumes people will behave Social science
:16:00. > :16:06.masquerading as science. It is telling us when you move
:16:07. > :16:09.the levers in the economy how It's a model of the economy
:16:10. > :16:15.as a machine isn't it? Is it reasonable to see
:16:16. > :16:18.the economy as a machine? I don't know, that's a deeply
:16:19. > :16:21.philosophical question. Economic forecasting has always
:16:22. > :16:33.been a bit hit and miss. It's early function,
:16:34. > :16:35.said JK Galbraith, was to make Economists flag up the uncertainty
:16:36. > :16:39.and assumptions behind their But that nuance is often
:16:40. > :16:45.stripped away by politicians In defence of economists I would say
:16:46. > :16:51.that short-term forecasting We are talking about trying
:16:52. > :16:55.to predict the actions of millions of different consumers
:16:56. > :16:59.across the economy and trying to impose some order on all of that,
:17:00. > :17:04.those millions of decisions, is inevitably going to
:17:05. > :17:06.be really difficult. Victoria Bateman is
:17:07. > :17:09.an economic historian. She thinks the attack on experts has
:17:10. > :17:12.implications far beyond economics. I also think it was dangerous,
:17:13. > :17:18.when we looked through out history, when we look at attempts to attack
:17:19. > :17:29.intellectuals and those go back to the period
:17:30. > :17:31.before the Enlightenment. I think it's particularly dangerous
:17:32. > :17:33.for a western politician in a western democracy to be playing
:17:34. > :17:37.this game of anti-intellectualising. I think the people in this country
:17:38. > :17:40.have had enough of experts, It's perhaps ironic that
:17:41. > :17:47.a man regarded as one figures in British politics is now
:17:48. > :17:51.famous for one of its most Gove insists he was
:17:52. > :17:54.quoted out of context. He didn't mean to
:17:55. > :17:57.impugn all experts. I was particularly thinking
:17:58. > :18:01.about organisations like the IMF, who I thought had called the Euro
:18:02. > :18:04.wrong and were calling And I felt, at the very least,
:18:05. > :18:08.we should challenge their arguments rather than simply saying,
:18:09. > :18:10.oh well, because you are a tenured academic, or because you work
:18:11. > :18:14.for the IMF, you must be right. You are famous for your linguistic
:18:15. > :18:18.rigour, why didn't you say something more like what you've just
:18:19. > :18:21.said to me? It was a high-profile,
:18:22. > :18:26.high intensity, high tension, There is a difference
:18:27. > :18:32.between the considered use of language in a conversation
:18:33. > :18:35.like this and having Do you regret having used the word
:18:36. > :18:42.experts in that context? No, I think, life is
:18:43. > :18:44.too short for regrets. I think one of the things
:18:45. > :18:48.that is occasionally irritating is that people assume that
:18:49. > :18:52.what I was saying was a blanket rejection
:18:53. > :19:00.of facts, evidence, rigour. Or the Chancellor or
:19:01. > :19:03.the Prime Minister? They don't know any more
:19:04. > :19:09.than we do, do they, really? Before the referendum,
:19:10. > :19:13.Newsnight came to Bognor where Joan and some friends told us why
:19:14. > :19:15.they would ignore warnings from experts like the governor
:19:16. > :19:18.of the Bank of England. Does he know what it's like to go
:19:19. > :19:20.around Sainsbury's, shopping? That line seemed to reveal something
:19:21. > :19:25.profound about our changing relationship with experts,
:19:26. > :19:30.so we've come back. Joan is away but over a cup of tea
:19:31. > :19:34.I asked a few of the locals how It's too much scaremongering
:19:35. > :19:43.from so-called experts. Too many organisations
:19:44. > :19:47.and businesses that all they do is study graphs and take polls
:19:48. > :19:50.and they just seem to make And I don't believe that they can,
:19:51. > :19:56.that they know best. How on earth do we decide what to
:19:57. > :20:03.listen to and what not to listen to? A lot of people have
:20:04. > :20:09.got good common sense. You are not impressed
:20:10. > :20:14.by the expertise of academics, why are you sceptical about people
:20:15. > :20:17.who have spent often years They are just ordinary people
:20:18. > :20:22.but unfortunately they get stuck in this little bubble
:20:23. > :20:25.of what they are doing. So you will make all your judgment
:20:26. > :20:28.based on what you hear, not It depends on what
:20:29. > :20:35.they actually say. It sounds like what you're saying
:20:36. > :20:38.is we should just pick Well there's plenty
:20:39. > :20:47.of them out there. Perhaps not everywhere in Britain
:20:48. > :20:51.is as allergic to boffins as Bognor. But it does seem we are far less
:20:52. > :20:54.willing to take the pronouncements At least part of the answer must lie
:20:55. > :21:03.with the Internet and the way it handed all of us the keys
:21:04. > :21:06.to the kind of specialist knowledge Which of us hasn't diagnosed
:21:07. > :21:11.an ailment with a little help from Doctor Google long before
:21:12. > :21:13.arriving in the doctor's If the Internet has chipped away
:21:14. > :21:21.at the respect commanded by many experts, it's done the opposite
:21:22. > :21:25.for one man. Polls, if they still count
:21:26. > :21:27.for anything consistently found that Martin Lewis was the figure trusted
:21:28. > :21:32.most on Brexit. He thinks the trouble
:21:33. > :21:34.starts when experts start Because you can't
:21:35. > :21:41.make that prediction. This is a world about probability
:21:42. > :21:45.and chance but what we had in the EU referendum was people giving us
:21:46. > :21:46.black and white Lewis thinks that part
:21:47. > :21:52.of the problem is that many experts appear to take sides
:21:53. > :21:55.in the referendum argument. It was a problem we wrestled
:21:56. > :22:01.with on Newsnight. In the eyes of the two campaigns,
:22:02. > :22:04.no expert was sufficiently I think some experts made
:22:05. > :22:07.the mistake of campaigning and therefore presenting their views
:22:08. > :22:11.as part of a campaign which immediately says that
:22:12. > :22:14.you are biased one way or the other. The public will perceive
:22:15. > :22:18.it and not trust you. And even those who didn't then
:22:19. > :22:20.allowed their information to be If the Enlightenment
:22:21. > :22:27.has its sacred texts, one of them is Isaac Newton's Principia
:22:28. > :22:31.Mathematica. Newton's own annotated copy
:22:32. > :22:33.is the prized possession A temple to knowledge so chilly,
:22:34. > :22:42.the librarians wear anoraks. So this is a Newton's own copy
:22:43. > :22:45.of the Principia Mathematica? This is indeed, it's
:22:46. > :22:52.one of the great works It's the book that inflicted
:22:53. > :22:57.calculus on centuries Newton helped put science
:22:58. > :23:03.at the centre of our modern world. Yet some worry that the assault
:23:04. > :23:09.on experts has spread beyond economics and the social
:23:10. > :23:11.sciences and now challenges Unfortunately, Mr Gove's remarks
:23:12. > :23:17.spilled over into all sorts of other areas where experts have an enormous
:23:18. > :23:22.contribution to make to the proper running of society
:23:23. > :23:24.and for good policy development. Science is absolutely
:23:25. > :23:27.there because science is based on reason and evidence and the fact
:23:28. > :23:34.that experts have been derided in this way does have an effect
:23:35. > :23:36.in undermining science We've come to another
:23:37. > :23:43.temple to knowledge, London's gleaming Francis Crick
:23:44. > :23:48.Institute. Noble prize-winning geneticist
:23:49. > :23:51.Paul Nurse believes Michael Gove probably was thinking of economists
:23:52. > :23:54.in his infamous comment, but it was irresponsible not
:23:55. > :24:02.to clarify his remarks. Opinions on the front foot,
:24:03. > :24:05.and those who are expert, who have the knowledge,
:24:06. > :24:09.who have the intellectual ability to dissect these difficult problems
:24:10. > :24:16.are being derided and pushed back. My view about this is that it cannot
:24:17. > :24:19.last very long because opinion And it rapidly falls apart,
:24:20. > :24:23.and I think we are seeing that The expert bashers believe
:24:24. > :24:33.they were vindicated by the fact that most economists got
:24:34. > :24:35.the short-term consequences But have they started
:24:36. > :24:42.something more dangerous? Has Gove emboldened people
:24:43. > :24:45.to dismiss all kind of expert Worry that you've actually let
:24:46. > :24:52.something bigger get rolling that I entirely understand that,
:24:53. > :24:57.yes, and I think that, I'm sure there are people who have
:24:58. > :25:03.latched on that word, either those who fear that rise of,
:25:04. > :25:06.a superstitious approach towards knowledge, who think that
:25:07. > :25:11.I may have legitimised it and it may be that there are some people out
:25:12. > :25:15.there that think that I am giving All I would say is that that phrase
:25:16. > :25:21.apart, during my political lifetime, both when I was Education Secretary
:25:22. > :25:25.and when I was Justice Secretary, I wanted people to know more,
:25:26. > :25:29.to have more information and knowledge and a greater capacity
:25:30. > :25:33.for critical thinking. You were out campaigning every day
:25:34. > :25:37.after that interview, you could at any point in the days
:25:38. > :25:41.after when I am sure it came up countless times, you could have
:25:42. > :25:47.qualified that remark. Funnily enough it did
:25:48. > :25:50.not come up that often I think it was used particularly
:25:51. > :25:57.afterwards because people felt that the Brexit vote had somehow
:25:58. > :25:59.been a triumph of know My argument is that actually
:26:00. > :26:06.many of those who were making assertions during the campaign
:26:07. > :26:08.on the Remain side where relying on people meekly submitting
:26:09. > :26:10.to authority as though we were still operating in the age
:26:11. > :26:12.of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, rather
:26:13. > :26:14.than actually making Science writer Matt Ridley believes
:26:15. > :26:24.this greater public scepticism about experts is healthy,
:26:25. > :26:27.the very opposite in fact of the challenge to Enlightenment
:26:28. > :26:29.values others fear. One has to remember
:26:30. > :26:32.about the Enlightenment did consist of challenging the experts,
:26:33. > :26:35.particularly challenging priests and saying you do not
:26:36. > :26:39.have all the answers. People can work out
:26:40. > :26:43.the answers for themselves. It's hard to argue that a more
:26:44. > :26:46.questioning public is a bad thing. But here's the problem,
:26:47. > :26:50.where do we stop? All these people have had experts,
:26:51. > :26:52.oh, we need an expert. Can any layman decide
:26:53. > :27:01.that if the evidence on climate change stacks up,
:27:02. > :27:04.or if vaccines are safe, or whether After seeing their Brexit advice
:27:05. > :27:12.ignored, at least one expert decided to express herself more forcefully
:27:13. > :27:15.in the days after the referendum. Yeah, so I made the decision
:27:16. > :27:18.to spend the day at the University naked, as both an expression
:27:19. > :27:27.of my feelings about the referendum, which is that it's a rather dramatic
:27:28. > :27:31.event and will have dramatic long-term consequences,
:27:32. > :27:32.but at the human level more Victoria attended the monthly
:27:33. > :27:44.faculty meeting wearing only the words "Brexit leaves us naked"
:27:45. > :27:49.scrawled across her torso. For some, the scene might have been
:27:50. > :27:52.a perfect metaphor for our changing The emperor revealed to have
:27:53. > :27:57.been naked all along. So did Michael Gove put his finger
:27:58. > :28:00.on something no one had yet noticed? If only there was an
:28:01. > :28:13.expert we could ask. Well, we have three right here -
:28:14. > :28:15.although maybe they won't Tracey Brown is the Director
:28:16. > :28:19.of Sense and Science - Because Evidence Matters,
:28:20. > :28:22.Nassim Nicholas Taleb is the author of Black Swan and Swati Dhingra
:28:23. > :28:38.is an Economist LSE. Nice to have all of you here, I will
:28:39. > :28:42.start with you Nicholas, did JK Galbraith get it right when he said
:28:43. > :28:50.economic forecasting makes astrology look respectable, should it all be
:28:51. > :28:56.left well alone? Well, it's right that in a similar system you should
:28:57. > :29:00.let the system decide for itself, but, let me put some precision here
:29:01. > :29:06.because I've done some work since, the first time I was in your studio
:29:07. > :29:10.was nine years ago where I had to explain that economists were not
:29:11. > :29:21.experts. Since then I have had to refine some of my work, so there are
:29:22. > :29:26.domains where we have experts, we need experts, 99% of the people you
:29:27. > :29:31.will run into tomorrow through evening will be experts, the driver
:29:32. > :29:38.will be an expert at driving, the baker and expert at making bread.
:29:39. > :29:41.And so on. And now technicians, I am in New York, the technology is who
:29:42. > :29:47.are able to make that connection are experts however they are domains
:29:48. > :29:50.where they are not experts and where is the boundary? The boundary
:29:51. > :29:57.appears to be micro versus Micro. There are three boundaries, micro
:29:58. > :30:02.versus macro, in other words someone who deals with smaller fierce, it's
:30:03. > :30:11.much easier to do micro because you're not going to be held to
:30:12. > :30:20.account... Soap economics basically fits as macro? It's too big to get
:30:21. > :30:25.right? That is not true, there are many facts we do know from
:30:26. > :30:27.economics, how does trade work across countries from example and
:30:28. > :30:32.that is what we know from hundreds of data and those are the facts we
:30:33. > :30:36.are bringing to the public and I want to point out two issues in the
:30:37. > :30:39.film, one is that experts and academics are being put in the same
:30:40. > :30:51.category even though we know there are not many THEY TALK OVER EACH
:30:52. > :30:58.OTHER I am talking about academic... Sorry, I don't see you guys here, so
:30:59. > :31:04.I don't know, let me say a couple of things, I was a trader for 20 some
:31:05. > :31:09.years and then I saw, I am not of course in an economic 's department,
:31:10. > :31:13.I do applied maths, then we saw the rigour and economics, it makes me
:31:14. > :31:19.cry, the statistical rigour because you use Gal C and distributions and
:31:20. > :31:24.calcium metrics for things which are repeatedly not them. It's too
:31:25. > :31:29.technical for the audience. I don't know what that means but broadly, is
:31:30. > :31:34.economic forecasting something we should leave alone?
:31:35. > :31:40.Joo economic forecasting, predicting the future, is taking the definition
:31:41. > :31:43.of expertise to its outside edges. Most people in your film and people
:31:44. > :31:48.in the business of looking at the economy recognise that. I really
:31:49. > :31:51.feel we need to say something about this interpretation of what happened
:31:52. > :31:54.in that debate because the referendum has become the reference
:31:55. > :31:59.point for this discussion about expertise. It's a bit a false
:32:00. > :32:05.situation for us to be drawing big conclusions about what people think
:32:06. > :32:10.about experts based on that. I'm deeply suspicious when people make
:32:11. > :32:14.sweeping retorical newerish of an anti-intellectual nature. They
:32:15. > :32:18.usually don't mean let's equip the public with critical thinking. They
:32:19. > :32:23.usually mean believe me don't believe them. That's an interesting
:32:24. > :32:26.point. To go back to you Nicholas, when people reject experts what
:32:27. > :32:29.they're saying is don't believe them, take it from me or another
:32:30. > :32:39.source that I trust. Do you buy that? I definitely buy that. I buy
:32:40. > :32:43.that people in at a microlevel trust some people for their opinion. To
:32:44. > :32:47.build a pyramid at the bottom most people are experts at what they're
:32:48. > :32:51.doing. Awes go up layers, the scaling, as you go higher and higher
:32:52. > :32:57.then you lose in expertise because you can't check the person's
:32:58. > :33:02.results. Eeconomists live in their own little bubble when they're not
:33:03. > :33:10.judged by reality, they're judged by other economists. They can keep
:33:11. > :33:15.being incompetent forever. I mean... Let me tell you... Just let me bring
:33:16. > :33:19.you to one point, is it irresponsible when you hear
:33:20. > :33:22.positions in great, politicians in great positions of power, be it
:33:23. > :33:26.Donald Trump or Michael Gove at the time saying we've had enough of
:33:27. > :33:31.experts or experts are wrong, do you agree that is irresponsible? I mean,
:33:32. > :33:34.the word "expert" can mean a lot of things. Some classes of experts we
:33:35. > :33:39.should dispence with because they've been very dangerous. When I was in
:33:40. > :33:42.your studio nine years ago, talking about economics, it was an expert
:33:43. > :33:47.problem. There is something we call an expert problem. There is an
:33:48. > :33:50.expert problem we just have to train society to distinguish. It's
:33:51. > :33:54.society's fault that we don't explain properly who is an expert.
:33:55. > :34:00.It's not just about explanation. No, it's not. This is about how the
:34:01. > :34:03.debate was portrayed. The same kind of people like Michael Gove was
:34:04. > :34:07.letting their information being misused. They were saying ?350
:34:08. > :34:10.million per week coming back to the NHS, we haven't seen that happen.
:34:11. > :34:15.Why are only those particular experts who made - It happened on
:34:16. > :34:21.the other side, we all remember them showing, on the Remain side it would
:34:22. > :34:27.cost ?4,300 per family. These specific numbers. Those short-term
:34:28. > :34:31.officials were made by public officials not independent experts.
:34:32. > :34:36.Independent experts made only long-term positions. This wasn't all
:34:37. > :34:39.about you. People were posing all kinds of questions in the
:34:40. > :34:42.referendum. Like I live in Swansea, and my hope for my kids getting a
:34:43. > :34:48.job or going on holiday in the next five years is zero any way. So your
:34:49. > :34:51.national discussion and your national figures and projections are
:34:52. > :34:54.not talking to me. People were posing questions that were political
:34:55. > :34:59.questions. They weren't getting political answers. So, what we've
:35:00. > :35:02.seen is a politicisation of expertise over the recent
:35:03. > :35:05.discussion. Let's not draw grand conclusions. Last year, you could
:35:06. > :35:10.say 2016 was not the year of post-truth. 2016 was the year in
:35:11. > :35:14.which, for example, the Hillsborough families use a mass of expertise and
:35:15. > :35:19.fact finding to hunt for the truth. You don't think it's eroded
:35:20. > :35:22.confidence in experts then? I think there's a bigger question, there is
:35:23. > :35:27.a fracture between the discussion we're having about our national well
:35:28. > :35:31.being, at a national level, with economic contributions and what
:35:32. > :35:35.people's lived lives are like that don't relate to that. There are
:35:36. > :35:40.assumptions there and this has laid them bare. The point about this
:35:41. > :35:45.question was when you talk about not believing experts and when people
:35:46. > :35:49.start to gree with it, does it have a knock-on effect in different
:35:50. > :35:54.fields, whether it's science, climate change, inoculations, all
:35:55. > :35:57.those sorts of things? The biggest danger is the knock-on effect in
:35:58. > :36:01.politics. If we have the belief starting to take hold among our
:36:02. > :36:05.politician that's truthfulness is no longer a public value that people
:36:06. > :36:08.don't expect things to make sense - It doesn't matter what the content
:36:09. > :36:13.or the subject is, it's about the approach to trust? Yeah, it almost
:36:14. > :36:17.becomes subversive. It's like the 50s when it was subversive to talk
:36:18. > :36:21.about homosexuality or abortion rates. It becomes subversive to talk
:36:22. > :36:24.about the facts about something if people think it's not going to play
:36:25. > :36:29.well in one of the national newspapers. Except it's good to
:36:30. > :36:32.question, isn't it? It's good to use common sense and everything we
:36:33. > :36:36.heard. Experts have a great history of helping the public to pose
:36:37. > :36:40.questions about their lives. In the run up to the referendum there was a
:36:41. > :36:47.survey done which showed that people do trust academics. Our ratings were
:36:48. > :36:50.at the level of 57 to 60% and that they trust organisations like the
:36:51. > :36:54.ONS because it gives them fact. It's not as though people don't want the
:36:55. > :36:58.facts. They want the facts. Nicholas, I know you're very
:36:59. > :37:02.respected by Steve Bannon in the Trump administration. Have they come
:37:03. > :37:09.to you with the offer of a job? I will not comment on that. But - Go
:37:10. > :37:16.on, let us entice you gently on Newsnight. OK, let me tell you the
:37:17. > :37:19.one thing that people seem to miss about all this thing that the point
:37:20. > :37:25.isn't so much trusting experts and not trusting experts. The idea is to
:37:26. > :37:28.build systems that are error proof and microsystems are pretty mush
:37:29. > :37:31.error proof because the error doesn't generalise. When you have a
:37:32. > :37:37.concentrated system, as in Brussels, one error can lead to very large
:37:38. > :37:44.conclusions. Maybe the experts were not error free. This is where the
:37:45. > :37:51.discussion should be is how can we build systems that can with stand an
:37:52. > :37:55.expert problem. These systems have one atery bute, they need to be
:37:56. > :37:57.decentralised. Thank you all very much indeed.
:37:58. > :37:59.You'd be excused for thinking that the Oscars this year
:38:00. > :38:03.essentially consisted of one big envelope-related cock-up.
:38:04. > :38:05.Tonight, another missing piece of the jigsaw, as reports surface
:38:06. > :38:08.in the Wall Street Journal that Price Waterhouse Coopers managing
:38:09. > :38:12.partner, Brian Cullinan, was tweeting a backstage picture
:38:13. > :38:17.of Emma Stone moments before that critical moment.
:38:18. > :38:19.A tweet, incidentally, that has now been deleted.
:38:20. > :38:23.But beyond the La La Land/Moonlight fracas, another rather different
:38:24. > :38:29.The White Helmets are a group of civilian rescue workers in Syria.
:38:30. > :38:32.You may even recognise their name from Newsnights over the past
:38:33. > :38:36.few years and a film following their work in Syria,
:38:37. > :38:40.simply titled The White Helmets, won Best Documentary.
:38:41. > :38:42.We spoke to a member of the organisation, Majd Khalaf,
:38:43. > :38:50.This piece contains images from the documentary which some viewers might
:38:51. > :39:12.find upsetting. TRANSLATION: At the moment we
:39:13. > :39:16.receive the news of winning the Oscar, one of our volunteers was
:39:17. > :39:20.pulling a child from underneath the rubble in the city of Idlib. Other
:39:21. > :39:29.volunteers were helping in the suburbs of Damascus. When we started
:39:30. > :39:32.our work with the Civil Defence team, the white helmets, we pledged
:39:33. > :39:40.to help as many civilians as possible.
:39:41. > :39:46.It is an indescribable feeling when we get the call to help, although
:39:47. > :39:52.our job poses a lot of threat on our lives.
:39:53. > :39:57.TRANSLATION: Until now, we have saved 80,000 civilians, but we have
:39:58. > :40:03.also lost 162 of our colleagues because of air strikes.
:40:04. > :40:06.Although we are happy to save lives, we are also living the suffering of
:40:07. > :40:10.the civilians every day. The film was shot in Aleppo, which was
:40:11. > :40:15.considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Our colleagues
:40:16. > :40:24.have put their lives on the line to get the message across.
:40:25. > :40:31.The Oscar has shed a light on the suffering of people inside Syria and
:40:32. > :40:35.made their voices heard. It introduced the work of the Civil
:40:36. > :40:40.Defence teams and the difficulties and dangers they face when they
:40:41. > :40:43.respond to calls. It also showed there is a humanitarian work taking
:40:44. > :40:49.place in Syria and not just a Civil War happening. It's true there are
:40:50. > :40:54.people dying and air strikes bombarding civilians, but there are
:40:55. > :41:03.also volunteers who are working to make the people's voices heard.
:41:04. > :41:15.We didn't think we would get to the Oscars or win it. Our message is
:41:16. > :41:24.clear: To stop the air strikes on civilians.
:41:25. > :41:28.We leave you with the The Sony World Photography awards,
:41:29. > :41:30.whose 2017 shortlist will be on show at Somerset House in
:41:31. > :41:35.The actual nominees can only be revealed at midnight tonight,
:41:36. > :41:38.so obviously I'm not allowed to open the envelope and tell
:41:39. > :41:42.After the disaster at the Oscars last night,
:41:43. > :41:46.But here's a peak at a few strong contenders.
:41:47. > :42:18.# I hurt myself today. # To see if I still feel.
:42:19. > :42:29.# I focus on the pain # The only thing that's real
:42:30. > :42:40.# The needle tears a hole # The old familiar sting
:42:41. > :42:50.# Try to kill it all away # But I remember everything.
:42:51. > :42:55.By some definition spring starts this week. It feels wintry at the
:42:56. > :43:00.moment. A cold start to the day. Bright and crisp for some. Showers
:43:01. > :43:03.for others, especially across western areas, snow over high
:43:04. > :43:06.ground. This band of showers moving eastwards across the UK, followed by
:43:07. > :43:10.something brighter for Northern Ireland and certainly plenty of
:43:11. > :43:11.sunshine across central and northern Scotland through the afternoon.
:43:12. > :43:13.Chilly,