07/03/2017 Newsnight


Evan Davis reports as Wikileaks appears to release thousands of CIA documents and Theresa May loses a Brexit vote. Plus austerity and the Budget.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The CIA can apparently do some amazing stuff,


like turn your TV into a microphone and listen in.


But now their secret code has leaked.


This seems to be an incredibly damaging leak in terms of the


tactics, techniques, procedures and tools that were used by the Central


intelligence agency to conduct legitimate foreign intelligence.


If the leaks are real, it's highly embarrassing


We will ask the journalist Glenn Greenwald whether we should be


worried by the CIA's ability to hack, or its inability to keep its


own secrets? Defeat for the Prime


Minister in the Lords. They want Parliament to vote


on the final Brexit deal. Does that make sense,


or screw up the negotiation? Gina Miller and Theresa


Villiers will tell us. The day before the Budget,


we're inside Cumbria County Council We can't go on like this. I don't


think we can continue like this, as councils up and down the country.


And Viewsnight looks on the bright side of life.


Now, imagine we were to treat people the way most of us really are.


Pretty nice. Creative. And more than willing to contribute to the common


good. We've had the Chelsea Manning leaks,


then came Edward Snowdon, and today another huge Wikileaks


data dump - they're calling it Vault 7, and they say it's from a division


at the heart of the CIA. Thousands of documents,


millions of lines of code - and, if it is all genuine,


it shows the extraordinary array of hacking and spying tools


available to the CIA. Some of it's colourful -


the ability to infect a Samsung TV and turn it into a microphone that


records conversations, for example. The British apparently


helped with that. The CIA won't confirm


the authenticity of any of it, Is it reasonable for the CIA


to have these abilities? And the second is, can't the CIA


guard any of its own secrets? If it is incapable of doing so,


should it harbour software that could allow massive abuse by those


with malign intent? The documents are purportedly from


the CIA's centre. Intelligence. 7918 documents with many attachments.


Wikileaks say it is only part of what it intends to publish. The rise


of connected devices has promised intelligence agencies like the CIA a


new golden age of spy craft, where every home is filled with all sorts


of objects that can be enlisted to gather data against their owners.


What Wikileaks have got details of is how the CIA or doing this and the


very computer code they are using. This seems to be an incredibly


damaging leak in terms of the tactics, procedures and tools that


were used by the CIA to conduct legitimate foreign intelligence. In


other words, it has made my country and my country's friends less safe.


For example, the Wikileaks document suggests that the CIA have bypassed


the encryption on android mobile phone messaging apps like WhatsApp,


and collect audio and messaging traffic before it is encrypted.


These are wraps which many people used to relay sensitive information


because they believe they are impenetrable. One technique,


code-named weeping Angel, can turn a Samsung smart TV in a target's live


living room can turn it into a microphone. This was apparently


developed with the help of the UK's GCHQ. Wikileaks say they have got


hold of millions of lines of computer code, the CIA's tool box of


tricks and hacks. But, they say, they won't be releasing what they


call these armed cyber weapons until a consensus emerges on how they can


be dealt with. How they can be a moist and disarmed. If the data in


these documents is verified -- how they can be analysed. It will add to


the damage done to Western intelligence agencies by Chelsea


Manning and Edward Snowden. We don't know how this information got out.


One former director believes that a big danger to secrecy is cultural.


In order to do this kind of stuff, we have to recruit from a certain


demographic, I don't mean to judge them, there is a group of


millennials and they simply have different understandings of the


words loyalty and secrecy and transparency, than certainly my


generation did. And so we bring these folks into the agency, good


Americans I can only assume, but again, culturally, they have


different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them.


What has supposedly been leaked suggests no limit to the CIA's


ambition, like hacking self driving cars as a future weapon for


assassination. What is likely to be most damaging is that the US


intelligence agencies as yet can't be sure how many of their secrets


have been breached. David Grossman. Our Diplomatic Editor,


Mark Urban, is with me. This leaking is a big issue, Mark.


How and why and how many people have access to all of this staff? Well,


the agencies are caught in this terrible place where they've had to


create huge the violence programmes, let's face it, that's what we're


talking about, in power in awful lot of people to share that information


because of the lessons of 9/11 and other systemic failures, they want


to get across all of that 800,000 plus people are cleared to


top-secret and higher level code in the US. If even a tiny proportion of


those or ideological or opposed, greedy, they want to sell the stuff,


all working for another power, damage can be done. It is getting


harder for intelligence agencies generally to a tribute or track


where different, worth and tools... Why take away from my initial read


of this, the most interesting stuff was this Tom Burridge group, a group


in the CIA that harvest other states's cyber tactics to use by the


CIA in deniable attacks. Add to that that we now know that many of these


cyber attack tools with if you like an American forensic signature are


in the hands of Wikileaks and who knows who else, and the wilderness


of mirrors about attributing cyber attacks, who the hell has done this?


We saw this with the Democrats this last summer, it becomes harder and


harder to work out. Bruce Schneier is a security


technologist and Harvard Fellow. I spoke to him earlier,


and I asked him if this I mean, certainly whenever


classified documents are released by an intelligence agency,


it is a disaster. These are particularly sensitive,


they are hacking tools, And if I was inside the CIA, I would


call this a disaster as well. We have this leak, it


seems to be one thing What's happened to the culture


of secrecy that you would expect It's not the culture of secrecy,


it's the culture of competing. These documents are on computers,


they are on networks, They are vulnerable


for outsiders hacking, they are vulnerable for insiders


taking them and leaving. And we see this against the CIA,


the NSA, a Panamanian law firm, the Democratic National Committee,


climate change researchers, again and again and again -


individuals, organisations and nation states are hacking these


documents, and in many cases, Michael Hayden, former


Director of the CIA, told the BBC earlier that he thought


there may be something about a kind of a culture


of the people who you need to recruit to be kind of working


the computers and devising all these tools in the first place,


that perhaps they just have a different view of their life


and their career that say the old spooks did


say a generation ago. You know, maybe that is


generalising from one example, from Edward Snowden,


maybe from two, This is probably an outsider,


not an insider, like the NSA equation group documents were hacked


by the Shadow Brokers. You know, it's really


hard to generalise. The only thing we know is that these


documents are more vulnerable because there are on networks,


which means that individuals Now, look, how dangerous is it that


a lot of these CIA tools are now out How much damage can those


other people do if those And near as we can tell,


they've leaked for a while. Wikileaks said that they have been


passed around for a while. Now we can start getting security,


now that we know what the attacks are, we can fix these systems


and be less probable. I mean, yes, it's bad that these


attacks are out there, The CIA knew that it was most likely


that other countries did as well. So getting them in the hands


of the public so they can be fixed is really a measure


of making things better. Bruce Schneier, thank


you for talking to me. Bruce also told me he always puts


something over the cameras on his devices to make sure they are not


him. Not because of the Russians or the Chinese, but because of teenage


hackers. And Glenn Greenwald


is the journalist that campaigns Good evening. Have you seen anything


in these leaks that make you think the CIA was doing anything wrong?


Firstly, very significant revelation is that the CIA actively encourages


and at times even pays various companies and organisations to


preserve vulnerability that there are able to exploit and a lot of


these software programmes. So not only they can go through these back


doors that they make sure exist, but so can hackers, or other nations.


The CIA and NSA making the internet Moran says for everybody. I think


that is very disturbing -- more on safe. So maybe they should tell the


Googles and the apples where the vulnerabilities are rather fun


exploit them. Have you seen any evidence that this thing on


televisions or driverless cars, have you seen any evidence that these


have been applied to good people all merry people, as opposed to what


President Trump would call the bad hombres -- ordinary people. Do you


think they have been misusing these tools? One of the problems with


having a massive surveillance state, intelligence community, that


operates almost entirely in the dark is that we know very little about


what they actually do. There is very little accountability war over side,


which is why when we did this reporting, -- or oversight. Even


people on the intelligence committee said, we didn't even know that these


were taking place. So based on the first sort of batch of documents


that Wikileaks have released, we know the CIA have extraordinary


abilities that they are exploiting. We don't know against who they are


using it, but the history of the CIA is one filled with abuse, and we


ought to know more about why they are using get. Have you really seen


any thing that surprises you in terms of a skill or a talent or a


tool that they have? In a lot of ways, this is what you would expect


a really top-class spying agency to be doing, isn't it? I think some of


the methods that they use, and the extent of control they are able to


obtain over people's android phones, the progress that they have made


into people's iPhones has actually surprised people who work in the


security field. It's not shocking that the CIA is trying to do it,


although I don't think a lot of people knew that the CIA has such a


vast surveillance apparatus. They assumed that the NSA with the agency


that uses billions of dollars, so that it is rising. It is not


shocking the CIA is trying, but it has been surprising the way that


they are in able to invade these devices and take full control of the


programmes intended to keep them out. The fundamental argument is, do


we want intelligence agencies who can do clever stuff to spy on people


from abroad, preferably, who are doing or mean us harm, or do we not


want intelligence agencies to do that? We have always come back to


this and I have spoken to you about it before. In the end, if you are


going to have intelligence agencies, you have to let them get on with the


job and you can't expect them to stand by telling you what they are


doing because it isn't going to work if they do that. Yes, I think you


know, there is an absolutist way to look at things, which is very


simplified. Either they get full secrecy or they have none. And then


there's a more sophisticated way to look at it, which we as journalists


ought to be adopting, which is, yes, you need some degree of secrecy, but


in a democracy, secrecy is extremely corrosive and they dress. And for


agencies that we have allowed to operate almost entirely in the dark,


as journalists, our objective ought to be to report on what they are


doing and cheer from one both is transparency, -- for when there is


transparency. That the government try to protect secrecy. As


journalists we ought to be devoted to telling the public what these


people are doing. Some people say WikiLeaks have been


strangely related to Trump, do you think there's anything strange about


the timing of this, another difficult week for President Trump


and this whole fuss about President Obama and did he tap him. Is this a


distraction? It is funny because we always like to look at Russian media


and the Arab world and mock them for conspiracies and yet we in the West


have are conspiracies. There was a weird timing issues with WikiLeaks,


intended to distract, there is always important news going on.


WikiLeaks published this material not in a particularly sensitive


week. I can assure you it takes some time to process this material and


unless we have evidence that WikiLeaks manipulated the timing I


do not think we should be assuming that that took place. I do not know


of any evidence that says anything like that happened.


Theresa May suffered the embarrassment of defeat today.


The Lords voted - with a majority of just under 100 -


to insist Parliament has the final "meaningful vote" on the deal


The PM will whip her MPs to try and overturn this defeat


when the Bill comes back to the Commons - probably next week.


Now Theresa May is hailed as the most unassailable prime


minister we've had for years, a weak opposition, a united party.


But, think a little on it, and you remember she has only


a small majority in the Commons - so she's vulnerable on all sorts


of thorny issues such as Brexit, grammar schools and us


That's why some colleagues - including William Hague


in his Telegraph column today - have said she should call a general


How popular is that opinion amongst conservatives? Downing Street if the


William Hague idea short shrift but something of a debate going on


involving members of the cabinet about whether an early election may


be a good idea. These Cabinet ministers accept and respect Theresa


May? Opinion that an election now would be wrong, they say if you did


it right now it would seem as if you were doing it for the benefit of the


Conservative Party, exploiting Labour Party witnesses at a bad


moment for the Labour Party. But these ministers said that over the


next couple of years you may be able to mount an argument that it is in


the national interest to hold an election before the due date in 2024


the they are identified as when the government seeks to introduce the


great repeal bill, the legislation that will annul the legislation


underpinning our membership of the EU and it will put all that EU


legislation, into UK law and then the UK will be able to decide which


bits of that legislation it wants to keep. I'm told his ministers have


identified a couple of danger points with that legislation. Number one is


when it is in the House of Lords, we have seen the House of Lords this


week bearing their teeth and there was a feeling in government circles


that if the Commons could overturn those amendments Bumble laud them


that the Lords would throw in the towel and not want to be accused of


thwarting the will of the people on Brexit. There will be no such qualms


on the great repeal Bill, they think, and the second danger


identified by ministers is that the Scottish Parliament may say that


under the original devolution settlement that great repeal Bill


would need their consent. As I said, there are a whole series


of issues that the Prime Minister may be vulnerable on with such


a small majority. A busy College Green


here in Westminster is a sign that something


is about to happen in Parliament. Tomorrow is budget day,


which is a day when the government The whole structure of the day


really favours the people in power. It also comes as the Conservative


Party's racking up enormous poll leads, consistently in double digits


over the Labour Party. But might that mean


that we are overstating just how strong Theresa May's


position really is? Critically, take a look at the Lords


where the government does As of tonight, Theresa May has lost


24 votes in the Upper House. Well, we look at issues where we can


make a difference and perhaps persuade the House of Commons


and the government to think again. Things like the Housing Bill,


we've asked the government On trade union legislation,


on education. And indeed some of


the aspects of Brexit. Indeed, just this evening,


the Lords have defeated They've passed an amendment


demanding what they call "a meaningful vote" by parliament


on the terms of Brexit One of two Lords amendments


on the Brexit bill. Everyone in this House knows


that we now face the most momentous And this amendment as the Noble Lord


has so clearly set out, secures in law the government's


commitment, already made to another place, to ensure that Parliament


is the ultimate custodian I am in a minority in this House


because I support the views of the majority of people


in this country. This House is absolutely full


of people who still haven't come to terms with the results


of the referendum. Well, the effect of these


votes is to reopen And so potentially re-empower rebel


Tory backbenchers to negotiate If we take the Article 50 Bill,


there were small numbers of Conservative rebels on some key


issues when the bill went Notably on the rights of EU


citizens to remain in the UK and on the Parliamentary vote


at the end of the process. It is no coincidence that those


are the issues that the Lords has taken up very strongly


and is seeking to throw back to the Commons to ask


the Commons to think again. And what it is doing really there


is facilitating those negotiations If the backbenchers are satisfied,


she will get her way. She may need to offer them


more assurances in order Theresa May will ask MPs to overturn


the peers' amendments. And it is plausible she might not


win both of those votes. And that is why the Lords could


trouble the government so much. They complain oh, we haven't


got the majority, well, this is the first Conservative


government never to have had an automatic majority


in the House of Lords. But no Labour government ever had


a majority in the House of Lords, you win your case, you persuade,


you articulate, you make that case. And that is what the government


needs to understand and needs to do. But some Tories want


a quick election. They say it could mean


a bigger Commons majority. And peers don't pick fights


over items once they've But at least for now,


the government is grinding on. And once the Brexit negotiation


starts, a voluntary election Well, as you heard, one test


of the Prime Minister's strength comes next week, when Remainer MPs


have to decide whether to support her on the Brexit Bill -


or to side with the Lords, The issue is whether Parliament


should get a meaningful vote on any I'm joined by Gina Miller,


who famously brought the legal case for Parliament to have a vote


on Article 50. And Theresa Villiers is here -


former Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers, as we were


watching that Lord Heseltine has been sacked as a government adviser


because he rebelled on the bill. Is that showing a kind of sensitivity


to all this, a bit of brittleness question what Michael Heseltine was


a long serving member of the Conservative Party but he's very


much out line with the majority feeling within the Conservative


Party and indeed within the country. He's not even a member of the


government, just an adviser. But you have two kind of show how tough the


discipline is going to be? I do not know the circumstances but I think


it was always inevitable when he was rebelling on such a crucially


important issue. Gina Miller, the idea of a vote at the end of the


process, is it the case that you would like parliament to have the


option if they do not like the deal Theresa May comes back with, is it


the case you would like them to have the option to say let's just take in


the EU or have a referendum on staying in rather than going through


with Brexit? It is not about what I want, and it is not at the end of


the process but in 18 months. We're not talking about the great repeal


act, it is in 18 months when Theresa May comes back with that negotiated


package. It is only right that Parliament should be involved in


that process, that is what my case was about and what all the


Brexiteers talked about, Parliamentary sovereignty and


parliament having the right to vote and debate. That is what is so great


about the House of Lords, they showed it could be done as a level


that is civilised and grown up and you could respect the point of view


of other people. Are you thinking about another legal case, if two is


a major says I'm not interested and I'm going to eat the House of Lords,


are you thinking another legal case on this would be due? If you go back


to the judgment in my case that the Supreme Court it said only


parliament could take away or diminish people's rights. In 18


months we will not know what whites have been taken away because we do


not have a crystal ball, we do not know what the package will be. If


you look at the judgment there is some thinking that if Theresa May


bypasses the parliament and does not deliver on a promise, if this


amendment does not get in, that there could be a case for us to take


back to Parliament, sorry, to the court and say could she act on her


own without parliament. Theresa Villiers, I suspect that is not what


you want to hear because that would mean a legal argument right at the


climax of article 50 negotiations. That is one of the real anxieties


about these amendments. Any amendment to what is a simple bill


makes it potentially dragging on into the courts. I believe that


particularly the amendment passed today is a recipe for stalemate and


disruption. I'm sure Gina Miller is entirely sincere in what she's doing


but I think many people who backed this amendment today in the House of


Lords in the heart of hearts are trying to frustrate the process.


They have given themselves the power to veto a to veto leaving without a


deal, essentially what they want is to keep us in and this respect the


vote. There is a bit of a puzzle, they said they want to be able to


veto a non-deal or deal, it could end up just in a twilight zone.


Actually the House of Lords cannot do a veto, they can scrutinise and


give their opinion but they cannot actually veto something. But if we


get back, I do not understand why there's so much of this argument


about holding up Brexit because it is the Prime Minister and the


government holding up Brexit. Just putting these one is morally right


and the other is common sense to have a parliamentary safety net. Put


both in and stop the ping-pong between the houses, trigger Article


50 and get on with complex negotiations. It is government


itself holding up this process. EU nationals, I entirely sympathise


with the sentiment of the amendment, but this is not the vehicle to deal


with this question. It has to be dealt with by laterally as part of


negotiations. It makes the end of the process unmanageable, if the


executive does not have the power to save this is the deal or we walk out


which is effectively what Theresa May wants to be able to do this


right with the amendment this evening a key defect is that it


seeks to prevent the Prime Minister from deciding the deal on the table


is not good enough and I will go back recommending leaving without a


deal. Not being able to walk away from negotiations means that Europe


has you over a barrel. I'm afraid we need to leave it there. That is the


nub of the argument that has been raging on. Thank you both.


Well, austerity may have been pushed out of the headlines lately,


but anyone working in a local authority knows that cuts to council


So to help get us all in the mood for tomorrow's Budget,


we embedded Katie Razzall with Cumbria County Council -


one of those hoping for a sliver of help from the Chancellor.


We are in uncharted territory, really, for local government.


Sparsely populated, flood-prone Cumbria.


A county where cuts now threaten real upset,


I think local government is experiencing an existential crisis.


In Cumbria, what we're looking at really is what I would


Stuart Young is the leader of Cumbria County Council.


I joined him this morning at the start of his day.


A Labour politician at the helm as the eighth year


We have already had to make ?198 million worth of savings since 2010.


If there is anything that keeps me awake at night,


it is, how are we going to find the rest of those savings?


Whilst protecting services as much as we possibly can.


The council must cut another ?52 million in the next three years.


An accountant by trade, for Mr Young, the numbers no longer add up.


He agreed to allow Newsnight to accompany him to work


where the Labour group run the County Council in a coalition


Adult social care is now the largest part of our budget.


I mean, obviously, like everywhere else, people are living longer.


The problems are not just in social care.


And the Council has already made cuts across the board,


This is our first proper meeting, I guess.


The Government wants local authorities to


At the moment, it plans to stop its funding grant


I think officers are really keen to see what emerges tomorrow


It is meeting after meeting for the leader.


This with the Councillor in charge of adult social care,


which costs the authority around ?200 million a year.


I think it is biting everyday now when a new referral comes


Can you keep providing a good service to people


I think the answer to that has to be no.


When you've got demand growing year-on-year.


There has to be a limit on how much you can take out without it


being clearly felt by the recipients of that service.


You can tell someone tall has been here, Joyce!


She is only able to stay in her own home with the help


I can get to the cooker, but I can't reach it.


So they do my meals, so I find it about right four times a day.


What does it mean to you to have this care?


I would probably have to go into permanent care otherwise.


I think it's terrible that the cutting is happening.


My mum and dad, what if they don't get care, I can't imagine no one


getting the standard of care that we give to our clients.


Joyce, are you OK if I go through your care plan and just


Heather runs one of the companies contracted


You have male and female carers, and you're happy with all of them?


If you think about it, they haven't got anything I want,


and I haven't got anything they want any more!


The council here is putting up council tax, in part to raise


But in these rural counties, it's more expensive to provide.


The council is keeping its cards close to its chest ahead


But not everyone agrees crisis point is upon them.


When we were in control, we saved ?55 million


There was a lot of fat there to be cut.


And this administration, this current administration has


wasted millions upon millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money.


So there's still money out there to be found,


I think as we look forward to the next three years


and possibly beyond, I think many of us are


wondering really where this is all going to end.


I think local government is experiencing an existential crisis.


And it is difficult to see how some of the services


are going to survive at all in the face


We are briefly going to go back to the breaking news is that we


mentioned earlier that Michael has so kind has been sacked as a


Government adviser after rebelling on the Brexit vote. Why did they do


it, Nick? The man who brought down Britain's first woman Prime Minister


has just been sacked by Britain's second woman Prime Minister! He had


five jobs, apparently. They are absolutely determined that this


bill, which Michael has all kinds or to amend, must emerge completely


clean. -- had sought to amend. If there were any weaknesses to be


exploited by our negotiating partners, and we can turn to the son


of an old ally of Michael has all-time was Mike, Robin Walker, the


son of the Peter Walker, he is saying that if as the lords did


tonight you will allow Parliament to have the right to veto the bill,


that would create all sorts of problems that would be exploited by


Michel Barnier. And tonight, we have the young Dutch


writer, Rutger Bregman to offer us an optimistic take


on the state of humankind. He's a man with a lot of ideas -


the writer of a book called Utopia for Realists,


we'll speak to him It's time to assume


the good in each other. I've got two minutes


to remind you of the most If you start paying attention,


you see it everywhere. Rutger Bregman, author


of Utopia for Realists. The book reflects his optimistic


take - but is a kind of manifesto It suggests a much


shorter working week, and a basic income -


paid to everyone, That's the Utopia bit,


less clear on the realism. Is it? Well, I suppose on the basic


income, a lot of people have tried to make it work and do the maths on


it. You have to leave it so low that you leave a lot of people very poor,


or so high that you can't afford it. I don't think so. Basic income is


the least radical of the ideas in my book. We have a lot of evidence from


the 70s, in Canada they did an experiment for four years, they


found that people got healthier, and didn't quit their jobs. People have


a lot of objections. It was a town near Winnipeg. It was subsidised


from the outside, that one. It wasn't self financing. The


government paid for the basic income. As soon as you have a system


where there isn't an outsider, you know, a Martian to come in and pay


for it all, it is very different, isn't it? I don't think so. If you


look at poverty, for example. It is hugely expensive, in terms of higher


health care spending, crime, high dropout rates. A study in the US


found that it costs about $500 billion, just child poverty, and it


will cost us billions to eradicate poverty completely. It is easier to


get rid of it and keep on combating it. You are giving me a subsidy but


I don't need one. But you are paying for it, don't worry! Then you have


very high taxes, and people like me might say, why am I giving this


money and paying an 80% tax rate? That is why nobody has ever done it.


People have really looked at it and they have come very close. Many


people see this as a leftist idea. Milton Friedman, the neoliberal


economist, was in favour of this. The right-wing government in Finland


is experimenting with it right now. A Conservative senator in Canada is


proposing another experiment. Another experiment is going on in


Kenya Rednall. Especially after 2016, we need new ideas. That


everybody agrees with. We have a lot of evidence from experiments that it


is effective, efficient, and we use the money very well. Health care


costs go down. Slightly narrower experiments that don't necessarily


pay for themselves. You are proposing a 15 hour week as well.


That makes it doubly hard to pay for my basic income, because we are all


going to be working half as much. I think we need to completely redefine


woodworker actually is. So nowadays, according to a recent poll, -- what


work actually is. 70% of British workers think that they have a job


but doesn't need to exist. It is a waste of time, money and energy.


What is going on here that you know, a 28-year-old. Piazon, note that


these jobs are not needed. It is not me saying that -- a 28-year-old


Dutch person know that these jobs are not needed. Somebody is saying,


I'm going to employ these people because it is going to make me or my


company money or my country rich. Why do you think we have a huge


financial sector? They don't create any well. We have so much energy and


talent being wasted right now. What are the bankers going to do? And


what is the process where you are going to work out what they are


doing? What is the mechanism, is its central planning or a market? If it


is a market, they will go straight back into banking. These ideas go


through the political divide lying between the left and the right. The


left doesn't trust people to make their own choices, and the right


things that people have to be forced into work or something else. I think


people know perfectly well what to do with their lives. We are not


going to live in a big giant commune. What is the bankers going


to do, and what is the process going to tell him what to do? It is


interesting, you get the stories in magazines, you have got a very rich


guy who might decide to quit his job and do what he really wants to. We


see it as coming he is a hero coming he's going to do what he really


wants to do. What I'm proposing is in a society where that's just


completely natural, where we are all trying to contribute in our own way


and do what we actually want to do. And that is why it is called Utopia


for Realists. Thank you very much. I'm back tomorrow,


which is of course Budget Day. Hello. A spell of rain tonight will


clear many parts of the UK tomorrow but by no means


Evan Davis reports as Wikileaks appears to release thousands of CIA documents and Theresa May loses a Brexit vote. Plus austerity and the Budget, and a Viewsnight report on why we should be nice.

Download Subtitles