15/03/2017 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis with Evan Davis. Topics include the Dutch election results, privacy at work and old people getting married.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



For the last year now - the story has been


Have the Dutch just decided to stand in the way?


in but the exit polls say the current Prime Minister


Gabriel Gatehouse is in the Hague for us.


No win for Geert Wilders but no doubt either he has shifted the


terms of the political debate here in the Netherlands.


Also tonight, the National Insurance rise is shoved firmly


The Chancellor has back tracked on last week's big budget measure.


Is it time to announce taxes - and budgets -


Is it just the fashion or something more going on?


The number of over 65s getting married is way up.


We talked about it a lot and I think I had always said I don't want this


ever to be a practical decision, it's got to be an emotional


decision. We'll ask this agony aunt


if it is to be recommended. The Dutch people have


spoken and the answer is. Well, it's easier to say


what the answer is not. Not good for the populist anti-EU


anti immigrant Geert Wilders. He's up a little on last time,


but well below his hopes. If you believe the exit polls,


the Labour party there is facing wipe out, losing three quarters


of its seats. Some of those, incidentally, to the


green left. Not great for traditional parties


generally - they are down. But the centre right party that


did lead, still leads. So the Prime Minister Mark Rutte


will have the first chance to build Let's talk to Gabriel Gatehouse -


you might have seen his reports on the Dutch campaign


trail, he's in the Hague. Give us your initial reaction to


what we are hearing tonight? Well you cannot put any other spin on


this other than it must be very disappointing for Geert Wilders. If


you believe the polls and who does that these days, but if you had you


might have expected him to have done twice as well as it looks like he


has. It looks like he has got about 12 and a half percent of the vote


giving him 19 seats, up four on before. The Prime Minister looks


like he's getting 31, that is down ten but enough for him to have a


first stab at forming a coalition. He will need at least three other


parties to come in with him to do that and he has already said he will


not work with Geert Wilders. The other big headline of the night as


you mentioned is the wipe-out of the traditional Labour Party, losing


three quarters of their seats, worst result in their history. Some of the


smaller parties have done quite well by contrast, Democrats 66, the sort


of Lib Dems, are up and so quite a diffuse landscape here. A lot of


divisions, where does this leave the Netherlands for the next few years?


There are two ways of looking at it, the Prime Minister told Newsnight


last night that the Netherlands would not be the next domino to fall


to populism and in one sense it hasn't. In the other sense the Prime


Minister fought this campaign squarely on Geert Wilders Australia


ground, telling Dutch people of immigrant backgrounds that unless


they behaved normally they could get lost. His handling of the Turkey


crisis, much of that in part to do with the perception that he was seen


as weak on Dutch identity and immigration and Geert Wilders was


seen as strong. I think overall we can see a definite shift in Dutch


politics to the right. Thank you very much Gabriel.


Well, the Dutch election had really been watched


as the first stop this year, in the grand tour of national


elections that are pitching traditional politics


against less conventional challengers.


Populist politics has dominated the headlines for the last year. It had


a good run. But 2017 was always seen as the year that would determine its


long-term fate. So where does populism go now? You might think


there are three broad scenarios. Number one populism has its brief


moment and then just fades into the background. After all it has come


and gone before. In France in the 60s huge waves were made, the


shopkeeper fed up at his sometimes seen as far right, he supported the


Socialists in later years. His movement fizzled out. In the 2000


and anti-globalisation movement disrupted World Trade Organisation


business. Its hero stood in the French presidential election of 2007


but only got 1% of the vote. The second scenario is that the populist


outsiders become a permanent fixture. Either in government as in


the case of President Trump or as the official opposition. Certainly


populism is seen as part of the furniture in countries like Russia


and Turkey where it dominates government. But what about in the


West? Are such parties able to displace the centre left with an


appeal to blue-collar voters? Some sign of that in the Netherlands.


There is a third scenario, the populist parties disappear but their


influence lives on. Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a


success of it. One theory about Theresa May is that she is trying to


co-opt just enough of the populist programme to fend off the populist


parties. In the Netherlands it may be that Mark Rutte has kept the


populists at bay by doing just that. Marietje Schaake is a Dutch MEP


for the Democrats 66 Party. They are the only "progressive


party", in her words, to finish in the top four,


according to those exit polls. Good evening to you, it's a


complicated picture tonight, who do you see as the winners and who do


you see as the losers? Well it is complicated but there is also a lot


of reason to celebrate. I think we see a clear again for those parties


like my own who have had an unequivocal progressive agenda, to


look beyond our borders, the European cooperation and really


stand firmly against the Nationalists who certainly did not


do as well as they may have hoped or others may have feared. But one


reason is potentially the Nationalists did not do as well as


they had hoped is that Mark Rutte made a pitch to the people and said


I can give you that if that is what you want and it seems to have


stabilised his position to some large degree. Well we have seen the


Prime Minister but also the Christian Democrats increasingly in


the days leading up to the election moving to the right and seeing more


and more what would be extreme things a couple of years ago towards


immigrants, more Nationalists bowls like singing the national anthem


standing up which was a proposal from the Christian Democrats. That


is not the course we have chosen as the Democrats 66 and I am encouraged


to see there is a lot of support for this other narrative, international


media have been looking at Geert Wilders but there is a strong other


story to be told tonight. The progressive parties with an


open-minded open economy open society agenda have won tonight.


That is interesting because what you are seeing is the centre-left


squeezed out, they are squeezed out between these two big forces of if


you like populist right-wing and progressive liberalism as you would


describe it and the two sides of Dutch society are now polarising


around two different positions. Indeed there is polarisation between


conservative and progressive I would say. There is a couple of parties on


each side and I think the story of the Labour Party is more one of a


four year-long coalition with the party they said they would never


govern with in the previous campaign. I think that has been a


big disappointment for their constituents. Marietje Schaake,


thank you for your time. Catherine De Vries is a Professor


of Politics at University of Essex. But works here and studies the whole


of European politics. It's a fascinating picture because first


thing is the traditional parties have not done very well and the


outside parties have done quite well. I think that is a phenomenon


we are seeing in many West European or European political systems


overall that actually this is maybe not even the story about the


strength of populists but the weakness of mainstream politics. But


not a good night for Geert Wilders, would you say this is one of those


where it stops the populist bandwagon in its tracks? You have to


be careful making those kind of sweeping arguments but I think Geert


Wilders was expecting more from tonight. I think the people who


follow Dutch politics closely, it was clear this election campaign he


has not been able to cater towards this anti-immigrant, anti-EU feeling


as successful as he has in the past. And now he has an election result


which is very similar to some of those he has had in previous years.


I think this is, he put the bar very high for himself and did not meet


it. Where does that kind of populism go? You could think it is a fad, you


could think it is a fixture, which would you think? Not to be too


academic but we think there are three ways to deal with populists,


one is to ignore, that seems to have not been a very successful strategy


in Western Europe for a long time. The second is to co-opt and that is


something Marietje Schaake was just talking about, taking firm positions


in the Turkish row we saw and anti-immigrant. I think some people


have suggested that has helped Mark Rutte in the election campaign. The


third is to choose an attacking position. Take them on. Take them on


and that is something the green left has done much more successfully than


Democrats 66. A millennial 31-year-old party leader has done


exceptionally well and gained 12 seats. It does set an interesting


tone for the French and German elections, that a more positive,


pro-Europe, pro-immigration stamps could perhaps help weather the


populist rise. A big story in Europe and the same in France, the


centre-left, the mainstream left, it's not going to make the top three


in France, it's been terribly badly damaged here, what is going on? One


interesting element is we think of social Democratic party, the Labour


Party label to be toxic, the story of the last year is social Democrats


not doing well. But one politician putting that into perspective is


Martin Shilts doing very well in Germany. Thank you very much


Catherine De Vries. Well, Philip Hammond's


budget didn't last a week. He backtracked on his increase


in National Insurance for the self-employed today,


under pressure from colleagues. Some are saying the Brexiteers


were out to get him What is your take on what happened


today? It was each immolating U-turn from the canceller -- it was a


humiliating U-turn for the Chancellor. Philip Hammond believes


he and the Prime Minister are equally culpable. In the first place


he originally wanted a budget that was not going to spend any more or


raise any more and he buckled on both. The second thing is number ten


had full notice of this rise in national insurance for the


self-employed. But I'm hearing the sound of recriminations from within


the Treasury, finger-pointing at officials and ministers from the


George Osborne era who said the manifesto was dealt with in


legislation after the election where they said they would not be raising


national insurance for the employed. It was silent on the self-employed


hence the problem. But this budget U-turn comes at a moment when the


challenges are really mounting for this government. So here is my film


looking at those. How easy life can seem in the cocoon


of a honeymoon. Goodwill carried along by the gentle sea breeze and


not a dark cloud on the horizon. And then there is the return home to


reality and a whole host of obstacles. In one of the fastest


U-turns in recent budget history Philip Hammond today announced he


was abandoning a rise in national insurance contributions for the


self-employed. It's a huge clock up which comes from a number of things,


firstly it comes from what seems to be a failure to even look at the


Conservative manifesto of not even two years ago. I think that is


explained not by casualness our lack of work, I think what explains that


is that Theresa May and her team do not think of the 2015 manifesto as


the manifesto. Just a few short weeks ago the path ahead seemed


clear for Theresa May after the Tories defeated Labour in the


Copeland by-election. Now her government is heading obstacles.


Sometimes down to their own mistakes and sometimes down to the historic


challenge of negotiating Britain's exit from the EU and what that means


for all parts of the UK. The man charged with running Brexit


is sometimes charged with well, not quite doing his homework and today


David Davis admitted that he had not carried out a study into the


economic impact of a cliff edge Brexit. If you mean in my time, no.


I was shocked that he was so complacent that he was prescribing


that we should have no deal rather than a bad deal, the government


haven't done any work on the economy, people's jobs, investments,


what livelihoods would be. I think it is incredibly irresponsible. One


leading Brexiteer thought David Davies had been perfectly sensible.


If for some reason with new government is coming through in the


major EU countries there is a view that they want to be punitive and is


not a relationship I want to have with a trade environment. And rather


work with them in the WTO framework which clear and everyone signs up


to. And there's always another obstacle just around the corner. The


SNP are using Brexit to demand a second independence referendum. One


Unionist says the Prime Minister isn't helping the UK case. In


Westminster they are comparing the present Prime Minister with Margaret


Thatcher is a favourable comparison. In Scotland when they compare the


present Prime Minister with Margaret Hodge it is the opposite because of


course Margaret Thatcher was universally disliked in Scotland.


Anyone who resembles Margaret Thatcher, even to the smallest


extent, is not going to go down well with the majority of people in


Scotland. One veteran of Gordon Brown's Downing Street believes


Theresa May is now discovering the true challenge of being a Prime


Minister. I think the honeymoon is coming to an end


because the easy part of a Brexit dominated government for her was


always going to be the run-up to the triggering of Article 50 moment. The


minute Article 50 is triggered this when the hard work begins, making


decisions about who you will annoy, who you will favour, which business


you will say yes to, or no to, whether you are hard rig ht soft


left, whether the Tory party will be more annoyed by your choices. That


will be her problem from now and you'd better get used to it because


this is the territory she will be in for a long time. Her unusually


lengthy honeymoon will soon be a distant memory for Theresa must hope


that her capacity for hard work will ensure that she faces a smooth road


ahead. Nick Watt will be back with us in a moment she must hope that


her capacity for hard work will ensure that she faces a smooth road


ahead. Nick Watt will be back with us in a moment.


Let's talk a bit more about tax and the national


One thing that almost every tax expert thinks,


is that Phillip Hammond was on to something,


in arguing that we need to sort out the lower tax


Firstly, it loses the government revenue, it's not fair that rich


self-employed people pay less tax than poorer workers.


And it encourages employers to sack workers, and take them


So how come something seen as sensible has been mishandled


Maybe we shouldn't have a Budget where things are sprung


I'm joined by Conservative MP David Morris, who's the prime


minister's 'Ambassador for the Self-Employed'.


And Jill Rutter from the Institute for Government, who's worked on tax


policy in the Treasury and Number 10.


Djourou should we just get rid of the budget, have a debate before


anything and then not this problem. We should have fewer budgets and


Philip Hammond has agreed to that by abolishing the spring budget, this


one will be his last, he might be relieved about that. And he did less


in this one, a good move. Still that ancient process where the budget is


shrouded in secrecy and there's very little consultation on the measures,


chancellors have rabbits that they announce Djourou, should we just get


rid of the budget, have the debate before anything and then not this


problem. We should have fewer budgets and Philip Hammond has


agreed to that by abolishing the spring budget, this one will be his


last, he might be relieved about that. And he did less in this one, a


good move. Still that ancient process where the budget is shrouded


in secrecy and there's very little consultation on the measures,


chancellors have rabbits that explosions happen sooner and sooner


so actually lasting a week was better than George Osborne's last


spring budget when he was reversing by question Time, the day after they


should ask themselves, chancellors, whether they are well served by


this. So on taxi would say, here is a direction this, we need to work


out a facing? Philip Hammond trailed in the Autumn Statement that he was


going to consult on to look at the issue. So they laid the groundwork


for doing a serious review exposing the evidence base, building


consensus and laying the groundwork for some long-term reforms. Instead


they decided the rabbit had to be let out of the hatch early in the


budget, whether at the last minute to pay for social care, who knows.


What they have done is set back the cause for serious reform for the


rest of this before that the Prime Minister had said at this review by


Matthew Taylor's bringing in Tony Blair's former head of policy to


look at the issue. So they laid the groundwork for doing a serious


review exposing the evidence base, building consensus and laying the


groundwork for some long-term reforms. Instead they decided the


rabbit had to be let out of the hatch early in the budget, whether


at the last minute to pay for social care, who knows. What they have done


is set back the cause for serious reform for the rest of this


Parliament. It's off the cards David, you wanted this. Before this


was a good idea. When I was Minister for the self-employed, I had been an


MP for 20 years and one problem for the self-employed is how they sort


out their pensions. I'm still having problems, I was at college in 1983,


this is how complicated it is. What we saw today was a better deal than


what we saw yesterday because it is actually... You supported the budget


and know you support the U-turn? Minister for the self-employed, I


had been an MP for 20 years and one problem for the self-employed is how


they sort out their pensions. I'm still having problems, I was at


college in 1983, this is how complicated it is. What we saw today


was a better deal than what we saw yesterday because it is actually...


You supported the budget and now you support the I thought it was a good


deal because we are trying to harmonise the self-employed. I


floated this idea two years ago saying let's get rid of class toyou


put money into it and get nothing from it's complicated that it is


unfair for Rich self-employed people to pay less tax than poorer workers?


That is what we've got now. Everything is on class four.


Yesterday, you agree that it is unfair for rich self-employed people


to pay less tax than poorer workers? That is what we've got now.


Everything is on class four. The profits of the 40,000 that on. Mayo


suggest that the real problem was the manifesto commitment. We can


blame the budget process but it was the manifesto high on. Mayo suggest


that the real problem was the manifesto commitment. We can blame


the budget process but it was the manifesto they had made such a


radical and firm commitment in the manifesto to doing nothing. Everyone


who the time that the only people they were binding with themselves so


to take the law to do that seemed said at the time that the only


people they were binding with themselves so to take the law to do


that seemed strange the grid. You had no announcement planned for the


day, what shall we do, say they will be attacks, that's easy, we won't do


that anyway. Which is the cavalier way we go about it. -- they will be


taxed. This was talked about when you before the election. What got


them was the pledge not to touch national insurance ever! In the


budget of 2015, Sajid Javid has announced this although it's gone


under the radar, now we've actually got a better deal for the


self-employed. They are now paying the same as everyone, getting a tax


break because they are not paying ?145 in the class tos. The good news


was let out early, the abolition of class two. The bad news about class


four came later. You'd had the good news already, it's all bad news. We


need to do much more strategic approach, thinking in advance what


you wanted to do over the life of a parliament. Theresa May said


something interesting in the two and a half hours she ran for the


leadership before Andrea Leadsom withdrew. She said, we need to have


a serious conversation about how we pay for the state. And because she


became Prime Minister within two and a half days we lost that


conversation. Do you want that conversation David? We are having it


already. We did have the consultation before... Your party


keeps making rash promises like we won't touch any taxes and in


government it has to constrain itself! If you think about what


happened in the general election that's just gone we did talk about


abolishing Class 2s. And people in classical can get maternity pay


which was one of my ideas. Stay with us, if you would. You both.


Nick Watt is still with us - there's been more movement


Allegations hurting the Conservatives. 12 police forces have


asked charges to be considered concerning expenses. This relates to


the long running saga exposed by Channel 4 News that the Tories


inappropriately used facilities funded at a national level to


campaign locally. The biggest examples being those bus tours


around marginal constituencies. Car McCartney, one Tory MP being


investigated wrote to the party chairman, furious. I've learned this


evening that Tory MPs are giving an ultimatum to the Tory chairman, is a


Patrick McLoughlin, saying sort this out by the end of the week. Write to


the electoral commission. Say it is your fault, pay a fine of ?20,000


and if you don't will go on strike. I'm not quite sure what going on


strike will mean. David, you have some history of this because the


battle bus visited your seed when you were fighting the election. You


were investigated -- your seat. It was a carbon copy, the Lancashire


Police interviewed me and saw fit to take it no further. They haven't


gone to this CBS? There were reports on BBC Two two weeks ago that there


is nothing further to be answered. Did the party let you down? Did they


say that the battle bus was a national expense and you will find?


Yes, we all got the same e-mail from Mark Clark at the time, he was


behind the battle bus project and he said it was a national spend. You


all had a sincere belief, that's the claim, essentially, that you were


cleared for this spending. I honestly believe not one member of


Parliament is guilty of anything. But the party is guilty of something


because it misinformed you. The Labour Party, the Lib Dems, Ukip,


everyone had the same kind of project going on. In fact the Tories


were late in the day to do this kind of project because the Liberal


Democrats have been doing it for generations. One problem that the


Tories had was that you had few activists. On the ground, the


membership is not what it was. Using battle buses and ferrying people


around was a big part of the Tory campaign. In your seat wasn't that


the case? No. My case was straightforward. We did not want the


battle bus. That was said from day one. We were instructed to have the


battle bus, it was the same as everyone else, which is what the


parties do. They told you, you will take the battle bus, it's coming on


Tuesday... We were told it was a national spend, nothing more


sinister, deeper, or clandestinely. David, thank you for staying on and


clarifying that. Thank you. Are you someone who likes


collecting data on yourself - monitoring your sleep,


footsteps, heart rate? I mean seriously doing that, not


just the first few days of January? Well, we are potentially


on the cusp of something big - a chance not just for us to measure


everything we do, For companies, the benefits


are clear - but what Our technology editor David Grossman


looks at whether we should set limits on how much data companies


can gather about their workers. Clocking up the steps


on the way to the office. Along with other workers


at their firm, Beate and Rebecca And there are prizes for who can


rack up the most impressive numbers. I kind of think of myself


as being quite fit and healthy. But it's only really when I started


using it that I realised I didn't actually do that many steps


on a daily basis, so I think it's I've really enjoyed that,


knowing how many I'm doing and thinking about improving


it every day. This is my personal


individual dashboard. But isn't there a something perhaps


a bit creepy about sharing this sort Are you at all worried that it blurs


the line between your job So for those of us that doesn't


want to partake you don't And for the rest of us that do it


just adds a little bit The company says it's


all about getting a healthier The data the devices


generate is very much You have to take into context


that the wearable device itself is optional so not everybody


will use them and of course some people may give


them to their husbands, their wives, their children,


so you have to be careful. But we get high-level


anonymised data, but not Well it can help tell you how


many people are engaging with the wearable device


in the first place. And it might give you some broad


identification of sort of the levels of activity,


maybe in certain departments, certain groups of people,


you might be able to find But it won't be at


an individual level. Wearable tech at work


is a growing trend. According to analysis by ABI


research, companies gave out 200 million wearable devices


to employees last year. They predict that will rise


to 500 million a year by 2021. The rise of wearable technology


obviously offers fantastic insights for companies,


but at what cost? Just how much of our personal


information should we be invited to share with employers in the name


of efficiency and health? For example, there is no doubt that


well rested workers perform But does that mean we should


allow employers to keep an eye on our shut-eye,


just because the technology There may be a case for,


say, airline pilots, According to one pressure


group we are in danger of trading our souls in return


for a few flashy trinkets. Well in the case of wearables


I think employers are now starting to say, oh,


no, no, no, we will give you this wearable and you'll get free gym


membership, or we'll help reduce your health care insurance


costs or, if you lose this much weight or you get this much sleep


we will provide you Employers are going to be


quite savvy at trying to encourage employees to think


they are going to get Actually long term the benefit


does go to the employer, Because for all those benefits


that the employee is going to get they are also going to be under


a level of surveillance that many will see as completely inappropriate


and a breach of their private lives and their private selves


within the workplace. But this kind of technology


is rather old hat. It's just the start


of what's possible. Add a microphone, add Bluetooth


proximity sensors and employers will be able to plot a map


of how their employees Humanised describes itself


as a people analytics company. They use smart ID badges


which record who an employee is talking to and in


what tone of voice. It allows employers


to see the human network on which their organisation


is running, with some We don't share individual


data with companies. We don't track the amount of times


you go to the bathroom. But the idea is if you don't


want to participate you can even choose to wear a fake badge,


one doesn't collect any data. And we think that's important,


right, because at a high level, if you force employees


to try to wear this sort of thing, if you're able to track where people


go, any benefit you get from this technology would be dwarfed


by the negative reaction people We are very much at the beginning


of what's possible. So far the law in this area has not


got much further than some rather Even those at the cutting-edge


of workplace monitoring think We absolutely need more


regulation around this space. Technology in general tends


to outpace regulation But this technology has


been coming along now for a while and there are obviously


benefits both to individuals as well as companies,


but we need to make sure that we protect individual privacy


moving forward because again, if we don't do that people


will start doing the wrong thing with this and again that


will of course be terrible for the individuals involved


but also, even just from an industry perspective, that will affect us


moving forward as well, if there are people


operating in the wrong way. Employee monitoring has been around


as long as paid work itself. Well, I think it's


something foreign. What has changed is how


cheap and all pervasive Now the only limits are ones


we choose as a society to set. Tonight, it's David Goodhart


of the think tank Policy Exchange and author of the new book The Road


to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt In the five years to 2014,


the Office for National Statistics has revealed there was a dramatic


increase in the number of over At most other ages, marriage


rates have generally The actual numbers of


pensionable people getting married are still quite low -


but the upward trend is striking. And I saw you and I


thought aaaahhhh! And I walked over to say


hello to you and you'd And things were never


the same again afterwards. Being married is the


biggest commitment It's the most public


and private thing Sometimes getting married


makes sense through shared assets and pensions


and things like that. I had always said that


I didn't want it to be a practical decision, but more


of an emotional decision. Jane Falkingham is the Director


of the ESRC Centre for Population Change she joins us


from Southampton and Virginia Ironside is a journalist,


author and agony aunt Good evening to you both, let's


start on why these rates have gone up, what do you think has been


driving at Jane Falkingham? If you think about people aged over 65,


they were born in the 1940s and 1950s and these are the first


cohorts who have undergone large proportions are undergoing


divorcees. So they may well have got divorced in their 40s and 50s and


have been available to get married again in their 60s. Of course.


Virginia I have heard there is a technology thing going on, dating


apps are not just for the young and older people use them as well, is


that part of what is going on? Yes, but dating is different to getting


married. Yes but you have to start somewhere. I don't know why they


can't just hang out together, beat together, why do they have to get


married? Marriage seems so strange for a generation that was young in


the 60s, that believed in living together, that thought of marriage


is just a bit of paper. Do you know people of the later age group who


are getting married and do you know others who are cohabiting or playing


around? I know people who are together and have been together for


a long time in their old age but have not married. And I know a


couple who are married but lived in separate homes. I think that's an


odd thing because neither of them want to give up their


self-sufficiency, they only want to see each other at certain times so


why they want to actually get married I don't know. Because it


also raises incredible difficulties with the children, wills, who gets


what and when. The other thing that has happened is different attitudes


to the independence of women which must play a big part in all of this


right? Yes, women are far more economically independent than they


were in the past and particularly this cohort, again this will be the


first generation of women retiring with pensions in their own right and


they will be economically independent so I am also somewhat


surprised we are seeing this rise in marriage rates. But it is from a low


base and we have more people available to be married. Life


expectancy has also gone up so obviously, you may think of yourself


when you reach 65 as much younger than people thought when it was 30


or 40 years ago. Yes, a 65-year-old woman has about another 25 years. Do


you think loneliness has a lot to do with it? I think that's quite


tricky, again, I did look at the data earlier today and most of these


marriages are taking place of people who are fairly, around 65-74 and


actually that age group are still fairly socially active. It's a


little bit later on in old age where you might expect loneliness to kick


in and social isolation due to people not being able to physically


get out and about. Virginia you do not seem that keen on this new


fashion! But it is isolation in much later life as Jane has just said and


maybe this is a way of protecting yourself? Again but you don't have


to marry. Marion does bring with it a lot of knots which need untied.


What is bothering you? What I am talking about is the will aspect and


when there are two lots of children, two people get married. One is


living in the family home, the other one dies, it is a nightmare and that


is something I think a lot of people don't think about. You have got the


families in the background. Yes, exactly, interestingly I think Jane


might agree that it was men of over 65 who got more married than women


and I can sort of see that, they might want a housekeeper. Jane, one


other thing, what are the trends on divorce amongst older people? Often


when children have maybe left home or go on on to lead adult lives you


are left spending quite a long time together? That's right, divorce


rates are rising fairly rapidly in later life, there is this new group


called the Silver splitters and we have done work at the centre where


we were looking at the impact of divorce in later life on the


relationships between adult children and their parents. Actually we found


that people who were getting divorced post-60, adult children may


be in their 40s, may even have grandchildren, and it was the adult


children who were very annoyed that their parents were getting divorced.


Even at that age. A fascinating topic, thank you both very much.


I will be back tomorrow, but until then have a very good night.


19 Celsius in London today but things are about to turn cooler and


for the weekend wetter and windier. For Thursday a band of


Topics include the Dutch election results, privacy at work and old folks getting hitched. Plus Viewsnight and a look at NI contributions as the chancellor hits reverse.

With Evan Davis.

Download Subtitles