:00:00. > :00:07.Forget about the polls, ignore personalities -
:00:08. > :00:10.this election is meant to be about Brexit Britain.
:00:11. > :00:18.But do the main parties have any idea how to remodel our economy?
:00:19. > :00:21.I think the objective has got to be to look at creating those
:00:22. > :00:22.higher-productive jobs, those higher-skilled jobs.
:00:23. > :00:25.They don't exist at the present moment in time.
:00:26. > :00:28.We'll ask these two party protagonists what they can do
:00:29. > :00:38.to revitalise Britain's industrial heart and make us all rich.
:00:39. > :00:40.He's doing better than many predicted.
:00:41. > :00:42.So what will Labour's anti-Corbyn wing do now?
:00:43. > :00:45.Mr Corbyn is ready to forgive and forget.
:00:46. > :00:48.You know what, I do a lot of group hugs with lots of people.
:00:49. > :00:56.Opponents of Corbyn have been flummoxed by his success.
:00:57. > :01:05.And they're reviewing their tactics.
:01:06. > :01:08.And our latest political bedtime story, from someone who's made a bit
:01:09. > :01:11.There is an apocryphal story about a former
:01:12. > :01:17.Sadly, because of public cynicism about spin,
:01:18. > :01:36.This is turning out to be a weird election -
:01:37. > :01:38.opinion polls gyrating, reputations fluctuating,
:01:39. > :01:42.the unpredictable quickly becomes conceivable, or not.
:01:43. > :01:44.There's been farce, and sadly, there has been more
:01:45. > :01:48.tragedy in this campaign than we've experienced before.
:01:49. > :01:52.Yet, a week to go to the vote, and it feels as though some
:01:53. > :01:54.of our structural problems have yet to get a mention.
:01:55. > :01:57.So we're going to start with one tonight, even at the risk of looking
:01:58. > :02:00.like we are off the subject of the campaign.
:02:01. > :02:03.The question is - how we deal with Britain's lopsided,
:02:04. > :02:07.For all the rhetoric of us being the fifth,
:02:08. > :02:10.or is it now sixth largest economy in the world, it's not
:02:11. > :02:15.Do the Labour and Conservatives parties really have any idea
:02:16. > :02:21.We'll ask them that, and some other questions.
:02:22. > :02:23.But first, a quick look at the journey we've taken,
:02:24. > :02:33.Through the monstrous scenery of slag heaps,
:02:34. > :02:37.chimneys, piled scrap iron, foul canals, paths...
:02:38. > :02:42.No town has come to that represent the poverty of the past than Wigan.
:02:43. > :02:46.George Orwell's 1937 tract, The Road to Wigan Pier,
:02:47. > :02:48.gave a shocking description of the grim reality
:02:49. > :02:53.Pinched faces, ruined by malnutrition.
:02:54. > :02:57.Eight to ten people living in three-room houses with no bath
:02:58. > :03:05.Many working class adults have none of their own teeth.
:03:06. > :03:08.Orwell brought home that Britain was two nations.
:03:09. > :03:11.Seven decades on, and everything has changed.
:03:12. > :03:14.Very few children are barefoot and malnourished.
:03:15. > :03:22.And Wigan itself sometimes tires of its association
:03:23. > :03:30.But that doesn't mean we can relax, go home and play
:03:31. > :03:38.It's a First World problem we have now.
:03:39. > :03:44.It's about how we create more productive jobs.
:03:45. > :03:47.This box-making factory in Wigan provides semiskilled work.
:03:48. > :03:52.But it needs even more of the top end stuff.
:03:53. > :03:55.Without that, we can't get pay levels up, or tax revenues to pay
:03:56. > :04:12.I think the objective has got to be to look at creating those
:04:13. > :04:13.higher-productive jobs, those higher-skilled jobs.
:04:14. > :04:16.They don't exist at the present moment in time.
:04:17. > :04:20.What do you do, create the jobs and hope that workers will come?
:04:21. > :04:23.Or do you have the workforce with those high skills,
:04:24. > :04:27.So, it's a real mix of getting that balance absolutely right.
:04:28. > :04:31.Not just in Wigan, but in huge parts of the country.
:04:32. > :04:33.The key word, productivity - how much we get out
:04:34. > :04:36.Britain's performance is pretty lamentable.
:04:37. > :04:39.France, Germany and the US are way ahead, each producing about 30%
:04:40. > :04:47.Lucky we work long hours, or we'd be way behind them.
:04:48. > :04:49.Part of the problem here may be equipment,
:04:50. > :05:00.In our case, in our small pocket of Wigan, I try as much as possible,
:05:01. > :05:05.as the owner of Belmont Packaging, to ensure the staff have as good
:05:06. > :05:12.a shot as possible to learn more and to skill up,
:05:13. > :05:14.in order to combat the automisation that undoubtedly will
:05:15. > :05:20.The productivity challenge is huge, but the key point is that challenge
:05:21. > :05:29.So, a big part of this problem is post-industrialisation.
:05:30. > :05:33.It doesn't so much affect the huge cities, it's the secondary cities
:05:34. > :05:36.and the large towns that have struggled to get the investment and
:05:37. > :05:42.It's these places, by the way, that have tended to express
:05:43. > :05:50.So, the challenge is to bring more productive jobs and more economic
:05:51. > :05:57.life to the parts of the country that haven't had it so easy.
:05:58. > :06:01.Just behold the scale of disparities by looking at the value of each
:06:02. > :06:10.London is 31% ahead of the national average.
:06:11. > :06:12.Apart from the south east, all the nations and regions
:06:13. > :06:18.Wales and Northern Ireland are each about 20% behind.
:06:19. > :06:21.So, Britain's poor productivity and its extreme imbalances can be
:06:22. > :06:29.London's got very high levels of productivity.
:06:30. > :06:34.If you want to raise national productivity,
:06:35. > :06:38.you're going to have to do it in places like the north east
:06:39. > :06:43.The old de-industrialised regions have to have their
:06:44. > :06:47.And I don't think there's a lot of mystery, in some ways,
:06:48. > :06:50.It's investment, it's investment in infrastructure,
:06:51. > :06:57.Undoubtedly, of course, everybody will say they support the end.
:06:58. > :06:59.The question is whether they have the imagination
:07:00. > :07:11.Well, it is all about building post-Brexit Britain.
:07:12. > :07:16.Both main parties have conceded that there needs to be some change
:07:17. > :07:18.in the national economic model to spread the economic
:07:19. > :07:25.And Peter Dowd is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
:07:26. > :07:35.Good evening to you both. Daivd Gauke first. Make your pitch to the
:07:36. > :07:40.people of Wigan as Mac what can you do to revitalise or upgrade the
:07:41. > :07:44.economy there? First of all, I think your report hit on port in thing. If
:07:45. > :07:51.we want to improve living standards we have got to create the world,
:07:52. > :07:56.that is absolutely key. How do we do that to benefit, say, Wigan? Part of
:07:57. > :07:59.it is about infrastructure. We've got to be fiscally credible but
:08:00. > :08:04.you've got to put the infrastructure in, improve the transport links.
:08:05. > :08:07.Bring those northern towns and cities together is what has driven
:08:08. > :08:11.the Northern Powerhouse thinking, that's really important. Making sure
:08:12. > :08:15.that we are forward-looking and innovative, there is a role for
:08:16. > :08:18.Government there in helping research and development, there is a lot of
:08:19. > :08:22.research we are doing with innovate UK. We said in our manifesto we want
:08:23. > :08:28.to be the most innovative country in the world. In terms of providing
:08:29. > :08:32.support for research and development, for example, seeing
:08:33. > :08:36.that as a priority, that is rarely important. Skills and training as
:08:37. > :08:40.well. More money for schools and training? I can't find any in your
:08:41. > :08:45.manifesto. There was more money set out in March. It wasn't just about
:08:46. > :08:52.money, it was about making sure we have the new T levels, properly
:08:53. > :08:55.recognised qualifications. Let's called your thoughts, thank you.
:08:56. > :08:59.Peter Dowd, I want to hear what your pitch to the people of Wigan would
:09:00. > :09:04.beat and whether it's actually any different to what Daivd Gauke says,
:09:05. > :09:08.and whether we can distinguish between the position of the parties
:09:09. > :09:11.on this. I don't think austerity-lite is worked. We have
:09:12. > :09:18.lower levels of productivity as has been set out in the piece -- I don't
:09:19. > :09:24.think austerity has worked. Skill levels are port. What do we do about
:09:25. > :09:29.it? OK, the issue on that one is that you need investment. To get
:09:30. > :09:34.level of productivity up, you need investment in capital and labour.
:09:35. > :09:37.And whether that is in education, whether it's in physical
:09:38. > :09:42.infrastructure, that's what we actually need. And what we've got is
:09:43. > :09:46.a woeful lack of investment in that. The key to this is investment.
:09:47. > :09:53.Right, how much are you invest in education? I'm looking at your
:09:54. > :09:56.spending commitments. You have a lot more for schools, is that going to
:09:57. > :10:02.make a difference? You have a bit more. All is, but -- you have a bit
:10:03. > :10:05.more for skills. Is that the difference between you and the
:10:06. > :10:10.Conservative Party in what you will do for Wigan? We are talking about
:10:11. > :10:15.?25 billion investment in education, in a sense from the cradle right the
:10:16. > :10:20.way through life. It is investment in early years, its investment in
:10:21. > :10:22.secondary education, further education and skills, which has
:10:23. > :10:27.taken a total battering. It is investment in university and
:10:28. > :10:31.generally in lifelong learning, skilled pupils to bike does that
:10:32. > :10:39.include the ?11 billion loss spending on skilled grants? Half the
:10:40. > :10:42.total budget is on students. Are you expecting more people to go to
:10:43. > :10:47.university as a result of your free tuition? I think it will be a mix.
:10:48. > :10:52.Some people will go to university, but that's the point... Are you
:10:53. > :10:56.expecting more? If you are spending ?11 billion and we get the same
:10:57. > :11:00.output. Mike I would expect them to go more. It is a refresh, a
:11:01. > :11:05.different look at the education service. It isn't just focus on
:11:06. > :11:10.university students, it has to be a holistic approach over a long period
:11:11. > :11:15.of time to education. What we have had is an atomisation of our
:11:16. > :11:20.education service. While Rome burns in terms of education, we have stuff
:11:21. > :11:23.about grammar schools and the issue about academies, free schools, the
:11:24. > :11:30.point I'm trying to make is that until you get a coherent education
:11:31. > :11:32.service from cradle and told grave, virtually, we're just going to
:11:33. > :11:37.continue this path of lack of skills. Isn't there something in the
:11:38. > :11:41.fact that you just need to spend a lot more on schools? You can't just
:11:42. > :11:45.talk about skills. The one thing Labour have got that is different is
:11:46. > :11:49.a few billion next to the schools budget, that you haven't got, David.
:11:50. > :11:55.In terms of the manifesto, we are putting more money into schools than
:11:56. > :12:03.we previously set up. There two important points about investment.
:12:04. > :12:05.First of all, if we are talking about Government investment, if you
:12:06. > :12:07.like, you've still got to maintain that credibility with the markets if
:12:08. > :12:10.you're going to be borrowing that money, they're not going to lead it
:12:11. > :12:13.to you if they don't think you're going to bring it back. The second
:12:14. > :12:16.point is if we are looking at private investment, companies have
:12:17. > :12:20.got choices all around the world. You have got to have an economy that
:12:21. > :12:24.welcomes investment, that is business friendly, and you won't
:12:25. > :12:28.attract investment in the UK when there are many, many choices for
:12:29. > :12:31.businesses if for example you are making our tax system less
:12:32. > :12:39.competitive, which is what the Labour Party proposed. It's very
:12:40. > :12:42.interesting, because you are going back to the previous Conservative
:12:43. > :12:43.view, that you need a strong deregulated business friendly
:12:44. > :12:46.economy. The question people might ask is, why should we believe in
:12:47. > :12:51.interventionism, which seems to be what you were starting out with,
:12:52. > :12:57.from a party that has been sceptical about intervention for the last 30
:12:58. > :13:00.years? There is a caricature, there is no contradiction in saying you
:13:01. > :13:04.want to be business friendly and attract private investment into the
:13:05. > :13:09.UK, you want to have a tax system that is an asset to bringing
:13:10. > :13:15.investment in, not a liability. But there is also a role for the state.
:13:16. > :13:20.And that comes in, you know, not in supporting failed businesses and so
:13:21. > :13:25.on in a kind of 1970s industrial strategy. It's a modern industrial
:13:26. > :13:32.strategy that focuses on what you areas need? In some areas it is
:13:33. > :13:35.about skills and training, in some it is more about research and
:13:36. > :13:38.develop and, in others it is about transport. Hard to work whether it
:13:39. > :13:43.is going to work so hard to know whether it is going to work. We have
:13:44. > :13:47.just had elections from metro-mayors, for example. We
:13:48. > :13:48.getting a proper devolution to the area, people can respond to local
:13:49. > :13:56.needs. I just wanted to spend a few minutes
:13:57. > :14:01.on the issue that David raised, it is eye watering how much you are
:14:02. > :14:06.expecting to raise out of British companies. I mean, it is 19.4
:14:07. > :14:11.billion corporation tax, 1.6 billion on offshore companies, 4 billion on
:14:12. > :14:16.corporate tax relief. You've got the stamp duty proposal, 6 billion.
:14:17. > :14:20.Avoidance measures, let's call that 7 billion, let's call it three from
:14:21. > :14:25.companies. It is basically 30 billion quid or so that you are
:14:26. > :14:28.taking out of corporate profits. Have you researched or looked at, or
:14:29. > :14:34.done the homework, on what the effect of that will be on
:14:35. > :14:37.investment? At the end of the day, the issue is that we need investment
:14:38. > :14:41.in the country. Everybody has to pay their fair share of taxes. The
:14:42. > :14:51.Tories are cut in corporation tax down to 17%, when we have it at 26%,
:14:52. > :14:57.it will still be lower than in 2010. Have you done any research on the
:14:58. > :15:00.effect? We raise 50 billion or 60 billion in corporation tax, you are
:15:01. > :15:04.adding 20 billion, plus other corporate taxes to that. It is a big
:15:05. > :15:08.increase, not impossible, but a big increase. Have you researched the
:15:09. > :15:15.effect that would have on corporate investment? Yes, corporate
:15:16. > :15:21.investment will continue, as far as I'm concerned. There is currently
:15:22. > :15:26.?500 billion sitting not being invested. We need to try to move
:15:27. > :15:29.that investment on, so it is about a private and public partnership in
:15:30. > :15:32.all of these issues. It is not just about the state or private sector,
:15:33. > :15:38.it is about both pushing and pulling together. Companies invest... I
:15:39. > :15:42.don't know, call it 200 billion a year. You are taking 30 billion out
:15:43. > :15:48.of companies and you don't know if that is going to affect investment?
:15:49. > :15:54.I didn't say that. Investment is the cornerstone of your policy. No, I
:15:55. > :15:58.said it would not impact the economy. What evidence do you have
:15:59. > :16:07.to support that? Have you done some research? You have to look at the
:16:08. > :16:10.other economies you have in the G7. Their corporation tax is higher than
:16:11. > :16:15.British levels and they still have huge amounts of investment. Can you
:16:16. > :16:18.be sure that ?30 billion, probably one of the biggest tax increases
:16:19. > :16:22.ever known, can you be sure that would not affect the pensions of
:16:23. > :16:26.people that are not part of the richest 5%, perfectly ordinary
:16:27. > :16:35.people, that it would not affect pensioners that rely on savings or
:16:36. > :16:42.Isas? That if you whip out a ?500 from every person in the country,
:16:43. > :16:45.equivalent, from companies, that it will not affect the economy? The
:16:46. > :16:52.whole point of investment is to grow the economy. If you do that, you get
:16:53. > :16:56.more tax. It is straightforward, you invest in the economy and get a
:16:57. > :17:02.return on your investment. Let me finish with you, David. You are the
:17:03. > :17:07.spending guy in the government, aren't you? Yes, I was the tax guy,
:17:08. > :17:12.I am now the spending guy. You let your manifesto go through with no
:17:13. > :17:17.figures. How did that happen? We set out a budget in March... You changed
:17:18. > :17:23.it in your manifesto, you have no costings or numbers. You just plonk
:17:24. > :17:26.them in. Raise defence spending by 0.5% above inflation? For a long
:17:27. > :17:33.time we have been saying we would do that. So it has been costed and
:17:34. > :17:36.factored into the budget numbers? If you look at what we have done, in
:17:37. > :17:39.contrast with the Labour Party, this is not a long wish list of
:17:40. > :17:45.proposals. It is the case that we have identified more spending, for
:17:46. > :17:49.example, on social care. We have said where we would find money to
:17:50. > :17:54.fund that. It is the case that we would spend more on schools. We have
:17:55. > :17:59.identified areas... People that like these things should have elections
:18:00. > :18:03.more often, and they will get more money thrown at these things? We're
:18:04. > :18:07.not throwing money around willy-nilly, as the Labour Party
:18:08. > :18:11.are. This is a pretty cautious manifesto. It also addresses some of
:18:12. > :18:16.the long-term issues in terms of public finances. I think it is
:18:17. > :18:20.sensible and recognises the constraints that continue to exist
:18:21. > :18:23.in public finances which, frankly, we have not seen from the Labour
:18:24. > :18:27.Party at all. There are some other stories I want to ask about.
:18:28. > :18:33.President Trump, pulling the United States out of the Paris climate
:18:34. > :18:40.change agreement. Leaders of France, Italy and Germany have all signed a
:18:41. > :18:45.joint declaration, regretting what President Trump has done. Theresa
:18:46. > :18:51.May has not. I gather that she has chosen not to join that. Do you
:18:52. > :18:58.think maybe she should have signed a regret on that? Well, Amber Rudd,
:18:59. > :19:02.last night, this point came up in the programme last night. She made
:19:03. > :19:08.it clear that we thought it was regrettable. Clearly, the UK led the
:19:09. > :19:11.way in terms of the Paris agreement. We do think it is regrettable.
:19:12. > :19:17.Different countries will take different approaches in terms of how
:19:18. > :19:21.we wish to express our opinion. I wonder how you feel. The EU and
:19:22. > :19:24.China were talking today, they want deeper integration and more
:19:25. > :19:28.corporation on these issues. Then you have the US stepping out,
:19:29. > :19:39.really, of the multilateral, global system. We seem to be be being
:19:40. > :19:43.pulled to the US? Don't think that is a fair interpretation,
:19:44. > :19:48.particularly in terms of the Paris agreement, where the United Kingdom
:19:49. > :19:53.played a leading role. Very much engaged in a multilateral process,
:19:54. > :19:56.very engaged indeed. In terms of how we express views on the US
:19:57. > :20:00.government's position, different countries will take different
:20:01. > :20:07.approaches. As I say, Amber Ruud was very clear... Amber Ruud was, but
:20:08. > :20:12.that hashtag asking where is Theresa, that will get more
:20:13. > :20:17.traction? Government is clear that we are disappointed. There seems to
:20:18. > :20:20.be confusion about the tens of thousands pledge on immigration,
:20:21. > :20:24.which has been hanging around your neck for many years, whether it is a
:20:25. > :20:28.pledge to get it down, to achieve it by the end of the parliament, or
:20:29. > :20:35.whether it is a somewhat looser aspiration. Can you tell us what you
:20:36. > :20:39.think it is? What is the tens of thousands reference? We want to
:20:40. > :20:41.achieve it. It is important we do control immigration. Only the
:20:42. > :20:49.Conservative Party has the desire to do so. We wanted to do it as soon as
:20:50. > :20:53.we can. There are obviously factors that are not totally within our
:20:54. > :20:58.control, that can move things around a bit. I think if we are to achieve
:20:59. > :21:02.that, clearly getting a good Brexited deal is part of that
:21:03. > :21:07.process. That is one of the factors that needs to be considered. I have
:21:08. > :21:13.made this point before, we had a period of time when the UK economy
:21:14. > :21:16.jobs market was growing very strongly. Southern Europe was
:21:17. > :21:21.performing very badly. That had an impact. Yes, we would like to
:21:22. > :21:25.achieve it. It is an important ambition and it is right we try to
:21:26. > :21:30.control it. Everything you have said tells me that you are not saying it
:21:31. > :21:35.is a pledge, it is like a pledge to not raise VAT, it is not in that
:21:36. > :21:40.category. It is a loose aim and you don't want to put a specific
:21:41. > :21:44.timetable on it? It is not 2022? We want to achieve it as soon as we
:21:45. > :21:48.practically can. We want to achieve it, as I say, in terms of a time
:21:49. > :21:51.frame you are talking about. I am noting that there are some
:21:52. > :21:58.extraneous factors, if you like, that could make it more difficult.
:21:59. > :22:02.We want to make progress on this. We will. There is no magic bullet here.
:22:03. > :22:05.There is no wonder we can wave. Universities should be pretty
:22:06. > :22:12.worried, students will get clobbered if you cannot do that any other way?
:22:13. > :22:15.We have made it clear that when it comes to attracting the best and
:22:16. > :22:17.brightest, we want to do that as well. Thank you very much indeed.
:22:18. > :22:20.One thing that the Labour poll surge has done is lay down a challenge
:22:21. > :22:26.They'd been happy for him to own a crashing defeat,
:22:27. > :22:29.and then they could fight to retake the party again afterwards.
:22:30. > :22:31.But what if he wins, or comes close to it?
:22:32. > :22:33.How would the anti-Corbynistas respond?
:22:34. > :22:46.Jeremy Corbyn is past pensionable age, but he appears
:22:47. > :22:49.to be on the verge of, yes, overcoming his critics.
:22:50. > :22:52.The Labour leader is in the final stretch of a campaign that has
:22:53. > :22:54.exceeded expectations, as the gap in the opinion
:22:55. > :23:05.To signal his confidence, Jeremy Corbyn today delivered
:23:06. > :23:08.a speech on Brexit, in the Leave heartland and once symbolically
:23:09. > :23:16.It was the Tory victory here in 1992 that showed Labour had a mountain
:23:17. > :23:26.Today, even in Labour's wildest dreams, this seat is a long shot.
:23:27. > :23:30.But Jeremy Corbyn hopes to claw back support.
:23:31. > :23:39.And to our excellent Brexit team here today...
:23:40. > :23:49.Look at the intelligence and competence that is there!
:23:50. > :23:53.Jeremy Corbyn tried to cut a Prime Ministerial bash in Basildon
:23:54. > :23:55.as he introduced what he dubbed the UK's next Brexit
:23:56. > :23:58.And about the small matter of the Labour election campaign?
:23:59. > :24:02.Mr Corbyn, a lot of your critics in the Labour Party said that this
:24:03. > :24:04.campaign would be a rerun of the one, the unsuccessful one,
:24:05. > :24:07.run by your close friend, the late Michael Foot in 1983.
:24:08. > :24:09.The polls would suggest that they're wrong.
:24:10. > :24:11.So I was wondering if, after this election,
:24:12. > :24:13.you're planning a group hug with those Labour critics to find
:24:14. > :24:15.a route back for them, or whether you think
:24:16. > :24:23.OK, OK, that's a really helpful question, thank you so much!
:24:24. > :24:31.You know what, I do a lot of group hugs with lots of people.
:24:32. > :24:38.Because, listen, in our family, the Labour Party family,
:24:39. > :24:49.Now, Jeremy Corbyn said the idea of bringing
:24:50. > :24:53.the Labour Party together, he's in favour of group hugs.
:24:54. > :24:55.What is your message to those members of the Labour Party
:24:56. > :25:01.who have never accepted his authority as leader?
:25:02. > :25:04.Well, look, what unites the Labour Party is so much more than
:25:05. > :25:13.And actually, when you look at what it is that we want to do,
:25:14. > :25:16.there's very little difference between us.
:25:17. > :25:19.I mean, I appreciate that we're the coalition on the left,
:25:20. > :25:23.So, unsurprisingly, another warm reception for Jeremy Corbyn
:25:24. > :25:27.His success has flummoxed his Labour opponents.
:25:28. > :25:31.Some had been planning an immediate challenge to him after the election.
:25:32. > :25:34.They are now frantically reassessing their tactics.
:25:35. > :25:37.Jeremy Corbyn is running a good campaign.
:25:38. > :25:40.But beyond anything else, he's a beneficiary of a truly
:25:41. > :25:49.The Prime Minister is disintegrating in front of the public.
:25:50. > :25:52.She's gone from basing her entire campaign around her personality
:25:53. > :25:55.to her brand being junked within three weeks.
:25:56. > :25:59.So that is quite an extraordinary moment for British politics,
:26:00. > :26:04.and it's quite an extraordinary opportunity for the Labour Party.
:26:05. > :26:06.I've been speaking to Labour opponents of Jeremy Corbyn
:26:07. > :26:11.A few weeks ago, one leading figure told me he would go down
:26:12. > :26:13.in flames next week, and the party should respond
:26:14. > :26:17.in a thunderclap moment by seeking to dislodge him.
:26:18. > :26:21.That same figure now tells me this issue will drag on for a long time
:26:22. > :26:25.if Jeremy Corbyn stays on after a defeat.
:26:26. > :26:28.But his opponents have not given up all hope.
:26:29. > :26:33.They say that if the British people deliver a loud
:26:34. > :26:35.message next week then they are still prepared to strike.
:26:36. > :26:41.But he believes that at a minimum Jeremy Corbyn needs to take
:26:42. > :26:46.If you're not in government, you should not claim
:26:47. > :26:51.The Labour Party should be aiming to be in government,
:26:52. > :26:54.that is the first test, I think.
:26:55. > :26:57.You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn could stay on if he's gaining seats
:26:58. > :26:58.from the Conservatives, and significantly closing
:26:59. > :27:06.As he relaxes into his stride, Jeremy Corbyn has revealed
:27:07. > :27:10.His supporters now hope that his route to Number Ten is more
:27:11. > :27:25.Elections are about choices, but in the heat of a campaign,
:27:26. > :27:28.it's easy to get stuck in the detail and to lose sight of
:27:29. > :27:32.So we thought it might be helpful to boil it all down,
:27:33. > :27:36.set out the options, and offer a 90-second big picture
:27:37. > :27:40.guide as to what the parties represent on a particular issue.
:27:41. > :27:43.For some reason we decided to call it The Naked Election.
:27:44. > :27:46.This is the first of three, and I should warn you that it
:27:47. > :27:53.It's the word that's dividing the West at
:27:54. > :28:02.Are we keen on free trade, comfortable with immigration,
:28:03. > :28:04.pleased with overseas aid and happy with international
:28:05. > :28:11.Or should jobs at home be our priority, should nations be
:28:12. > :28:14.left to sort out their own affairs, should we distance
:28:15. > :28:21.Yes, it's the defining division of our time.
:28:22. > :28:24.So you'd think we'd have a clear choice on it.
:28:25. > :28:27.One party against globalisation, economically patriotic,
:28:28. > :28:29.supporting proper national borders and Brexit.
:28:30. > :28:34.And another that thinks global trade makes us rich,
:28:35. > :28:37.that loves the EU and that reads The Economist magazine, which
:28:38. > :28:42.That's the way other elections have been fought,
:28:43. > :28:51.Our Tory-Labour election battle is a right old muddle.
:28:52. > :28:54.The Tories love free trade, but not the EU, which happens
:28:55. > :28:55.to be the biggest vehicle for international
:28:56. > :29:00.They want Britain open to international business,
:29:01. > :29:06.Labour are warmer to the EU and immigration, but are sceptical
:29:07. > :29:09.of international trade deals and free markets that go with them.
:29:10. > :29:16.So, on globalisation, neither party is the real deal for against.
:29:17. > :29:21.We may bang on about Labour and Tory, but the real divide
:29:22. > :29:26.is between Ukip and the Lib Dems - the two parties with a clear line.
:29:27. > :29:31.Strange, though, they have a clear line but low poll ratings.
:29:32. > :29:34.Maybe enough of us are in a muddle on globalisation that we'd
:29:35. > :29:42.rather avoid a clear line for the time being.
:29:43. > :29:44.A month ago, we teamed up with BBC Trending -
:29:45. > :29:46.our colleagues who follow the news through the undistorted
:29:47. > :29:50.lens of social media - and we asked you, Newsnight viewers,
:29:51. > :29:52.for help in looking at how the election campaign is playing
:29:53. > :30:00.Well, Mukul Devichand is the Editor of BBC Trending,
:30:01. > :30:07.and he's here now to tell us what he's found out.
:30:08. > :30:13.What have you found out, Mukul? People have been sending in their
:30:14. > :30:16.ads. We have received over 300
:30:17. > :30:18.examples of adverts that were seen on Facebook,
:30:19. > :30:20.Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. The strongest trend
:30:21. > :30:21.was the Conservatives, who seem to be using attack adverts
:30:22. > :30:29.- anti-Corbyn particularly. This is from the last woman's hour
:30:30. > :30:35.thing a couple of days ago, it turned around very quickly. These
:30:36. > :30:37.ads are very, very personal. The message is that Corbyn is a risk on
:30:38. > :30:41.the economy and security. targeted not at Tory or Ukip voters,
:30:42. > :30:49.but at lefties or Labour voters. And they are appearing in Labour
:30:50. > :30:55.or Liberal Democrat-held constituencies where Ukip
:30:56. > :30:56.had a large presence The Conservatives might be hoping
:30:57. > :31:00.to go beyond the Ukip vote and to actually win over traditional
:31:01. > :31:03.Labour voters so they can challenge for seats
:31:04. > :31:07.in the Midlands and North. They are wanting people on the left
:31:08. > :31:09.to not vote for Corbyn, vote for the Conservatives.
:31:10. > :31:11.You can see the same strategy in the Tories YouTube ads.
:31:12. > :31:14.I am against the replacement of Trident.
:31:15. > :31:16.I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy.
:31:17. > :31:26.Fight all the cuts except those in the Armed Forces,
:31:27. > :31:29.where we want to see a few more cuts taking place, and no
:31:30. > :31:39.This one actually had across the platforms about 6 million views.
:31:40. > :31:45.Wow, we dream of 6 million views! It is being dubbed the most successful
:31:46. > :31:47.political ad in British history. but what's more notable
:31:48. > :31:56.from the left is it's individuals, not the party,
:31:57. > :31:59.who are creating their own political So their most viral song
:32:00. > :32:13.is over 2 million views placing for this song
:32:14. > :32:17.by anti-austerity band Captain Ska. It hit the top of the number of
:32:18. > :32:25.download charts. It is not the Labour Party
:32:26. > :32:30.officially. It is individuals. Individuals on the left
:32:31. > :32:32.are also buying targeted political ads on Facebook -
:32:33. > :32:35.what we're calling micro-pacs, are spending relatively
:32:36. > :32:43.small amounts of money, It is crowd sourced, with their own
:32:44. > :32:53.messages and their own ads. The key point is they are not
:32:54. > :32:55.obliged to register with the Electoral Commission
:32:56. > :33:06.because they have spent You only have to declare if you are
:33:07. > :33:08.spending ?20,000. These are coming sometimes from the right, but mostly
:33:09. > :33:15.from people on the left. We spoke to the man who designed
:33:16. > :33:17.Barack Obama's digital and 2012, and he told us this sort
:33:18. > :33:23.of micro-targeting on social media is not only unregulated,
:33:24. > :33:25.it's also much more negative or mischievous, and possibly
:33:26. > :33:31.therefore more effective. There could be things like
:33:32. > :33:32.misinformation in it. In some ways it is a more potent form of
:33:33. > :33:34.advertising. Those are the groups that tend
:33:35. > :33:37.to go the most negative, It doesn't tend to be the official
:33:38. > :33:41.parties and candidates that really go particularly negative,
:33:42. > :33:51.or any sort of misinformation is typically ever really relayed
:33:52. > :33:53.from it in major democracies. But it can be these
:33:54. > :34:05.third-party groups or PACs - It's only a week to go. What can
:34:06. > :34:10.people do to contribute? The tone of all of this might change. It is
:34:11. > :34:14.fiercely if very important week. We are interested in what you can send
:34:15. > :34:19.us -- it is obviously a very important week. You can e-mail or
:34:20. > :34:23.tweak us or contact us on WhatsApp. Thanks, Mukul.
:34:24. > :34:26.Time now for a Viewsnight - the spot we offer to the opinionated
:34:27. > :34:30.Tonight, the journalist Reni Eddo Lodge, who wrote a book -
:34:31. > :34:34."Why I Am No Longer Talkng to White People About Race".
:34:35. > :35:31.We numb ourselves with posh period dramas, and import our black
:35:32. > :35:51.In marginalising some, it bolsters others.
:35:52. > :36:03.White people need to speak out about institutional racism,
:36:04. > :36:35.Well, Reni Eddo Lodge is with me to chat about that.
:36:36. > :36:41.Good evening, thank you for joining us. You said actions speak louder
:36:42. > :36:47.than words, obviously. What would you like every ordinary white person
:36:48. > :36:51.to be doing that would challenge the structural racism you're talking
:36:52. > :36:55.about? Well, Evan, I don't know if I'm the Oracle. The book is really
:36:56. > :36:59.about outlining the structural issues to do with race and racism in
:37:00. > :37:02.British society. So I think the first step would be to actually
:37:03. > :37:07.recognise that there is a problem. But loads of... I mean, loads and
:37:08. > :37:12.loads of people recognise there is a problem, both the explicit hate
:37:13. > :37:15.crime problem and the subliminal or structural institutional racism
:37:16. > :37:24.problem in Britain, don't they? I think actually in Britain we are
:37:25. > :37:26.quite wedded to this idea of meritocracy and disbelief that if
:37:27. > :37:29.you work really hard you will be able to succeed in life. But some of
:37:30. > :37:32.the stats I outlined in the Viewsnight shows that really is not
:37:33. > :37:37.the case. Yet for some reason when there are any initiative to address
:37:38. > :37:41.the structural discrimination, often in positive action efforts, they are
:37:42. > :37:48.via monthly opposed. They are not universally opposed, are they? I
:37:49. > :37:50.suppose one of the product so much provocative title of the book, Why I
:37:51. > :37:55.Am No Longer Talkng To White People About Race, implies that no white
:37:56. > :38:00.person takes kind of a reasonable view on all of this. But there are,
:38:01. > :38:04.on there? And the ones who don't come you should talk to to put them
:38:05. > :38:07.right rather than shutting down the conversation? I don't think I'm
:38:08. > :38:13.shutting down the conversation, here I am, chatting to you about it. The
:38:14. > :38:17.title of the book came from a blog post that I wrote about 3.5 years
:38:18. > :38:22.ago, entitled the same thing. It was not for want of trying, it wasn't
:38:23. > :38:25.something I came up with flippantly. In fact I found myself in
:38:26. > :38:30.progressive circles, amongst feminist, trying to talk about race
:38:31. > :38:33.with them, and they were hostile and not recognising the problem. That
:38:34. > :38:39.concerned me, we are committed to colour blindness, why are we
:38:40. > :38:44.pretending that we are all the same with the Big Data is showing that we
:38:45. > :38:48.are absolutely... That we're not. There are lots of groups that are
:38:49. > :38:53.disadvantaged, some more than others. You have chosen race,
:38:54. > :38:58.because you are black, maybe that's what you want to choose. There are
:38:59. > :39:02.people who will say, I'm a white man, a working-class white man, my
:39:03. > :39:07.statistics aren't very good. I was born on a bad housing estate. What
:39:08. > :39:11.do you say to them? Particularly race and class are not in isolation.
:39:12. > :39:16.These two structural discriminations and the way that people lose out in
:39:17. > :39:19.our massive institutions are very closely intertwined. Actually, to
:39:20. > :39:25.suggest that they are distinct is really doing the problem a
:39:26. > :39:30.disservice. I have a whole chapter in the book delving into that. Reni,
:39:31. > :39:35.thanks very much. We could talk about this a great deal longer.
:39:36. > :39:40.Thank you for having me. The e-mail for the BBC Trending project is
:39:41. > :39:47.election messages Laurel, not election message. -- Laurel.
:39:48. > :39:51.But to finish the programme, it's time for our next
:39:52. > :39:54.If you've caught this already, you'll know the concept.
:39:55. > :39:56.We've asked an eclectic mix of political figures
:39:57. > :39:59.to tell us a little tale, Jackanory-style - but it should be
:40:00. > :40:02.a tale that makes a point or carries an argument about politics.
:40:03. > :40:04.We've entirely left it to them to decide what point
:40:05. > :40:08.they want to make, or indeed what they mean by the word 'story'.
:40:09. > :40:10.Tonight, a former politician with a talent for fiction -
:40:11. > :40:11.one that ultimately proved his undoing.
:40:12. > :40:17.Here's Jeffrey Archer's bedtime story.
:40:18. > :40:24.In the United States, there is an apocryphal story
:40:25. > :40:28.about a former United States President.
:40:29. > :40:35.Sadly, because of public cynicism about spin,
:40:36. > :40:49.An investigative reporter discovered that the President's great,
:40:50. > :40:59.great uncle was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in 1889.
:41:00. > :41:07.And the only picture they had is of him standing on the gallows.
:41:08. > :41:10.On the back of the picture is a clear inscription.
:41:11. > :41:19."Sent to Montana Territorial Prison in 1885."
:41:20. > :41:28."Later, arrested by detectives in 1889, tried, convicted...
:41:29. > :41:36.The investigative reporter decided he would get in touch
:41:37. > :41:41.with the White House and see if they wished to comment
:41:42. > :41:43.on the President's Great, Great Uncle Remus and his criminal
:41:44. > :41:58."Great Uncle Remus was a well-known businessman in Montana."
:41:59. > :42:04."And was a large stockholder in the Montana railroad."
:42:05. > :42:15."In 1883, he devoted several years of his life giving
:42:16. > :42:20.Oh, Sheriff, please let us out of here.
:42:21. > :42:25."Finally taking leave, so that he could resume his dealings
:42:26. > :42:38."In 1887, he was a key witness in a vital investigation carried out
:42:39. > :42:51."In 1889, Remus sadly passed away during an important public
:42:52. > :42:56.function held in his honour, when the stage on which he was