29/06/2017 Newsnight


The latest on the Grenfell Tower fire, the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong, and a look at whether the iPhone is good for people. With Evan Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Grenfell residents wonder whether this man, picked to run


the inquiry into the fire, is going to run away


From my brief meetings with residents of the tower


and local people, it's quite clear that many of them will have evidence


to give that will be of great value to the inquiry.


The question is whether this is to be an inquiry into the fire,


or into the dysfunctions of a society that allowed


We'll ask what it will take for the inquiry to earn


the confidence of those affected by it.


Feeling like you haven't had a pay rise in a while?


Can the chief economist at the Bank of England explain


20 years ago he was waving goodbye to the British colony.


Today, the last Governor of Hong Kong gives us his view


on Xino-British diplomatic relations, and has this to say


You should feel rather sad for him because he's been here several years


and he doesn't know the difference between democracy and a wet haddock.


Hard to believe but the iPhone is about to be ten years old.


It's undeniably useful, but how do we really feel


It's like a really narcissistic, clingy girlfriend who always wants


my attention! Everybody thinks we need


to learn the lessons And responsibility for drawing up


the right lessons rests primarily on the shoulders of one man -


Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a 70-year-old former commercial


lawyer and Appeal Court judge. He went to the site of the fire


today and met residents, But - and it's a big one -


he then downplayed expectations of what his inquiry might cover


and how quickly it could report. Now, I'm well aware


that the residents and the local people want a much broader


investigation and I can fully Whether my inquiry is the right


way in which to achieve that I'm more doubtful,


and I'll give that some thought and in due course


make a recommendation, but there may be other ways


in which that desire for an investigation can be


satisfied otherwise than through Well, after the inadequacy


of the early response to the fire, and the problems in the child abuse


inquiry, it is going to be pretty important for this one


to have the confidence of the survivors of the fire


and the families of the deceased. And they do not merely want


another review of cladding. They think they were ignored


when they were warning of problems. For them, this is a case


of the authorities on trial. For them, those authorities


give the impression To make that point, tonight


a meeting of the Cabinet of the Kensington and Chelsea Council


collapsed in disarray, as the leader left with his colleagues


after the press were allowed in. That was after having secured an


injunction to watch proceedings. That was nothing whatsoever to do


with the new inquiry Chair, but has Sir Martin Moore-Bick lost


the confidence of With me now are residents


of the estate of the Grenfell Tower And former Lord Chancellor


Charlie Falconer. Welcome. I know you were in the


meeting with the judge today. Yes, he held a few. I was in the first he


held at 10am. What was your first impression? He's a nice guy but he


didn't inspire any confidence, to be honest. I was a bit sceptical when


his name was leaked in the press, in the media, last night. I was doing


some research on him. The cases he was involved in did not inspire


confidence in me either. But you met him and he knew he had a job to sell


himself to you to some extent, I'm sure. What did he say that gave you


reservation? For a start, he seems to already be saying that the terms


of the inquiry would be extremely narrow, and yet supposedly they


haven't been decided or solidified yet. So that gave us a big concern.


His background gave me the concern. Insurance and commercial law. That


doesn't inspire confidence in me at all. What other questions you feel


an inquiry needs to look at that you feel might be brushed aside? Well,


it seems this judge is giving us the impression it's going to be just


about what started the fire and what caused it, but we want to know what


led to it as well. So, you know, the circumstances, the political things


that allowed the cladding to go on. The regulations. Not just the


cladding but whose job it was to get it right? Absolutely. What is the


fear here? Are people worried about a cover-up? Is that your fear? It's


not just my fear, it's the fear of everyone. I'm not a conspiracy


theorist but the way the authorities have been behaving since the


beginning of this tragedy is appalling and it has appalled my


neighbours. There was absolutely no response on the ground on the first


night. The fire crews couldn't get to the location, they couldn't put


out the fire because they didn't have the correct equipment. Some of


them then ran into the fire block without -- the tower block without


gas masks or helmets on because they were so keen to get up. It's a


litany of failures and it's gone back several years. The gas pipes


running up the building. We do feel there has been a managed decline.


There was application for demolition of the tower in 2014 so we do feel


they wanted us out anyway. All of that should be in the view of the


inquiry. Yes. It seems they were negligent because they didn't want


us there anyway. But they had renovated it? But that is because it


was an eyesore for those in the area. Charlie Falconer, there is an


enormous amount of suspicion. Trust is the most important thing. What


was your reaction when the judge came out and said he was going to


disappoint the residents with the scope of his inquiry? I'm worried


about that and what these two are saying about the scope of the


inquiry seems to me to be absolutely right. It can't be, to use your


language, to just be a review of the cladding. It has to go right back to


explain how we ended up both with some regulations that don't appear


to be effective, and also even if the regulations were effective, and


I don't know if they were all weren't, how will they enforced? If


the terms of reference don't allow the legitimate questions that


Thomasina has raised about the build up over time of the situation and


then that Joe has raised about, how did the emergency services proved to


be so ill-equipped to deal with the fire, then I would agree with both


of them. The terms of reference have been set. And they are right in the


way they are putting it. I thought the issue was about, you know, going


right back into the political system, which the judge can't deal


with, but both the areas these two are dealing with the right areas to


focus on. I understand what Joe is saying about the insurance and


commercial background. I don't know him personally but I've worked with


him over 30 years. He is a man who will be able to deal with what will


inevitably be a whole range of vested interests, like national


government, the local authority, trying to make it as complicated as


possible. You need somebody who is both sympathetic and gets the trust


of the people but also is able to cut through it. This is the problem


I'm facing. We've put out a statement to Theresa May to consult


us with the appointment of the judge. She hasn't consulted us or


responded to us and it looks like a foregone conclusion that she's done


this. That is very interesting. What is the normal procedure? Is there


some legal principle that you don't talk to victims in the picking of


the judge? The normal principle, and with the judge in a court case, is


that you can't negotiate with the parties, and this is not a court


case but it is one where it is an inquiry with a judge appointed in


effect by the Lord Chief Justice. Is there is a -- if there is a problem


with the judge then he should be replaced but my own view, and you've


got the broad scope right, and if that is not reflected in the terms


of reference it would be a problem, but give Sir Martin Moore bit a


chance. -- Sir Martin Moore-Bick. He said he didn't feel that those


issues could be covered. Why was that going to inspire confidence? He


didn't sell us to a single one of us. There were ten of us there. The


more I found out, the less I am willing and able, and the nail in


his coffin was his decision in the Westminster case, where he sent that


poor family to Milton Keynes. Did you go in open-minded, though? You


don't know what the legalities of that case were, so did you go in


open-minded? I went in in the way anyone would go in. I had questions


and I expected honest answers, and the answer is, I believe they were


honest, but I don't believe they were satisfactory. I understand what


you are saying. I ask you to give him a bit more of a chance. I


understand you are suspicious... It's not only him who is the


problem. It's Theresa May. She hasn't responded and it seems she's


already decided, and that makes us believe that the terms of reference


have already been decided as well. Taylor inquiry. It ensured


loudspeakers were loud enough to be heard everywhere, very sensible


conclusions on a technical standpoint. Did it lead to any


prosecutions? It didn't. What does he need to do? He's got to get your


confidence and that means listen to what you're saying. What I've heard


tonight is reasonable about what the terms of reference should be, and


then he's got to deliver quickly a good report that explains right from


the beginning how this happened. Thank you, all of you.


Well, think about joining the Government.


As expected, it managed to get its Queen's Speech


through the Commons today, but the margin was inevitably fine.


The ayes to the right, 323, the noes to the left, 309.


So the ayes have it, the ayes have it.


A measure of how easily business can be disrupted.


And for confirmation, there was the fact that


to get the Queen's Speech through unscathed, the Government


had to accept a proposal from Stella Creasy offering


taxpayer-funded abortions in England for women from Northern Ireland.


Backbench MPs suddenly have leverage and the Government suddenly has


But today was also awkward for Labour, with several shadow


ministers being sacked and one resigning.


We're all struggling to get used to this new normal.


Nick Watt watched the day at Westminster.


Let's talk about Labour first, because we all thought it was rosy


in the house of Labour at the moment! Yes, we thought the focus


would be solely on Theresa May and then Jeremy Corbyn ended up sacking


three of his frontbenchers. The reason for that was because they had


defied the Labour leadership to table an amendment put forward by


Chuka Umunna, which would have committed the UK to remaining in the


single market and Customs union. This was roundly defeated by 101 to


322 after Labour whips instructed their MPs to abstain. I've picked up


quite a lot of anger amongst pro-European Labour MPs. They say


this was a vanity vote by Chuka Umunna that handed a gift to


Brexiteers, who stayed look at the heavy defeat. And these pro-European


Labour MPs also say, why did he have to table this amendment when the


official Labour one called on the government to negotiate the exact


same benefit on the customs union and single market. But they are


defiant, saying their tactics today were about putting pressure on the


Labour leadership to go one step further and agree with them that the


UK should remain in the customs union and single market. OK.


Interesting day for Labour. What about the Tories? It was a pretty


fine margin to get your Queen's Speech through. As you say, the


Magic number for Theresa May is 14. That's the majority she had in the


final vote that established and entrenched her government. That's


what she got after her deal with the DUP. I spoke to one senior Tory who


said to me, that's hardly a respectable majority but it is a


workable one and the government can carry on. But the rapid move and


announcement by the government that it would fund abortions in England


for women from Northern Ireland illustrates a crucial point about


this Government. If you can muster all the opposition parties and then


persuade to seven Tory MPs to join you, then Theresa May has to act,


and supporters of a so-called soft Brexit, they had a setback today but


they hope that that point will eventually work in their favour.


Thank you. The backdrop to all this is a sense


of national frustration, That's perhaps why we're in hung


parliament territory at all. And when we look at what makes


people frustrated, it's perhaps the fact that living


standards are stagnant. In short, Britain is tired


of austerity and wants a pay rise. And that's not surprising given


the long squeeze on wages that we've We'll hear what the Bank of England


says about that shortly, but first our business editor


Helen Thomas sets out what we know - Sometimes it feels like everything


in the world of work is speeding up. The mantra is two more, and more


quickly. But one thing is stuck on go slow. And that unfortunately is


wages. The public sector pay cap is hitting recruitment and retention


right across the public sector. It has been a week of political


wrangling over whether the cap on public sector pay rises should be


lifted but this is not just about the public sector, it is about the


whole economy. He is real wage growth, pay rises adjusted for


inflation, and slumped after the financial crisis. Very low inflation


meant a better time around 2015. Then the vote to leave the EU,


inflation rose sharply. Living standards are again in decline. But


inflation isn't really the nub of this problem. The bigger puzzle is


why workers and managing to push for a pay rise, despite very low levels


of unemployment. Now economic theory would tell us that low unemployment


puts workers in a stronger position. Employers find it hard to fill


vacancies and yet UK unemployment is up 4.6%, the lowest level since the


1970s. But wage growth is sluggish. In fact worse than sluggish.


Recently it has been heading in the wrong direction. So why has this


relationship broken down? The crisis spooked workers and their employers.


Now Brexit is churning the corporate walkers. Roger Waters. If workers


are reluctant to move jobs they miss out on one way to get a hefty rise.


On one side you have the employers that also have the uncertainty of


demand and of uncertain increases in costs, given the exchange rate,


falling, that are likely to hold on to wage demands, and be a bit more


careful. Next up the economic headache. Productivity growth has


been nearly as disappointing as earnings. This is one measure output


per hour worked. Expansion helps living standards for decades and


then it flat lined and no one is entirely sure why. Everyone agrees


that dismal pay and dismal productivity are linked but which


causes the other? Well it is not that simple. Productivity is


obviously key in the to how much we can pay ourselves, what the wages


that people receive because in the end what we produce as a country


determines how much we can pay ourselves. But the relationship


between pay and productivity is more complicated and is sometimes to


waste so sometimes when pay increases firms respond by investing


in machines, and skinning their workforce and that leads to higher


productivity. It's not just that higher productivity can lead to


higher pay, it is not just that higher productivity can lead to


higher pay, it is perhaps the changes mean that the headline


unemployment rates does not really reflect what is going on. This is


co-working. In this office freelancers and entrepreneurs can


join up by the month, space to work with craft beer, yoga classes and


events laid on. Self-employment has risen, nearly doubling its share of


the workforce since 1980. But so has part-time working, temporary work


and zero hours contracts. This includes the so-called gig economy,


types of jobs which offer no guaranteed hours, little career


progression or job security. It means an employer could offer more


hours instead of a pay rise or a better contract. So what hope is


there that wages get moving again? That is the question for the British


market, and actually for the British economy and British families over


the next few years. But some things we know for certain, wages are at


the bottom of the Labour market because of a fast rising national


minimum wage, those will go up significantly over the next few


years. The big unknown is what happens to the top 80% of workers


not affected by the minimum wage. Those people are currently


seeing big squeeze is on their pay packets, what happens to them does


depend on does Brexit scare firms or do they think that a big opportunity


is there and they get their confidence back and the workers get


their confidence back? Wage tension hasn't vanished, of course not but


the lower unemployment gets without wages rising, the more likely that


longer term tougher to fix factors are standing between British workers


and their pay rise. Helen Thomas. Well, earlier today I sat down


at the Bank of England with the chief economist there,


Andy Haldane. He has been in the news lately,


having given a speech that suggested he might vote for a rate


rise later this year. He didn't want to say anything


more about rates today, And why he thinks it's flat lined


for the better part of a decade. What have been the drivers, there is


no single factor but I would say among the most important has been


the fact that at the same time as real take-home pay has flat lined,


so to has the measured productive capacity of the economy. Typically,


we expect that as that productive capacity grows over time, that gets


mirrored in pay increases. So we are looking for one of, if not the


biggest contributing cause, it is the accompanying flat-lining of not


just the UK's but many of the economy is's productive capacity


over ten years or so. It is extraordinary because we tend to


think we get a little better at everything, people will ask if we


have run out of innovation. This is not about stagnating in innovation,


in the main. When we talk about, the rise of the robots, the fourth


industrial Revolution, it is there. It is there, but only for a subset


of terms. Only for that 1% of perhaps 5% of firms who are taking


the productivity high road. The root cause of the stagnation in


productivity and in pay is that long, lower tail of firms, they are


taking the low productivity road. This is like 95%! A sizeable chunk,


at least three quarters... And they just employing more cheap Labour,


squeezing them Eberhard but not equipping it in the best ways or


innovating or thinking of the things to do and new products to sell.


Quite so. And they can't afford to pay more because they don't have


more revenue. This long tail, and to be clear, it's not a crisis


phenomenon, if you look at those companies, that long tail, they have


been with us back-ups for a couple of decades. Every country on the


planet has long tail firms, it just appears to be somewhat longer in the


UK and elsewhere. And there are companies, as you say, that perhaps


not investing sufficiently in the skills of workers, perhaps not


investing sufficiently in machines and automation, so it's not the


champions we need to worry about. It's the mediocre. There's a natural


temptation to gravitate towards the new and the shiny, let's seize the


next Tesla, Google, or Apple, and say, in terms of boosting the


numbers you would probably get much more purchase out of incremental


improvements from that long-tail of companies. Let's talk about public


sector wages, there's a huge debate over public sector pay, it's been


going up at 1% a year for the last five years or so. That does factor


significantly into the deliberations when figuring out how great are


underlying inflationary pressures in the economy. We have been repeatedly


surprised about how weak pay growth has been, not just in the public


sector but in the Private sector as well. And if anything, pay growth


over the past 12 months has been falling rather than picking up,


which has taken us and indeed the rest of the world somewhat by


surprise, given that over that same period, jobs growth has remained


very buoyant and unemployment has kept on falling. So this way is with


us. Of course it is a factor that has contributed to rates in the UK


remaining, they are currently at very low levels, and watching


closely for any signs of pay bigging up. That is one of the key


indicators we look at when judging that pay picking up. To be clear,


public paint matters, it's not just the Private sector. I know that you


don't particularly want to step on the interest rate landmine at this


point. But it would be interesting for people to think about where they


might be in five or ten years' time, if they are buying a house thinking


about the long-term average on the bank website which goes back 300


years is 5%. Does that constitute a guide to the long-term norm? What


would you advise people to plan on, to think of rates of the sort of 5%


level or the .5% level? You are right in pointing out that the rate


is currently, and if you believe financial markets, prospectively set


to remain pretty low for a long time. Not just the lowest in the


last 300 years, probably the lowest in the last several thousand years,


I would say. As and when rates begin to rise in the UK, they are likely


to do so in a gradual way. And to a limited extent, by which we mean the


numbers that may have been in people's heads, from the past, are


probably on the high side relative to what we might expect in the


future. Let me not but a number on that! Squeeze you on that. But


Limited and gradual is the name of the game. I would squeeze you on


that. Andrew Haldane, thank you very much -- I won't squeeze you on that.


20 years ago, the British top brass in Hong Kong handed the keys


of the province over to the Chinese and boarded the Royal


Yacht Britannia to leave the colony behind.


The exact anniversary is at 5pm our time tomorrow.


The handover was - and is - a big deal for China,


and President Xi Jinping is in Hong Kong to


It's his first visit since becoming leader in 2012.


Back then, when former president Hu Jintao visited


for the 15-year celebrations, he was met with hundreds


of thousands of protesters, marching against what they saw


And there were mass protests again in 2014.


The so-called umnbrella protests, with calls for more democracy


and protests at the idea of China pre-screening candidates


for elections for the post of Chief Executive of Hong Kong.


Hong Kong never saw itself as just another Chinese city.


In a 1984 agreement between China and Britain, China committed itself


to the principle of "one country, two systems", granting


the city its own legal system, limited democracy with multiple


political parties, and rights like freedom


But has China reneged on the letter, or at least


Most notorious is the case of five booksellers who had


allegedly sold banned books, and then went missing, apparently


You may remember that the last British Governor of Hong Kong


As Governor, he tried to plant some democratic seeds


in the Hong Kong garden, hoping they'd grow


He has a well-timed memoir out this week, so I went


to meet him this afternoon, to talk about Hong Kong, China,


and because he's a former chairman of the Tory Party,


First, though, has China let the people of Hong Kong down


Initially it did something which was sad but predictable.


It choked off the sort of democratic developments which had been taking


place and which were perfectly satisfactory because people


More recently, particularly under President Xi Jinping,


I think it parallels his crackdown on dissidents in mainland China.


There's been a growing squeeze on Hong Kong's windpipe,


attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the rule of law,


abduction of people on the streets and a general atmosphere


in which Beijing's Office in Hong Kong tries to


The Chinese ambassador to the UK was on the radio this morning


and was rebutting criticisms of the sort of anti-democratic


nature of Hong Kong by talking about British democracy and in fact


Should we laugh, should we think, should we ponder?


Yes, you should feel rather sad for him because he's been


here several years and he doesn't know the difference


I shouldn't say that about ambassadors but he is.


And I heard him this morning saying things


which, were I Boris Johnson, I might describe as porkies.


And beginning by asserting that what happens in Hong Kong


is entirely a matter for the government of China,


as though the joint declaration, the treaty between Britain


and China, was simply a single declaration by the Chinese.


It is actually a treaty lodged at the UN.


Looking at politics in the UK today, it's hard to think of who you would


really feel is your sort of beacon of leadership, and who you would


We're partly in this mess because of two catastrophic


decisions taken by Conservative Prime Ministers, and we sometimes


kid ourselves that we're well governed.


Internationally, nationalism, which is a denial of the importance


these days of international co-operation, has been


In America - Make America Great Again.


In Europe, happily, Macron, Angela Merkel win the elections


in Germany, the Dutch have done well in seeing off Geert Wilders,


so in mainland Europe, it's gone pretty well.


But we're left with the residues of English nationalism.


Isn't it the case that the Tory Party is one party,


I think both the main parties are two parties


I think there's a moderate mainstream Conservative Party


and an English nationalist right-wing party.


It's a sort of Ukip-lite and a sort of economically liberal party,


There's a party that believes in market economics and there's


a party that believes in a market society, which is an


In the Labour Party, you've got the Corbynistas,


who have clearly been strengthened by the dire campaign


that the Conservative Party fought in the election,


which suddenly turned this sort of quite amiable guy


with extraordinarily old-fashioned, out-of-date views into


But let's talk more about your party, because it is


I mean, would you basically favour a politics where we let these


parties disentangle themselves into their component


parts and you had, say, electoral reform, and then the voters...


Like in France, actually - remember, the French had


They could vote for populist right, left, centre.


I think it's very difficult to know what it is about our party system


Because the number of people who are active members of parties


Well, until Corbyn came along, and now it's shot up.


Yes, but with a particular age group - you have to notice


the number of people under 40, 45, who are voting for Corbyn.


But when I was chairman of the Conservative Party in 1990-92


Today I should think it's 150,000 on a good night.


The parties have been hollowed out in terms of mass membership,


so most of them now have fewer members than the Royal Society


They've been hollowed out in that sense, and yet they have more


authority electing leaders, determining policies,


You mean the members have had more authority?


So I don't quite know where it goes from here.


What I think remains undoubtedly the case is there is a majority


in this country for, as it were, wets, to borrow


I think there is a majority for welfare democracy,


for market forces but not too much of them,


for recognising that the state isn't an enemy but you don't give


the state too much to do in terms of industrial management.


I bet there's a majority among people like me now for seeing


an increase in taxes for people like me, because I certainly don't


want to see further rounds of cuts in public spending.


And yet I recognise there's a real problem with the fiscal deficit,


which I don't think you can just let go hang, as Mr Corbyn would suggest.


One of the things that we're sometimes told,


and I think in the end this is the biggest, most important


question for the country over the next year, is there's really no


There's a hard Brexit or there's no Brexit, but there's


That either we reverse this vote, or we go along


Because I'm interested in whether you would vote


for the kind of Theresa May Brexit when it comes to the Lords.


Well, I think at the end of the day, as bishops say, there will have


to be a vote in Parliament about whatever terms emerge.


And at that point, the electorate, given that I suspect by then


the economy won't be looking too good, and the electorate will be


able to see that you can't have the same relationship


with Europe outside the European Union as you have


So I think at that point there may be a significant shift


in the public atmosphere, the public views on this.


But I don't think you can go into these negotiations


on the assumption that they'll turn out badly.


I think Philip Hammond is right that we should be aiming now


for a transitional period, for staying in as much


of the single market and the Customs Union as possible.


Both of those things were of course anathema to those who thought


the big bloody bold thing to do was to head for the precipice


and if we jumped off the precipice, there would be Dunlop mattresses


Who would you like to see leading the Conservative Party?


Well, if I suggested that, it would damn them immediately!


I think Theresa May will lead the Conservative Party


until the Conservative Party thinks that it can comfortably find


a successor who won't plunge it into either an election


I think that dancing on her grave, particularly by people who only


the other day were saying that she was if not Teresa


of Avila, certainly Theresa of Maidenhead,


I think dancing on her grave is particularly unseemly.


But in a world you know better than me,


in the stock market, I don't


think you'd regard her at the moment as a strong hold.


I think she's there partly because anything else people


Chris Patten talking to me earlier today. His book First Confession is


available now. Did you know that sales of chewing


gum have plummeted since the iPhone This is apparently because people


queueing in supermarkets can now pass the time looking at their phone


rather by making impulse purchases. That's just one effect unleashed


on the world by Apple's bestseller. Others include selfies,


the gig economy, and To that list critics might add


shorter attention spans There's no doubt that the iPhone


is an extraordinary piece of kit - even to those of us who clung


to our Blackberries for some Stephen Smith, who personally


nominates the trouser-press, When you think about your iPhone, it


is probably the object that you use most in your life. It's the product


you have with you all the time. The adverts suggest a mindfulness


workshop and devotees hang on every word from the pristine Apple bunker,


as if harkening to a guru. We want to make a much better phone.


We thought we would create our own immaculate thought cloud about the


iPhone. I think it's one of the most marvellous things that's ever been


made. There's this wonderful old line about what talent is an talent


is the ability to hit a target but then genius is able to see a target


no one else has identified. I'm desperately trying not to hell the


thing somewhere over there and smash it into 1000 pieces! It's like


having the great library of Alexandria to hand. Imagine


explaining something like that to my father's generation. He would be


mystified! It's like a narcissistic really clingy girlfriend who always


wants my attention! The vision behind the iPhone was so


ground-breaking that few could quite believe it at first. A pod, a phone


and Internet communicator. You getting it? People were talking


about the integration of telephone technology and computer technology


but they were thinking about vast, clunky equipment, and nobody had


seen you could bring these two together into something you could


actually put in your pocket. We have the iPhone and its various


competitors to thank for the selfie. Posting pictures, seeking likes is


surprisingly atavistic behaviour, says one writer. I think the


surprising thing about social media is it's such ultramodern technology


but it is tapping into very primeval, ancient circuits in the


brain. We are a tribal species, a tribal animal, and one of the things


that means is that we are constantly preoccupied with our status in the


group. Just like the chimpanzees, one of our closest relatives, the


state of the humans 's human is constantly in flux and we are


constantly preoccupied. -- the state of human is constantly in flux. It


is all very tribal. Young people are avid users of smartphones, of


course. A new study says over a third of 15-year-olds are extreme


Internet users who spent six hours a day online. It also found a clear


association between longer periods spent on social media and mental


health problems. I think that's a development of smartphones that's


really interesting, in that people are able to have their phone in


their pocket, looking at it in their bedroom, so their access to the


Internet is in a much more private space than it used to so potentially


parents will have used the technique of wandering past the screen to see


what their child is looking at and if their child is on the phone in


the playground or in their own room, the parent can't use that kind of


technique any more, so it gives us new challenges as to how we get


young people. But it isn't just the youngsters we need to look out for.


Some mature iPhone users are struggling to. It always wants to


help you. It is sitting there going, look, I could do this, I could do


that. Why don't you get me to help? Look, I'm all shiny! No! Silence!


Silence! See, whatever happened to silence? It's really good...


Steven Smith on the iPhone. We have to go but a quick look at the front


page of The Times. They have specific emails on Grenfell cladding


looking at cutting costs before the renovation. A specific email, so I


think people will follow that up tomorrow.


Just before we go, I don't know if you heard that George Osborne


announced today he's got yet another new job.


He's going to be Professor of Economics at Manchester University


in addition to being Editor of the Evening Standard,


an advisor to a venture capitalist and after-dinner speaker for hire.


In total we think he's now got six jobs!


And we wondered what might come next.


Friday should be a bit warmer with still a lot of cloud around with


outbreaks of rain and


Download Subtitles