:00:00. > :00:07.Grenfell Tower - tonight we have the story of how
:00:08. > :00:09.the fire fighters - sometimes inadequately
:00:10. > :00:16.equipped - tried and failed to control the flames.
:00:17. > :00:23.It's the truth worth retelling that firefighters rushed into harm's way
:00:24. > :00:29.that terrible night. They were heroes, no question. But was their
:00:30. > :00:34.kit up to scratch and did it arrive in a timely fashion? Jo
:00:35. > :00:36.It was the worst fire disaster since the war
:00:37. > :00:38.and the biggest challenge to the fire fighting profession.
:00:39. > :00:40.We'll ask what lessons need to be drawn.
:00:41. > :00:42.Also tonight, a handshake the world has waited to see.
:00:43. > :00:45.Did the two of them grasp the opportunity to reset
:00:46. > :00:53.President Putin and I have been discussing various things and I
:00:54. > :00:57.think it's going very well. We've had some very, very good thoughts.
:00:58. > :01:00.And is economics too important to be left to the economists?
:01:01. > :01:02.A new generation of economists is taking on the academic
:01:03. > :01:16.So much is known about the fire at Grenfell Tower -
:01:17. > :01:20.Enquiries will undoubtedly focus on the issues now familiar -
:01:21. > :01:22.the cause of the fire and the cladding which spread it,
:01:23. > :01:25.the building regulations and inspection regime,
:01:26. > :01:27.the concerns of the tenants and the inadequate response
:01:28. > :01:31.of the Kensington Chelsea Council afterwards.
:01:32. > :01:33.But there is another important area, where the lessons
:01:34. > :01:37.It's how London Fire Brigade fought the fire.
:01:38. > :01:40.It was a night of unquestioned bravery, of individuals who risked
:01:41. > :01:46.everything to rescue those inside and control the flames.
:01:47. > :01:48.But were they equipped to deal with disaster of that magnitude
:01:49. > :01:53.Could it have been doused more successfully, for example,
:01:54. > :01:57.if an aerial platform had been summoned earlier?
:01:58. > :01:59.Well, Newsnight has uncovered evidence of a series
:02:00. > :02:02.of failings on the night, that no fire fighters
:02:03. > :02:17.A warning, there is quite a bit of bad language in this piece.
:02:18. > :02:29.Inside the tower, it was like a war zone - dark heat, pitch black, toxic
:02:30. > :02:33.smoke, but in the worse possible circumstances, London's firefighters
:02:34. > :02:35.did their best. I saw firefighters who I know are extremely fit,
:02:36. > :02:57.marathon runners... Firefighters have been banned from
:02:58. > :03:00.speaking to the media. Newsnight has gathered anonymous first-hand
:03:01. > :03:05.accounts through an intermediary. We've also obtained the incident
:03:06. > :03:08.mobilisation list, the document which details when every London Fire
:03:09. > :03:14.Brigade appliance was sent and when it arrived. We have pieced together
:03:15. > :03:17.a picture of the battle to fight the Grenfell fire and identify the
:03:18. > :03:32.series of failings that made the desperate task even tougher. 12. 55,
:03:33. > :03:34.two fire engines from North Kensington fire station get the
:03:35. > :03:39.call-out. They're on scene in four minutes. Two more fire engines from
:03:40. > :03:44.Kensington and Hammersmith arrive shortly after. They've been called
:03:45. > :03:52.to a fridge fire on the fourth floor. What the firefighters on the
:03:53. > :03:55.inside couldn't see is what was happening on the outside. The
:03:56. > :04:00.firefighters went to the fire on the fourth floor and they were pretty
:04:01. > :04:04.confident they'd got on top of it. Then something bad happens,
:04:05. > :04:08.something weird on their radio. They're hearing it's a four-pump
:04:09. > :04:13.fire, that means four fire engines. Then it's a ten-pump fire. That's
:04:14. > :04:16.bad. Then it's a 20-pump fire, that's a catastrophe. They don't get
:04:17. > :04:22.it because they're on top of the fire. Then they realise the fire is
:04:23. > :04:30.growing on the outside. Grenfell Tower on fire, fire brigade and
:04:31. > :04:33.everything. Look. Whoa look. At 1. 15am, five more appliances are
:04:34. > :04:38.called out from Paddington and Hammersmith. The fire's spreading
:04:39. > :04:41.up. This footage, shot on a mobile phone, shows the fire hit the
:04:42. > :04:49.cladding and rage up the side of the tower. Firefighters try to tackle
:04:50. > :04:53.the blaze from the ground. 1. 19am, 24 minutes after the first crew is
:04:54. > :05:00.dispatched, the first tall ladder or aerial is assigned to the fire. 1.
:05:01. > :05:06.19am, 24 minutes after the first crew is dispatched the first high
:05:07. > :05:11.ladder or aerial, call sign 8213, is assigned to the fire from
:05:12. > :05:15.Paddington, it arrives at 1. 32am. If anything could have stopped the
:05:16. > :05:19.fire spreading to the outside, it might have been a high ladder and
:05:20. > :05:26.pump. So why weren't they sent immediately? The PDA is the
:05:27. > :05:30.predetermined attendance, that's what the Fire Rescue Service plans
:05:31. > :05:35.for different locations. Aerial appliances were not on the original
:05:36. > :05:40.PDA. In this case there was some half hour or so before the aerial
:05:41. > :05:42.appliance arrived. Whether that would have made a difference is
:05:43. > :05:48.something that needs to be looked at. I have spoken to aerial
:05:49. > :05:53.appliance operators in London, who drive and operate those appliances
:05:54. > :05:57.and attended that incident, who think that having that on the first
:05:58. > :06:02.attendance might have made a difference, because it allows you to
:06:03. > :06:07.operate a very powerful water tower from outside the building onto the
:06:08. > :06:12.building. Are you OK? By the time the high ladary rived, it was too
:06:13. > :06:18.late. The London Fire Brigade told Newsnight that the PDA has been
:06:19. > :06:21.changed after Grenfell, so with an aerial appliance and extra fire
:06:22. > :06:27.engine will attend fires in high rise buildings. Inside, firefighters
:06:28. > :06:32.were battling the worst fire in Britain since the Second World War.
:06:33. > :06:37.The stair wells and tower blocks are supposed to be smoke free. In
:06:38. > :06:41.Grenfell, the stair well was yet another hazard. It was seriously
:06:42. > :06:55.heavy smoke locked floors... Fighting a fire with toxic smoke,
:06:56. > :07:00.some of the Grenfell fire retardant, based on cyanide, like deep sea
:07:01. > :07:04.diving. The firefighters had 23 storeys to climb, but they had to
:07:05. > :07:06.keep enough air to keep back down again. Very soon, far too soon, they
:07:07. > :07:39.were running out of air. More than an hour after the first
:07:40. > :07:42.crews were sent, the mobilisation list shows the fire chiefs on the
:07:43. > :07:47.ground called in every single extended breathing set in London,
:07:48. > :07:54.from places like Wandsworth, Islington and Tower Hamlets. In
:07:55. > :07:57.terms of the compressed air breathing apparatus, the - clearly
:07:58. > :08:03.more would have been helpful. We have to say this was an
:08:04. > :08:08.unprecedented fire. So what became clear in this instance is that the
:08:09. > :08:11.extended duration sets is what was increasingly required and more of
:08:12. > :08:13.those clearly would have helped. I think that raises questions about
:08:14. > :08:18.whether there should be a review this afternoon. On the night of the
:08:19. > :08:24.fire, we're told there was a big problem with water pressure. If
:08:25. > :08:42.you're a firefighter tackling an inferno, that's not good.
:08:43. > :08:49.Newsnight understands that the fire brigade asked Thames Water to boost
:08:50. > :08:53.the pressure. Even after that, we're told, the problems with water
:08:54. > :08:56.pressure continued. When approached by Newsnight, Thames Water would not
:08:57. > :09:00.comment directly on whether they were asked by the Fire Service to
:09:01. > :09:19.boost pressure. But they did issue this statement:
:09:20. > :09:26.In thick smoke, in raging heat, something else went wrong too.
:09:27. > :09:30.Firefighters complained their radio communications weren't working
:09:31. > :09:33.properly. They weren't punching through ten storeys or more of
:09:34. > :09:35.concrete and there was so much traffic on the air waves they
:09:36. > :09:41.couldn't understand what was being said. Some of the them weren't just
:09:42. > :09:55.fighting blind, they were fighting deaf too.
:09:56. > :10:01.There's always been a problem in high rise buildings that anything
:10:02. > :10:05.above a certain amount of floors you have a problem with it. We've always
:10:06. > :10:10.had a problem. When I was in the brigade we had a problem with the
:10:11. > :10:14.radios or hand held radios and the breathing apparatus radios. I can
:10:15. > :10:19.imagine the amount of teams putting in, there each team will have been
:10:20. > :10:24.given a call sign and then you will have had one or two breathing
:10:25. > :10:28.apparatus control officers trying to manage all the messaging backwards
:10:29. > :10:36.and forwards. The firefighters spoke of the fire as a war zone, of ways
:10:37. > :10:43.of attack and retreat. By 4. 30am, crews from every part of London -
:10:44. > :10:45.youon, Ealing, barking -- Sutton, Ealing, barking, Lewisham are
:10:46. > :10:51.mobilised. The scale of the response is unprecedented. The highest aerial
:10:52. > :10:55.platform in Britain is in Surrey. It arrived hours after the fire was
:10:56. > :10:59.hours out of control. Would that have helped? The machine is at full
:11:00. > :11:05.stretch here, we're at 61 metres high. Only a few metres off the full
:11:06. > :11:09.height of Grenfell Tower. The question is: Had one of these
:11:10. > :11:15.machines or something like it been available from the get go on that
:11:16. > :11:19.terrible night, would the story of the tragedy of Grenfell fire ended
:11:20. > :11:29.quite differently? The London Fire Brigade told Newsnight:
:11:30. > :11:35.The firefighters who had been trained to fight the wrong kind of
:11:36. > :11:40.tower block fire and at the heart of this was the advice to residents to
:11:41. > :11:45.stay put until rescued. The controversy over stay put will
:11:46. > :11:49.continue to rage. But with Grenfell fire's death toll as high as it is,
:11:50. > :11:53.the policy must surely be reviewed. One of the last residents to be
:11:54. > :12:02.rescued from Grenfell was at 6. 30am. More than 200 people survived,
:12:03. > :12:06.but more than 80 people didn't. It's a truth worth retelling that
:12:07. > :12:10.firefighters rushed into harm's way that terrible night. They were
:12:11. > :12:15.heroes, no question. But was their kit up to scratch? And did it arrive
:12:16. > :12:21.in a timely fashion? We won't know the full answers until the public
:12:22. > :12:24.inquiry. But already, it's safe to say, that those in charge of keeping
:12:25. > :12:31.the capital safe from fire have serious questions to answer.
:12:32. > :12:36.There were failures, but London's dark monument also stands testament
:12:37. > :12:39.to extraordinary bravery against the odds too.
:12:40. > :12:41.John Sweeney there, who compiled that report
:12:42. > :12:46.Of course, the fire fighters had not encountered anything
:12:47. > :12:48.as serious as Grenfell, and it behaved in ways
:12:49. > :12:58.Let's talk through some of the points raised in that
:12:59. > :13:02.He was Chief Fire Officer at Mid and West Wales Fire
:13:03. > :13:04.and Rescue Service for 20 years and also worked in
:13:05. > :13:10.He also serves as an advisor to MPs on the All Party Parliamentary
:13:11. > :13:23.Good evening, a quick initial reaction to what we've heard there
:13:24. > :13:29.and these firefighters' accounts of what they encountered on the night?
:13:30. > :13:33.Yes, we have to say that what firefighters have said is obviously
:13:34. > :13:39.very concerning and it always occurs after a major incident. This is very
:13:40. > :13:47.much a major, major incidents. London Fire Brigade has been in
:13:48. > :13:55.business since, well, 150 years now. I'm sure that every incident
:13:56. > :13:59.develops new policies. Their policies that currently exist are
:14:00. > :14:04.because they are predicated on the fact that a building like Grenfell
:14:05. > :14:07.Tower is compliant with building regulations and if this was
:14:08. > :14:10.compliant with the building regulations, then certainly there is
:14:11. > :14:15.something seriously wrong with the regulations. If it wasn't compliant,
:14:16. > :14:20.then there's something seriously wrong with the procedures. Let's
:14:21. > :14:26.look at one or two of the more specific things. An aerial platform,
:14:27. > :14:31.is it your view on what you've seen that if a platform, particularly a
:14:32. > :14:34.high one, had been available much earlier that fire could have been
:14:35. > :14:40.controlled and douses out even with all the cladding and issues we know
:14:41. > :14:46.about. ? I represented the families of the deceased at Lacknell house
:14:47. > :14:55.during the inquest. I recommended to the QC leading that investigation
:14:56. > :15:04.that London Fire Brigade may wish to review its aerial policy on the
:15:05. > :15:10.basis that the platforms there were within yards of the actual rescue of
:15:11. > :15:14.people from the balcony and from the flats affected, but just didn't
:15:15. > :15:20.quite make it. They just didn't quite get to that point. Is it your
:15:21. > :15:24.view that you should send out an aerial, a high ladder straight away
:15:25. > :15:33.if you know the fire is in a building that's tall? The initial
:15:34. > :15:37.predetermined attendance for many fire brigades are that wherever
:15:38. > :15:42.there's a special risk, they automatically send a vehicle, a
:15:43. > :15:50.special appliance, like an aerial platform to that special risk. I
:15:51. > :15:54.hear and I'm not privy to the investigation, of course, the
:15:55. > :15:57.criminal investigation, and of course, the inquiry, the public
:15:58. > :16:01.inquiry, will get to the bottom of what policies were in place. But if
:16:02. > :16:06.we work on the assumption that the policy was not to send an aerial
:16:07. > :16:11.platform to this it would have been on the basis that they've evaluated
:16:12. > :16:15.its usage over a period and how many times does it get to work and how
:16:16. > :16:19.many times is it called out and returned not used? I'm sure that had
:16:20. > :16:25.something to do with it, but again, until we see the inquiry, and the
:16:26. > :16:27.results - There were problems with breathing equipment, particularly
:16:28. > :16:31.the more enduring breathing equipment, one interpretation of
:16:32. > :16:34.what happened is - they just didn't really know how bad this fire was
:16:35. > :16:40.going to turn out to be, because it ripped up the side of the building.
:16:41. > :16:43.The other is that they are just underequipped maybe because there
:16:44. > :16:47.have been spending cuts, that mean they haven't invested enough in
:16:48. > :16:48.equipment. Which of those two interpretations would come closer to
:16:49. > :16:58.your view on what you've seen? London Fire Brigade are one of the
:16:59. > :17:03.best equipped, if not the best equipped, in the country. I would
:17:04. > :17:05.not want to criticise any policy of London Fire Brigade, those
:17:06. > :17:11.firefighters did a marvellous job with the equipment that they had.
:17:12. > :17:15.Yes, of course, we are hearing from your story that some of the
:17:16. > :17:22.firefighters have made claims. Those claims will be thoroughly
:17:23. > :17:25.investigated. But clearly, you can't accept that they have rescue
:17:26. > :17:32.appliances that carried this additional breathing apparatus,
:17:33. > :17:37.extended duration sets, they are strategically placed and all of them
:17:38. > :17:41.were used, so all of the available duration sets in London were
:17:42. > :17:49.mobilised to this incident and used, as they were, at Lakmal house. Is
:17:50. > :17:53.the problem ultimately that they did not have plan B? They knew what kind
:17:54. > :17:56.of fire they could cope with in a tall building, where the fire could
:17:57. > :17:59.be contained in a couple of apartments and they would get
:18:00. > :18:08.everyone out after putting it out? Is the problem is, they did not
:18:09. > :18:10.imagine that you could have a fire like this, or the building
:18:11. > :18:14.regulations were wrong, they did not have it in the mindset that it could
:18:15. > :18:21.be that bad? I think the timing of the fire in the early hours, you
:18:22. > :18:26.heard about the water pressure being low, water companies do reduce
:18:27. > :18:29.pressure in the evening and later because it saves on leaks to the
:18:30. > :18:36.mains. I'm not saying that Thames Water did that, but when the fire
:18:37. > :18:39.brigade asks for an increase pressures, they come. Those
:18:40. > :18:44.pressures are increased. We will find out if that was the case or
:18:45. > :18:48.not, I'm sure that will come out in the public enquiry. Whether
:18:49. > :18:51.firefighters themselves were justified and ought to have
:18:52. > :19:02.anticipated a contingency plan for such an event, I think that is very
:19:03. > :19:06.difficult. Not very people -- not many people in this country have
:19:07. > :19:12.seen a block of flats at that time in the morning on fire like that,
:19:13. > :19:15.when people are asleep, and seen the consequences. I don't think they
:19:16. > :19:20.could have been contingency plans, our buildings should be safe in the
:19:21. > :19:24.first place. All of the firefighting operations are predicated on
:19:25. > :19:28.firefighters fighting the building from inside, not outside. Obviously,
:19:29. > :19:35.it is excellent to be able to have an aerial platform ready
:19:36. > :19:41.strategically placed for such an event. But, in reality, they will be
:19:42. > :19:45.standing idle for long periods. Rodney King, thank you. We
:19:46. > :19:47.appreciate that it is much easier in hindsight to make all of these
:19:48. > :19:49.observations. Thank you. So much has been written
:19:50. > :19:51.about Trump and Russia, it's hard to believe that
:19:52. > :19:53.President Trump and Vladamir Putin Now a lot has been written
:19:54. > :19:58.about Trump and handshakes - the non-shake with Angela Merkel,
:19:59. > :20:03.the firm grip of Emmanuel Macron - but here is the footage of the one
:20:04. > :20:06.that really matters - Some commented that Putin cleverly
:20:07. > :20:13.got Trump to reach out to him. Personally, I'd say
:20:14. > :20:15.it's pretty uneventful. This was not for the media,
:20:16. > :20:21.it was filmed only on a mobile. Again, you can probably read
:20:22. > :20:27.something into it, if you choose to. Well, the two presidents
:20:28. > :20:29.did actually meet, for longer than expected -
:20:30. > :20:35.two hours and 20 minutes. Some wondered whether some kind
:20:36. > :20:38.of major announcement might come out of it: peace in Syria,
:20:39. > :20:40.a deal on Ukraine. Nothing that dramatic,
:20:41. > :20:53.so what did emerge? What did come out of it? Well, look.
:20:54. > :20:57.They did come to an agreement about a ceasefire in southern Syria. The
:20:58. > :21:02.complexion, US and Russian sources have been getting close to potential
:21:03. > :21:07.combat there. I guess that is a positive tech. Also, to appoint an
:21:08. > :21:10.American representative to the Ukraine, the so-called Minsk
:21:11. > :21:13.process, some forward movement there. They were frank on the fact
:21:14. > :21:19.that they could not agree on the way ahead with career, there were not
:21:20. > :21:23.willing to agree on sanctions with North Korea but everyone wanted to
:21:24. > :21:28.know what happened when President Trump tabled the issue of hacking
:21:29. > :21:32.and the elections, and what the US intelligence community says is clear
:21:33. > :21:36.Russian state-sponsored meddling in their election. The Americans say
:21:37. > :21:41.that they put it out there to start with. The Russian version of what
:21:42. > :21:45.happened, I think he spotted, that Sergei Lavrov, when telling
:21:46. > :21:48.reporters about it afterwards, said they assured him that the Russian
:21:49. > :21:53.leadership had not ordered such a thing. That was a curious form of
:21:54. > :21:58.words, chiming in with some things that President Putin said, implying
:21:59. > :22:04.that maybe... Someone else had! Frankly, the American attitude was
:22:05. > :22:05.pretty much look, can we move on? That was expressed by the Secretary
:22:06. > :22:29.of State, Rex Tillerson. OK, so Rex Tillerson there in that
:22:30. > :22:34.recorded clip, saying that we need to think on other things. A lot of
:22:35. > :22:40.people obviously in the US will be unhappy about that... Let's move on,
:22:41. > :22:46.sort of thing! In terms of the reset being thought about, anything...? Of
:22:47. > :22:48.course, he campaigned on this. President Trump comes a look I
:22:49. > :22:54.promised better relations with Russia. I've got to deliver it. A
:22:55. > :23:01.lot of people think he is sensitive on how this will be received. This
:23:02. > :23:05.narrative that he is Putin's pawn is popular among enemies. He doesn't
:23:06. > :23:10.care what they think. But there is another problem, who actually shares
:23:11. > :23:15.his objective? Especially on things like sanctions, of rolling them back
:23:16. > :23:19.and helping President Putin, building the stronger relationship.
:23:20. > :23:23.Here is the former Secretary of State official, Jeremy Shapiro.
:23:24. > :23:27.He has no one in his own government who shares his opinion of Russia,
:23:28. > :23:30.For whatever reason, he did not appoint anybody
:23:31. > :23:35.he could do that for him and this is why, so frequently, we see him
:23:36. > :23:37.saying something about Nato, for example,
:23:38. > :23:38.and the next day one of his
:23:39. > :23:41.cabinet members comes out and says, pay no attention to what the
:23:42. > :23:48.President of the United States said - that is not our policy.
:23:49. > :23:53.Mark, thank you very much. We will follow the G20 summit and everything
:23:54. > :23:57.more in the next few days. Experts in general have got a bad
:23:58. > :24:00.rap in the last 18 months. None more so than economists,
:24:01. > :24:03.who have actually had a bad decade, what with the crash
:24:04. > :24:08.that wasn't foreseen. And now the knife is well and truly
:24:09. > :24:11.stuck in to the profession, in a new book written by three young
:24:12. > :24:14.economists from the University of Manchester, who are proposing
:24:15. > :24:16.the subject opens its mind But also, the authors propose
:24:17. > :24:21.that it is altogether too important Politics is increasingly framed
:24:22. > :24:27.in terms of economics in a way that excludes the public and damages
:24:28. > :24:30.democratic culture and process. Trying to make democracy more
:24:31. > :24:33.meaningful will clearly necessitate They call the economic
:24:34. > :24:41.elite the econocracy, Well, we have one of the authors
:24:42. > :24:47.here, Joe Earle, and an economist, Diane Coyle, a professor
:24:48. > :24:57.of economics at the Good evening to you both. Joe, tell
:24:58. > :25:01.us the basic thrust of the critiquing the book in a few
:25:02. > :25:07.sentences? Thank you. It is the story of an international student
:25:08. > :25:11.movement called Rethinking Economics, we have groups in 22
:25:12. > :25:14.countries across the world and it is essentially ask coming to a
:25:15. > :25:18.university independently wanted to understand the world and influencing
:25:19. > :25:22.it, arriving it and feeling that our economics education was not
:25:23. > :25:26.preparing us to do that, it was not fit for purpose. At the same time,
:25:27. > :25:31.having friends and families going, what is going on with the financial
:25:32. > :25:35.crisis? The Eurozone is falling apart, feeling embarrassed... You
:25:36. > :25:42.had nothing to say about it! Exactly! Diane Coyle, what do you
:25:43. > :25:45.agree with in the book? Quite a lot of it, the headline you gave was
:25:46. > :25:51.actually nonsense, you would not take the chemist out of chemistry
:25:52. > :25:55.that putting people in economics is important, I agree with that. Part
:25:56. > :26:01.of the problem is that most economists do not do the stuff that
:26:02. > :26:04.is about financial crises, and austerity, so one. Most of us do
:26:05. > :26:11.much more small-scale economics which is very different. Is it
:26:12. > :26:17.perhaps too mathematical? It isn't particularly, it's more numerical,
:26:18. > :26:21.looking at how markets work, empirical decisions, how people make
:26:22. > :26:24.decisions. What do you disagree with? Manchester students have been
:26:25. > :26:29.the Severus in this, and you teach there. What do you disagree with?
:26:30. > :26:34.What I do disagree with is the idea that all of economics is political.
:26:35. > :26:37.I think it is a mixture. I think Sun is inherently political, you must
:26:38. > :26:43.acknowledge that and economists in the past have not been opening
:26:44. > :26:48.enough about that. But some of it is not. It is much more scientific. You
:26:49. > :26:52.cannot have a Marxist theory on how students may respond to certain
:26:53. > :26:57.incentives to go into education or not. There are politics involved in
:26:58. > :27:01.it but there are also science and numbers involved. So, explain the
:27:02. > :27:06.point. You do think it is basically politics hidden in a technical
:27:07. > :27:14.model? It isn't about narrow left and right wing politics, it's about
:27:15. > :27:19.being taught a particular way of thinking, and so, for example, in
:27:20. > :27:22.the response that Diane just gave, she was talking on Marxist economics
:27:23. > :27:26.but also incentives. It's a particular way of looking at the
:27:27. > :27:30.world and that has a particular view of human nature and a particular
:27:31. > :27:35.view about markets, and being the right way of organising things.
:27:36. > :27:38.Also, not... But Diane did not say that the market was the right way of
:27:39. > :27:46.organising things? But the assumption is that most of what we
:27:47. > :27:49.look at is markets. Again, a lot of economists today believe that
:27:50. > :27:56.markets do not work and need to be regulated better. But it is not
:27:57. > :28:00.studying institutions, for example. I disagree, it studies institutions
:28:01. > :28:03.a lot. It is about collective decision-making about the use and
:28:04. > :28:08.allocation of resources and markets are part of that. In the graduate
:28:09. > :28:11.quarter, in the undergraduate courses, they don't do much about.
:28:12. > :28:16.You need to get to advanced levels before you begin on that kind of
:28:17. > :28:19.thing? In mind, they certainly do, I think the curriculum has changed a
:28:20. > :28:24.lot over the last few years, particularly thanks to people like
:28:25. > :28:27.Joe. It is important to note that Diane is an exception, she always
:28:28. > :28:34.comes to debate with us and her course at Manchester is a very...
:28:35. > :28:38.They will be shocked by the state of economics education. Did you agree
:28:39. > :28:42.with Michael Gove, when he said that we had enough of expats? There's
:28:43. > :28:46.quite a bit of that critique there? We are the next generation of
:28:47. > :28:51.economists, and we believe... Isn't he saying the same thing as you? No,
:28:52. > :28:55.we believe experts need to change so they are trusted again and listened
:28:56. > :29:01.to, because Brexit clearly showed that people did not trust economic
:29:02. > :29:06.models, and predictions. But you don't want them to trust them...? We
:29:07. > :29:11.want economists to not only communicate better, that is what we
:29:12. > :29:17.are doing ourselves. We have a website called economy. Oh, which is
:29:18. > :29:22.all about communicating economics in an accessible way, not just assuming
:29:23. > :29:26.that people agree but our way of thinking on the economy does not
:29:27. > :29:29.represent the experience of people in the country -- economy.org. Do
:29:30. > :29:33.you accept the criticism of economics, that it became too close
:29:34. > :29:39.minded? It did not have a broad enough range of models? Whatever you
:29:40. > :29:42.want, it did not somehow...? I think it became close minded a long time
:29:43. > :29:49.ago and the high watermark of that kind of economics for me was in the
:29:50. > :29:53.mid-19 80s and 1990s. Understanding the psychology of how people take
:29:54. > :29:56.decisions and using new methods like randomised control trials and
:29:57. > :30:00.experiment methods has been happening for 20 years now. I think
:30:01. > :30:04.the big failing, we let down students, it took too long to change
:30:05. > :30:08.the curriculum to introduce that. Jo is quite right in saying that when
:30:09. > :30:13.the crisis happened, undergraduate courses were not equipping people.
:30:14. > :30:17.You can go to any technical area, people who set the traffic lights
:30:18. > :30:21.for pedestrians versus cars, there are political decisions built into
:30:22. > :30:26.everything in society? There is a very big difference, economics is
:30:27. > :30:32.about our lives and who does what, who gets what. These values are
:30:33. > :30:36.really important. We are just asking for people, economists, to go out
:30:37. > :30:38.and listen and really get their shoes dirty. Jo and Diane, thank you
:30:39. > :30:39.very much indeed. That's it from us tonight,
:30:40. > :30:41.for this week indeed. Have a good weekend
:30:42. > :30:45.in the meantime.