they know the identity of the three men who killed seven people and injured dozens of others. they said their names would be released "as soon as operationally possible". the attackers drove a van into pedestrians and then stabbed people nearby. a canadian woman who was killed in the london attack has been named by media outlets in canada as christine archibald. her family said in a statement that she had worked in a homeless shelter before moving to europe to be with herfiance. twenty—one people remain in a critical condition in hospital. the american pop star ariana grande, whose show in britain was hit by a suicide bomber two weeks ago, has been back on stage again in manchester to play a huge benefit concert for victims of the attack. now on bbc news, time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk,

from the hay literary festival, in wales. today i'm joined by a packed audience eager to hear from the american politician who defied conventional wisdom to inject passion and radicalism into last yea r‘s to inject passion and radicalism into last year's us presidential election. no, not donald trump but the self—styled socialist who challenged hillary clinton for the democratic party nomination, bernie sanders. his movement did not carry him all the way to the white house but has he planted the seed of a revolution in american politics? cheering and applause. bernie sanders, welcome to hardtalk. great to be with you. i think we have to begin by reflect

things on what happened in november, 2016. can you explain to me and explain to this audience how come donald trump was put into the white house by voters, many of whom were those working—class, blue—collar americans that your campaign was all about? explain it. let me explain it in two ways. first of all, it is important for everyone to remember that, while donald trump of course one the presidency because he won the presidency because he won the majority of the electoral college, he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes so 3 million more people voted for clinton then voted for trump. number two, for clinton then voted for trump. numbertwo, i for clinton then voted for trump. number two, i think and what i say very often, is that it wasn't so very often, is that it wasn't so much that trump — who by the way was the most unpopular candidate for president in the history of the united states, very unpopular — it was not

so very unpopular — it was not so much that trump won but that the democratic party lost. and by that i mean, not just the lost. and by that i mean, notjust the presidential election, the republicans now control the us house, the us senate, almost two thirds of the governage chairs in america and in the last nine years, running against a party that has moved extremely far to the right, the republicans, democrats have lost almost 1,000 seats in state legislatures throughout america. so the real question to be asked is, what has happened to the democratic party? why is its strategy and its message failing to such a significant degree? second part of the answer is that, and tied to the first part, is that while the economy in the united states under president 0bama absolutely improved over that eight year period — unemployment went down, deficit went down, a lot of other improvements — the truth of the matter is that millions

and millions of americans were left behind amidst the global economy. in other words, what trump saw is there was a level of desperation not been dealt with by the democrats. do you accept a level of responsibility for what you call the failure of the democratic party? imean, i the failure of the democratic party? i mean, i know you ran against hillary and you portrayed hillary clinton as, frankly, pa rt hillary clinton as, frankly, part of the problem, as an elitist democrat who was out of touch with ordinary americans. you said she was far too much in hock to wall street and the big financiers and the corporate interests. but in the end, you backed hillary and do you accept your part of responsibility in the democratic failure? no, actually, ithink that the transition in the democratic party that we are seeing today echoes much of what i have been saying for the last 25 years and i think

what democrats now understand is you cannot go to working people who are living in desperation and say that you are for them at the same time as you are taking huge amounts of money from wall street, the insurance companies, the drug companies and the fossil fuel industry. but do you in any way regret the lumps you kicked out of hillary clinton? because if you had not, she might be in the white house? no, ido she might be in the white house? no, i do not accept that at all and what i accept is the fact that ourcampaign at all and what i accept is the fact that our campaign brought millions and millions of people into the political process. donald trump did not need me to understand that hillary clinton gave speeches before wall street. did not need me to understand hillary clinton's record. what we did in our campaign, toa what we did in our campaign, to a large degree, is created a whole lot of excitement and some of that excitement came into the democratic party and came into the democratic party and came into the democratic party and came into the hillary clinton's campaign. you have an analysis of politics, not just you have an analysis of politics, notjust in america but across the world,

but across the world, but let's just stick to america for the moment. it seems to me, in a sense, quite old—fashioned. you talk a lot about class... that is old fashion! laughter. if it is old—fashioned to say that the very rich are getting richer while most everybody else is getting poorer, if that's old—fashioned, then old fashioned is absolutely correct. the truth is, not that my ideas are old, but the truth is that politicians all over this world are running away from the basic issue that billionaires increasingly control economies and political systems all over the world. but hang on a minute,... cheering and applause. working—class americans... applause working—class americans in their hundreds and thousands made millions in states like michigan, wisconsin, and the so—called rust belt of america, they voted for a billionaire. and to my mind, the major reason

many working—class people voted for donald trump is the following — asi for donald trump is the following — as i said a moment ago, the economy improved under 0bama but the truth is that many people we re but the truth is that many people were left behind so you have over the last a0 years, tens of thousands of factories in the united states that once provided people with decent wages, decent efforts, they are gone and you have towns in america where main street is boarded up, where main street is boarded up, where young people are leaving those towns. you have half of all the workers in america today, as they approached retirement age, do you know how much money they have in the bank when they are 66 — over half of all american workers — they have nothing in the bank. they are scared to death. you have young people leaving school $a0,000, $50,000 in debt or more so $50,000 in debt or more so my response to you is there isa so my response to you is there is a lot of pain in america and donald trump addressed that

pain and he said, i am going to be a different type of republican. i hear your a different type of republican. ihearyour pain. iam going ihearyour pain. i am going to take on the establishment, the politics, the political establishment, the economic establishment. do you know what the only problem was? donald trump lied and he had no intention of doing it. he didn't lie on everything and on some issues he actually was not 1 and on some issues he actually was not1 million miles from bernie sanders. he railed against globalisation, he railed against the trade deal deals which 0bama and the clintons had back, including the north american free trade agreement, the tra ns—pacific partnership... yep... injust the yep... in just the same way that you did and he has not lied, he has delivered. he has backed off the trans—pacific partnership. he says he is going to renegotiate nafta. and in that way it seems to me your class—based analysis and your left— right language doesn't actually explain what is happening in america. i think it does explain it.

the fact that trump understood that when we are running up huge trade deficit, when many corporations are shutting down and moving to china and mexico and throwing american workers out on the street because they can get cheap labour abroad, it is true that many democrats supported that, it is true that bill clinton, under the clinton administration did that as well. i voted against that. and you are right, trump is right to point out that those trade policies have been extremely bad but where he lied, where he lied is he said, i'm going to be on the side of working people. well, he is not. if you look at the health—care proposal that he is supporting, if you look at the budget that he is supporting, these are disastrous proposals for the working people of this country. it's not even just about economics, is it? it's about culture and identity as well and it seems to me that donald trump, even though he is mega— wealthy, he's very he is mega— wealthy, he‘s very anti— he is mega— wealthy, he's very anti— elite. he hates the elites, at least he says he does. really? that's news for the well, american people. hejust appointed american people. he just appointed virtually all of the elite to his administration. he has more billionaires in his administration than any

president in the history of the united states. but my point is not really about trump, it's getting back to your analysis of... i was going to say of your own party but interestingly you are actually an independent who chose to fight in the aquatic primary... that's right. you are not a long signed up democrat. but if you look at the language of hillary clinton, she used the word deplorable is about trump supporters. look at barack 0bama after one of the terrible gun murder incident in the united states, he talked about bitter people living in middle america with their guns and their religion. words that he later regretted but it suggests that there is something about the liberal professional outlook which does not connect with ordinary folks in much of your country and i am not sure that even you necessarily connect with some of those people either. well, thank you, but i would respectfully disagree. i think we do pretty well with working people throughout the united states of america andi the united states of america and i think that many working people understand that the recent being profoundly wrong

—— there is. when they are working longer hours for low wages and, in the united states, 5296 in the united states, 52% of all new income is going to the top 1%. the american worker understands there is something absurd about the fact that he or she cannot afford to send their kids to college by the united states college bailed out the crooks on wall street so out the crooks on wall street soi out the crooks on wall street so i think we do a pretty good job. not perfect but i proud of the record that i have in support from so many unions and millions of working people throughout my country. do you still call yourself a democratic socialist? absolutely. for you, redistribution isa for you, redistribution is a key to economic reform? i think, stephen, is a key to economic reform? ithink, stephen, that from an economic and moral — the pope, pope francis, who have a lot of respect for, raises this issue on a very profound way — we as a nation, my country, has got to ask ourselves

about the morality of the situation where the top one tenth of 1% now owns more wealth or as much wealth as the bottom 90%. where 52% of all new income goes to the top 1%. where globally the top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 99%. iam more wealth than the bottom 99%. i am less interested in the top 1%, all0.1% i am less interested in the top 1%, all 0.1% billionaires and multi— millionaire ‘s, iam and multi— millionaire ‘s, i am interested in professional people who, in the united states, might be earning $100,000 a year, in the uk it might be £80,000, whatever, here is the problem and there are some fascinating results just done by the new york times, looking at the democratic party... i saw that article. you saw that article. it was one of the dumber article isi it was one of the dumber article is i have read ina long is i have read in a long time. let mejust quote in a long time. let me just quote a little bit of it, for you and the audience.

those in the top 10% on the income distribution voted a7% for clinton is against a6% for trump. in other words, the rich and the professional and the moneyed and the professional and the moneyed and the professional and the moneyed and the comfortable are democrats just as much if not more than they're just as much if not more than they‘ re republicans. so it is not about them and us any more... stephen, i happen not to consider somebody who makes a year rich. what i happen to be terribly concerned about, and we cannot run away from this issue, you may not be concerned about alien —— billionaires, ithink you may not be concerned about alien —— billionaires, i think you should because i think growth in the united states in the united states in the last 17 years, you know what we've seen? we have seen the middle—class shrinking, we have seen 33 million people living in poverty and we have seen at ten times increase in the number of billionaires. let me interrupted for a sec. what i'm concerned about is where you win or you gather together a winning coalition of voters because, for all of your achievements in 2016, you didn't win and donald trump is in the white house

so is in the white house so going forward, how does the left, the sort of people who support your views, how do you translate big support, young people coming, flocking to your rallies and everything else, how do you transport that into a winning formula because you have got to innocent is persuade people who are comfortably off to be altruistic... no, no, no, no,... i understand that article and it really is quite incorrect. what the article got wrong is that it said bernie sanders is that it said bernie sanders is going to tax everybody. what they forgot to talk about in the article, by the way we're writing a response to that, is that much of the tax revenue goes to providing healthcare to all people and will save tens of millions of middle—class families substantial sums of money. right now, you have the middle—class family, and again, i know it is hard for folks in the family, and again, i know it is hard forfolks in the uk family, and again, i know it is hard for folks in the uk to understand this absurdity, but in america you have a middle—class family — husband and wife, two kids —

who should be paying $15,000, $18,000 a yearfor who should be paying $15,000, $18,000 a year for healthcare. 0ur health—care proposal eliminates that. yes, it asks them to pay more in taxes. u nfortu nately, to pay more in taxes. unfortunately, the author of that article forgot to mention that aspect. just a couple of quickfire questions, some were puzzled by a particular stance you took, one was on your refusal over years, actually, to support the more radical proposals to controlling gun ownership in the united states. e.g. do that because of this identity of politics at work about. did you do this because you thought that would appeal to working class, blue—collar americans? i did that because i come from a state that has zero gun control but i represent the state, where there is virtually no gun control and, by the way, the crime rate and the murder rate, thank god, are very low. in ruralvermont rate and the murder rate, thank god, are very low. in rural vermont you had your tv and you switch it on and you look at the terrible events of sandy hook school... i am -- my

record on gun control has been a strong record. you have repeatedly refused to back the measures that some call the brady measures to impose strict limits on... by and large, i received, my memory is correct, about i think it was a d minus voting record for the nra. so i don't think that makes me very sympathetic to their point of view. another question, we have spoken about winning support, getting great grassroots activism on your site, but translating it into big race, even today, even though you were still criss—crossing the country, getting people out, supporting you, building a movement, i looked at your record recently, you had a candidate — i mean, a close associate of yours is a state democratic party, you lost. one second. we lost, in other words, in california, tens of thousands of young people, not young people,

working people, and unions, took on an establishment which has run that party for a very long time. we were not successful. but called losing, yeah. when you take on people with an enormous amount of power, you do not win on your first shot. there is not win on your first shot. there is no debate. if you look at what is going on of the democratic but fong, do you know what is happening there? 90% of what i campaigned on. do you know the legislation that is coming forth from democrats now? what i campaigned on. last week we introduced legislation that would it increase the rate to $15 an hour. we are fighting legislation with national support to guarantee healthcare to all people through a medicare or a single—payer system so if your point of view is that overnight, you can bring a political revolution to the united states, i don't think so. i never thought so. and i think no serious political reporter thinks so. is that you're way off...? reporter thinks so. is that you're way off. . . ? applause. reporter thinks so. is that you're

way off...? applause. is reporter thinks so. is that you're way off. . . ? applause. is that... reporter thinks so. is that you're way off...? applause. is that... is that you're way of signing to me and this audience and the world that you have no intention of backing down? you are going to be running for president again? i didn't say that at all. you said this is a long—term process , at all. you said this is a long—term process, one shot, you said, does not solve this process. process, one shot, you said, does not solve this processlj process, one shot, you said, does not solve this process. i didn't say one shot but i said one campaign will not change the world but look, we are taking on an establishment. that means we are taking on a republican party that is backed by multibillionaires with endless amounts of money. we are taking on a democratic party which, for the last 30 years, has moved to the right, lost its contact with working people and young people. now, do you think overnight we will bring victory? we won't. many of your people want to know if you will run again. it is to early to talk about that. one of the problems we have in america is media

focuses on the easy stuff. will be run for president? i'll tell you what i'm doing right now. what i'm doing is taking on donald trump a disastrous health proposal that rose 203 disastrous health proposal that rose 20 3 million people off health insurance. iam 20 3 million people off health insurance. i am taking on his budget, which gives $2.5 trillion in tax wrecks to the top 1% and makes massive cup to the needs of working people. let's talk about other aspects of what donald trump has offered the american people but again, it seems to be relevant to what we hear from any political movement in europe and elsewhere as well, particularly movement that we re well, particularly movement that were traditionally characterised of the right and and what they are doing at the moment is telling a narrative which weaves together nationalism, protectionism, and to some extent a fear of immigration. and it is a powerful cocktail. you could argue that narrative was powerful taringa brexit referendum in the uk, you could argue it is powerful in eastern europe in countries like hungary, it certainly

grabbed hold with marine le pen in france. in some ways it is the right and some elements of the far right who appeared to be using language which many ordinary people can relate to. well, but you know, there is nothing new about that. here in europe you should be more aware of the role that demagogues have played for a very, very long period of time. when demagoguery is about, what you are describing... that is your word, not mine. excuse me, i understand what you are saying. what's demagoguery is about is scapegoating minorities who have no power. who are saying to people who have lost their jobs power. who are saying to people who have lost theirjobs or working longer hours for low wages it is the muslims who are responsible for you losing yourjob is all working for low wages. it is latinos in the united states who are responsible. the antidote to that is to create a

powerful movement of working—class people who have the guts not to scapegoat minorities but have the guts to take on the billionaire class that we should be talking about. what interests me about you... applause. what interests me about you is that in some areas, you are not afraid to enter the territory that, for example, in the united states, donald trump is in which is talking about protectionism. first of all i would suggest that many of the ideas or some of those ideas, they were ideas i have been talking about for years. you talk about protectionism. i use the word that trade policies. this trade would ring? of course it is. do you want to trade? i will give you a dollar, you know, and you give me $1000. that would be a good trade for me. who do you think and write these trade agreements? you think it is working people? people working in

factories? farmers? leave me, iam fair, these are the executives of major multinational corporations, the drug companies, and wall street, they make this trade agreements, a work for those people, and they are often quite bad for ordinary workers. i was taken by something barack 0bama said the other day, he was talking about his view of america and a big, bold inclusive dynamic america, the america we love so much. it seems to me that america doesn't actually exist right now. first of all, let us be very clear, donald trump is not america. and on... no, no, one second. 0ne second. because i don't agree with you. america has come a very long

way in many areas. the fact that barack 0bama, an african—american, was elected president in 2008 were re—elected in 2012, that was something that people 30 or a0 years ago never would have believed could have occurred. so if the issue is do we have racism in america or in the uk? duh, of course we do. but have we made significant advances in combating racism? yes, we have. we have done a good job in combating sexism. still got a long way to go. we have done a good job in combating homophobia. still have a long way to go. but i'm proud that in america we are a more inclusive society. this is just a stat that seems interesting to me. nearly three quarters of republicans identify themselves as white and christian. and they see their america being eroded day by day. they — white, christian america — represents only a3% of the population right now.

there is this sense of polarisation, and a great deal of among parts of the america that we see today. there is a lot of fear, and there is fear for good reason. if you were 62 years of age and approaching retirement in three years, and you were one of the half of older workers in america who had no money in the bank, do you know what? you'd be afraid. if you were a kid graduating college $75,000 in debt and couldn't find a decentjob, you would be afraid as well. if you were a single mom making $30,000 and spending $10,000 a year on childcare, you would be afraid as well. so i think there is a lot of economic anxiety which then translate itself into cultural issues. but answer your broad question, there is no doubt in my mind that over the last 50 years, the united states has in fact become a more inclusive society. bernie sanders, we have to end there, but thank you for being an hardtalk. applause. hello there, good morning.

by the end of this week, you may be wondering what has happened to the summer because the week ahead looks very, very unsettled. there'll be some spells of rain which could be quite heavy at times. accompanied by some strong and gusty winds and some drier interludes and it may turn a little bit warmer towards the end of the week. 0urfirst area of rain is coming from this developing cloud here and we have already seen that cloud bringing rain across northern ireland and spilling its way into scotland, so a wet start before things brighten up. a dull start for northern ireland. turning wetter across north—west england, across wales, and the south—west as well. even further east, we'll see some showery bursts of rain, especially in the afternoon. let's head into the afternoon, though, with some brighter skies and sunshine, we will trigger heavy and perhaps thundery showers in scotland. for northern ireland as well, a few showers coming, after that dull start. feeling particularly cold though across northern england as the rain sets in here, and particularly wet across across wales and the south—west of england. some brief warmth towards the east of england, east anglia and the south—east, but we will these showery bursts of rain developing, especially in the afternoon.

the wettest weather probably further west into wales and north—west of england, where there could be as much as 80 millimetres of rain during monday and monday night. the rain moving slowly northwards and eastwards and at the same time, the winds continuing to strengthen, especially across the south coast and in the south—west. a very blustery picture as we head towards the end of the night. and we start on tuesday with temperatures ten or 11 degrees but of course we start with some wet weather, especially across scotland and eastern england. the main rain is pushing up with that area of low pressure into scotland — eastern scotland in particular — but we should see that weather front taking most of the rain away from eastern england, although it could linger in northern england. the wetter weather is going to be across scotland. elsewhere, very gusty wind, strong—to—gale force winds, blowing in a mixture of sunshine but also some heavy, and potentially thundery, showers. not a particularly good day again. it looks better for most places on wednesday, windy though, still, for scotland and northern ireland. still some rain in the north—east. but a slice of drier and brighter weather for a time before we get some more rainjust ambling

into the south—west. our main area of low pressure finally clears away and the rain eases in the north—east of scotland but a complicated tangle of weather fronts moves in from the atlantic, bringing in some further spells of rain across england and wales, although it may tend to clear away later on thursday to allow us some warmth and sunshine and showers. but some heavy and thundery downpours are possible across northern ireland and later scotland. this is bbc news. i'm david eades. our top story this hour: the london bridge attack. as the investigation continues, the islamic state group says it was behind the london terror attack. the first of the victims is named. christine archibald came from canada and had moved to europe to be with her fiance. in the wake of the latest attack — facebook says it'll make itself

a hostile environment for people who carry out acts of terror. and in manchester, the scene of the previous uk attack, a tribute concert with some of the world's biggest stars.