..

to silence their cell phones and encourage watching online or on c-span to e-mail questions to speaker at heritage.org and program is nile gardner he's the director of the margareter in for freedom and bernard and barbra here at heritage foundation. thank you very much. welcome to the heritage foundation it is my pleasure to introduce steve hilton of the host of the popular fox news show, the next revolution when broadcast from the west coast every sunday night. >> comes with a number one on the night. >> absolutely. [inaudible conversations] and steve was the director of strategy for prime minister david cameron one of the most pin fliewn cial advisors over the last decade.

since moving to the united states in 2012 he's with a university and founded a political technology startup with a mission of fighting big money in politic and putting power in people's hands. he's author of more human designing a world where people come first. a u.k. sunday times best seller in 2015 of started politics out in new college oxford, about university been a prominent supporter of britain exit from the european union. and had pleasure speaking along brexit panel his latest book is positive revolution ideas with family, comungts, and america join me in welcoming steve hilton. [applause] thorning very much for coming along and thank you wherever you are. it is a great pleasure and honor to be here and first time we met

in person was the brexit discussion that we had i think it was -- a few months before. just before the -- actual vote that's right and it was -- really just very exciting to be talking about with that that it might happen and it was wonderful to see you again and thank you -- for asking me along today physical i would like toe talk about populism and i'm going to get into some details in a moment but i wanted to set out really -- why i've written this book populism and main thing i wanted to achieve with with it is to try define it a little bit. because we hear this work populism. it has been thrown around a lot in the last few years and it has been attached to all sorts of political all over place starting with brexit first moment in recent incarnation of populism people started talking about it as a force and then o.c. election of donald trump but the bernie sanders campaign

as well an now seeing label applied throughout europe with various political contests perverting perhaps old order often described but that populism is out there and some people think it is positive and some think it is negative. and what i really wanted to do was to give it a bit of coherence. and to focus really not just on what it's against, i think what is probably clear to a lot of salespeople what had populism is against. it is against the elites and it's against borders immigration and it's against the trade deal and so on. there's a list of things that people often think populism is against. what i'm trying to do many this book is what is it for? what is the agenda that coherent agenda for a positive populism that's the purpose of the book. the reason i think it is needed and also a the the reason why

this movement whether it's splintered in different directions some on left smm on right the the reason you're seeing this emerge is really powerful, political force. i think it is the the place i would like to start. are we even talking about about populism? why is there this -- pop list movement? and i think that the simple answer to that, and the argument i'm making in the book is that -- what we've seen for the last more than, more than the there's few year last few decades actually -- is i think, both of the very conscience to this that ties to brexit and donald trump success here it seems to a lot of people that regardless of who is actually been lengted who is won elections, the same people and the same agenda seems to be in power that's the very constant doesn't noe matter who you vote for we get screwed now that may

be a simplistic slogan that's how a lot of people would feel argue there's a lot of truth to that because if you look in the u.k. for example from -- that government to the administration to cameron government you really there are policy differences. but there's a common agenda in four key rpghts i think that also applies here in the u.s. when you look at the continuity from reagan to clinton bush and obama. and that ties in with some of the data around this and one of the mosts fascinating i think, in fact, i put it right are to the beginning of the book -- is that one key element of this -- income inequality and if you look at weight stagnation again term that we hear describe a lot that's not just a phenomenon of the last few years in great recession and look at 80% also

and nonmanagement nonsupervisor work to labor board statistics basically -- up to 2016, wages have been flat or falling. since 1972, 44 years of flat or falling wages for roughly 80% in real terms roughly 80% american that's a staggering fact. to policy and four key elements of the shared agenda as i would describe it between republicans and democrats between labor and a conservative and u.k. or there are four key elements to it in the book one is that is really not so much of a policy. the four things that have fate the modern world one is globalization. other is automation. third is centralization. centralization of government

taking power from local and state government here in the u.s. and -- putting it in hands of the federal government saying kind of patent in the u.k.. also centralization by the way in the economy. as you've seen corporations getting bigger and bigger -- trying business emerging. squeeze out competition only markets who in the industry after industry -- and then fourth element is immigration. since of uncontrolled immigration those four things globalization automation centralization, immigration they're the key characterizes of a shared it agenda. a shared ideology i describe it as which i call elitism. why do i call it elitism because it is very clear that the people at the top rough but not the famous 1% but roughly 20% or so -- have done incredibly well over these years that this agenda has been pursued. we have done incredibly well.

in terms of going up, property prices, look at the booming of incentive with knowledge economy, it has been a real success. to some people. but actually for working people, the 80% or so it hasn't. as the employers move out and family break down and set of things and all of that together given rise to this sentiment and i've written this book to try to -- address that sentiment with positive constructive policy reforms rage. so that's the background. the characterizes of positive populism as i set them out in this the book first of all to me it's something very pragmatic

about solving problems i think that was one of the great appeals frankly of donald trump in the 2016 campaign. he came across as a nonideological politician. you should the business guy to solve problems now you can argue about whether or not that's been done. but that approach i think really resonated with people i think that's part of the populist approach which is -- we not driven by ideology. we're driven by helping working people working families includings their lives and we're looking for practical solutions that's very much the spirit of this book. more specifically, when i think of positive populism i think of ho this practical pragmatic approach who's it trying to help? not trying to help everyone but those hurt most by the i leetist ideology in operation for last 40 years or so-so proworker, profamily, and procommunity.

those ring the key elements of the the agenda. what i would love to is now talk generally about it just to get conversation going and i won't go on for too long i would love your responses and questions and challenges i hope -- just to give you a couple of examples from the book it is an idea book personal story about how i ka imto these views and my working government and starting businesses and moving to california my background. in hungary so a lot of personal background to it but above all an idea book 27 specific ideas in this book. to address the the problems i've outlined and not worked out policies that's why i call them ideas they're really to start a conversation. because i think turning around the long-term trends and family break down and community

disempower and corruption in government which is a big part of it and take -- taking a long tile to get to where we are. so these are ideas to start the conversation i want to pick out four. and quickly sketch them out to give you a flavor of -- what i'm talking about and these four ideas are in -- four of the key policy areas that we all think about a lot. in our different ways and our dumpt worlds. on -- education, health, welfare, and family. pretty central topickings. i just want to start with -- schools. what's a positive populist have to say about schools in well, the first principle of this populist approach that i'm setting out is that -- concentration of power that i've talk about earlier and characteristic and power taken away from individual and

communities and centralized it in big business and bureaucracy and so on. people don't have control over things that matter to them and that was a key factor i think in the brexit vote to people power putting power in people's hands is key thing to be throughout this book. that's very relevant to the school idea that i'm going to talk to you about. the the other factor is -- the way that social mobility has completely stalled in america. you look at the data, that, that story of people being able to rise of the income scale through education and so on. that's really a story of the past. and so what we've got to do is rethink our approach to schools and education and and traying. all of the things that ladser of opportunity is just not working. flesh and it will get worse and worse because -- nature of trade and jobs are are much more temporary and so on. and the kind of skills that people need to learn are just

going to change dramatically. the current school system that we have is simply ill-equipped to do that and, of course, there are many good schools every time we talk about about radical school system you have to make e clear within the public school system there are fantastic schools that do a great job. yes of course that's true. but overall -- what i described is the factory school system that we have in operation which is basically a model invented in 19th century that was imported here where these big schools and children taught the same thing in years. putting to their age and so on in a very kind of -- industrialized way. just is completely for preparing children for future and much less about acquiring knowledge and much more about character an how they operate and resilience and problem solving and creativity, et cetera. i think above all, we need innovation, into our school system people setting up new

schools that experiment with different ways of teaching children these skills so -- what i propose in this -- at the moment we have that a little bit. you have some innovation for example, through charter schools so on and in private sector and i live in silicon valley and there's a huge i ray of incredibly exciting new model of education being dropped but mostly in private sector for rich but i want that kind of experience. for everyone -- and the way to get there, i think is what i describe as total school choice. not just a few extra options for parents. alongside the bulk of the public school system but completely removing government from the operation and a the delivery of education. a total open market in schools. where you have basically a voucher system that enables any parent to go to any school that in turn will inspire entrepreneur and social entrepreneur and companies and parent groups with parents to

set up schools that will deliver this innovative education that suits children much more precisely. so total school choice. that is -- first idea, and it connects absolutely with what i was talking about in terms of putting power in people's hands. the second -- idea i wanted to mention actually apply that exact same model to health care. just the same -- you have incredible medical innovation around corner. it saves so much money tell medicine all of these medicines yet we have this factory approach to health care you have giant hospitals worse than that in delivery of health care here in america particularly, you're actually moving towards a u.k. style national health service in the sense of the consolidation that's helping in the health care marketplace. with insurance companies you know and tiny companies dominating and hospital changes buying up other hospitals and --

we talk about a market for health care in america. but they really are are gettingless and less of the market. and so -- at the same time, working people those that we should have in mind when we think about populism have massive financial insecurity as a result of the way that we approach health insurance. and i think there, too much of an ideological approach has been taken. where there's been this notion that you keent have anything resembling government running health care and therefore we can't even think about insurance and so on and single pay direction that would give people that kind of peace of mind and i think it is so important. because we don't want state run health care. no we don't want state run health care but problem is, that we love together two very distinct of the policy debate we treat health insurance the same as health care. of course, it is true that people want choice in health care. and it's going to lead to inno if we can have choice and market operating just as any other

sector. but no one really wants choice in the insurance part of the equation. they want to cover and they want to know if you get sick you're going to be treated. and so what i'm proposing in the book is universal free market health care. where yes, we basically lack school -- where it is taxpayer funded. but there's a total free market choice in terms of the actual delivery. combining i think in an interestingly nonideological way, some elements of the left populist argument single payer and free market approach. the third idea i wanted to talk about was -- relating to the topic of incomes and low wages and inequality. one of the things that -- that i think should outrage conservatives more than it does, is the way in which a key phrase

that conservative politicians use over and over again about how they're for hardworking people who dot right thing and so on the fact is that for many, many, millions of those hardworking americans work full-time, very tough jobs. they can't live on what they earn. as a result, we have a giant welfare bureaucracy to top off their pay this is what the working poor not people out of the labor force but millions who are actually working. but also receive government welfare top yawps in one form or another. whether that's the earned income tax credit i know a lot of people are big fan of that but still welfare. or -- food stamps whatever it may be. taxpayer topups because people can't live on what they earn. now i think conservatives should be outraged about that. what that really are is --

is a taxpayer subsidy to the employers. they pay their workers at a level that the workers can't live on so the taxpayer tops it up. that's crazy. now, the left populist approach we've actually seen that. in the last week -- where bernie sanders and roe connor introduced a bill focusing on this point of pointn they say amazon to take an example they pay workers as a level they can't live on, their pay topping off by the taxpayer at tune of 150 million i can't remember the figures so let's tax them. that amount -- tax them the amount of the subsidy. that's the the kind of left populist approach. my approach in the book is -- a different one. which i call the business friendly living wage. which is to say let's require all employers to pay their

employees the living wage wherever they are, of course, that varies depending on housing cost and transportation. it's worked out we can look -- organizations that work it out. pay the living wage. but in order to make that affordable for businesses, so they don't have to actually do something that is counterproductive which is bringing robots to do the job of the more expensive workers and lead to unemployment not to make it affordable for business. let's cut their pay, cut their taxes -- by the equivalent amount payroll taxes or corporate taxes whatever we can think of so choose tax to pay workers more. in the process, you eliminate whole need about government welfare bureaucracy basically cycling money around system with all of this cost and bureaucracy what's actually happening is the government is taking money from companies in a form of taxes and then handing back to their workers. in a form of these welfare

topups that is ridiculous. that's just gets rid of it 237 so that the relationship is simply between the worker and the employer. the business, friendly living wage. and then finally, i wanted to mention one other idea. of the 27 in this book -- which is about family. which i would consider to be the single most important policy area of all. it's the area that i worked on moe when i was working ten downing street, and i think i would argue in the book it is the foundational issue. because if we can achieve something simple to say and that is hard to achieve in practice which is that every child to be raise ared in a stable, loving home if we can just achieve that, so many of the social an economic problems that give rise to -- government intervention and regulation and taxpayer funded

services which is simply disappear. now, lots of work has been done great work much of it comes from this place. about family breakdowns and incentives in various government systems that perhaps encourage parents to raise children without being together. i don't it make the whole argument about marriage. i suspect that we all agree with it. the evidence is in as they say in relation to climate the science is in. it is very clear. that it is better for children's opportunities and outcomes if they're raised in a home with two parents it is very clear that marriage is a very strong commitment device that make it is more likely that parents stay together. it is not about that. it's not about moralizing or preaching this is about something very practical which is if you look at the data about -- when families break up, break down, you find something really

interesting. which is the peak moment for families of children to break up is within the first year of the first child being born. a very human practical pragmatic reason for that which is a tough and stressful time anyone as a parent will know you're not getting sleep it is a nightmare for a lot of people particularly with people without family and resources and connections to help out and what we see again thinking about this in a practical nonideological nonpreachy way is that there are real interventions that can help parent through that difficult time. and make it much more likely that they stay together which is overwhelmingly interest of them, their children and society as a whole. and one example of that is actually a -- program that was -- the whole approach was pioneered in the u.k. to help visitor service that was actually over 100 years old that one of the

best evaluated social policy intervention ever in the history was world actually is partnership program created in colorado ting in the late 70s. what all of these -- interventions basically about is -- is home visiting. it is trained professionals going into the home of parents with a young child and helping them with a practical and emotional questions that they have. there's so much evidence that this is transformatively different to the kind of different interventions may be there or other services that parents may want to use book or videos whatever. there's something about that trusted person coming and helping you at this difficult time that makes huge difference. now where these services are currently deployed they're typically done in a at risk way.

they were part of obamacare in home services but really troubled families, the at risk is going to small proportion of the population, and that's fine. but actually i think it would be -- transformative if this could be available to everyone. and that's why in the book i talk about a universal home visiting service. not necessarily delivered by the state by government. local organizations, churches, all sorts of institutions it is similarly to the approach to health and education. services can be guaranteed by the state. but delivered by market in form of private sector organizations or nonprofits or -- a combination of volunteer organizations so -- just because something is universal and guaranteed by the state doesn't mean they have to be delivered by government and home visiting one of those things which i think could have a huge positive impact oning working people on families, and

on all of these issues. income inequality and so on that have led to this populist uprising. so that is just a flavor of the book as many more ideas and went through forces to good enough there and 23 others in the book. [laughter] and if there are any topics that you want to -- raise that aren't covered by four i have just touched on happy to do that. and happy to debate four specific ideas most of all love to work with heritage foundation on this whole agenda because i think it is incredibly important and it is the way to -- really make some of the ideas and values that we all hold applicable in the new world of -- real political disruption and rapid change so thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much steve, terrific, summary of your book,

and and spark a lot of debate here in washington and where we are part of that here. and before i open questions from the audience, this opening question for you, steve on brexit, and based upon many years of experience working in downing street in british government, controversial in britain is split the conservative party is talk now of a potential leadership collage to theresa may. from the brexit side of the conservative party. president trump when he went to london in july was critical of the -- saying that it could potentially threaten the positive u.k. free trade agreement and backtracked on comments but it was a very

significant intervention and can you give us your thoughts on what this means for brexit but also what means for the prime minister as well. [inaudible conversations] delighted to do that. >> sure in terms of the from the president-right and she was wrong. and he should have stuck with his first answer. let me go back a little bit to the campaign and immediate aftermath and then catch up where we are. in the brexit campaign which we've been by the way, i've lived in american in california for six and a half years. so very much -- this is our home but did go back to campaign for brexit, and in that campaign there was a real coherent and king the view put forward by the leaders if you

like conservative party side. specifically myself, michael and boris johnson and we all made argument for an open outward looking proenterprise power house of a -- approach where and free of shacs of the e.u., u.k. is open to the world, and true to its buccaneers and enterprising roots that was the theme in the feel of the kind of brexit that we all argued for. then you have theresa may through various reasons taking over who was posed to brexit and campaigned against it and that set the tone for the whole process then. and it teams so me as what's been going on in u.k. is that the political leadership and the bureaucratic operators seeing

brexit as opportunity to be seen and exploited but as a problem to be mitigated and handled somehow. this disaster has to somehow be handled and we have to make the bests that's the attitude. so -- i remember early on when that attitude seem to being taking hold. making an argument and wrote a piece in sunday times where the discussion the that time was about hard brexit or soft brexit hard intersection its was clean break let's get out don't worry about any transition arrangement and deals with the e.u. let's just leave. but that was soft brexit was make it -- less of a sudden break. right sew that's not the point. i made the argument then, of course, it needs to be a hard brexit. because anything other than hard brexit is not actually leaving you're still there, kind of participating in single market kind of having a transition sort of -- being a member but not really, and being in some things and out

of others you're kind of in if. you don't have the freedom to take advantage of the opportunities of being outside so, of course, it has to be a hard brexit real question is is it an open or closed brexit. open meaning -- let's engage with world and roll out red karpght for entrepreneurs from aired world that want to start businesses in u.k.. let's cut corporation tax to -- 10% or zero, and invite every business in world to step up and make the u.k. the number one destination or business investment in entrepreneurship and so on. that's argument i made then and so we are where we are and check is worse than anyone could have possibly imagined in materials of ending up with i don't know what the adjective would be. but certain it was worse. in terms of not really leaving. and also worse than that is

the -- during this period none of the actions has been taken that could have really mad a long-term success and said that signal to the world that this new u.k. is a fantastic place to do business and so on. there's no cut in corporation tax no investment in infrastructure no effort to really go out into the world and sell u.k. it is just this constant negativity. and entire focus is teams of the british establishment has been on negotiating with the e.u.. when most of the things that could have made a success of brexit could have be done rartdless of the e.u. second point, of course, it is clear that ement u. wants to make brexit as painful as possible for the u.k. in order to deter countries from leaving. their intire incentive is to punish u.k. for leaving so notion that you can negotiate a

deal thatted advantageous so the argument just leaves. and leave and figure it out and arguments that you hear -- made about how well it will be chaos and so on turn out to be rubbish and i don't know -- it might have been -- i don't know. serious political leader talked about planes falling out of the sky that was a praise that was used. because if you leave the the e.u. then air traffic control -- the next day when you watch head of international airlines group now isn't it -- owns british airways this totally ridiculous that will never happen. we'll figure it out as an industry we don't need to -- so one after another scare stories about the consequences of just leaving -- are told and because of the whole nature of the debate in the tuck this negativity people

believed them. and they want to believe them because they're in this mind set this whole thing is a disaster. so bringing us right up to date, i think that -- it would be in britain interest not to have the checker deal to be a term which they leave and if check deal the only way of achieving that is to have a change of prime minister then i think that's what should happen. i don't know whether it will happen. because i'm not connected to the -- current ins and outs of the conservative party but i think open brexit, clean break above all take those policy actions that would make the u.k. an attract arive number one place in the world for business. cut corporate tax invested infrastructure, roll out red carpet entrepreneurs there's no siphon that whatting right now wing a change of leadership you might get that.

thanks very much onset point that we have made on many occasions. on the brexit on the brexit front. and of course likely for u.s. interest as well and closely here in washington. also like to invite into the audience to ask questions and -- seemses to identify yourself anything that you may have and look for opening question yes. so a fellow here at the heritage. >> thank you. and i was -- apologies if this has been addressed i was late. but how to explain the popularity of jeremy corybn and jeremy a populist apologies for another u.k. base question. but -- >> that's a part of the --

populism story -- there's a -- policy based appeal personality appeal. and conservatives need to take this seriously, the economic hardship that working people i use that term to describe the 80% or so of the ones i described, nonbeneficiaries of the global centralization and uncontrolled immigration -- people who not working in the knowledge economy in the open sentencing -- it's -- really important that we understand the deep, deep pain that's been caused over the the years.

and the resentment at the evident inequality the way rich has gone to beneficiaries, and the -- it is the economic insecurity that frightening sense that at any moment it could all come crash aring down. and my whole life and much more true in the u.s. -- literally be living in a car. and the -- was it federal reserve it was a couple of years ago that i don't know -- it was huge proportionist, americans kopts meet the 400 dollar bill, so unexpected expense. that economic insecurity, of course, exasperated by globalization, you know, the way that -- temporary work is taken over there's a whole section in any book you know, the noncompete clause which means that incomes have been kept down because -- nearly 20% of american workers

are are subject to noncompete. this was designed for this -- top employee with unique scientific knowledge or whatever and applied to people who work mcdonald's so there's a real unfan the experience of most have about the economy and u.k. i think the -- all and generally corbin and the labor party really spoke to that. zero contract a huge issue where people just you know treated like not in a really inhuman way by employers. and yet good for them but for the people it is like well i don't know if i have work and it's -- this insecurity and unfan -- that i think plagues so many people. he really spoke to that yes you can say left wing socialism whatever. but that's what people you know they haven't had you know we may like to think about the reagan

reservetive ideas lifting working people, and yes some of that happened but it is not true today. so i think there's a real substantive reason for the appeal of and left wing messages so not just to call whatever it was 30% voters who may vote labor but across the board. and then personality aspect of it i think is just the the same as, i mean, it is a weird comparison to make it donald trump -- in the sense of here's someone who should not like the usual politicians. and stumble and does weird things and rolls eye miss interviews and saying what -- what he think and we're sick of all of these people who sound the same. look the same and say the same -- so i really understand that appeal. the other side conservatives need to get that. otherwise, and don't get me wrong many of the --

left populist policies would be deeply damaging. and actually end up hurting working people. but we've got to understand the appeal of them and this is really what i'm trying to do with the book and develop our own response that is i wouldn't call it conservative because i -- that's a little feels ideological but promarket i think that's a really big characteristic of my ideas promarket. we need to kind of maybe have a promarket pop ewe lism but that real market so i'm now drifting off but you know another really big theme in the book in my book is -- antitrust and stitched up by a couple of giant companies that's not conservative we need a promarket argument for to create a competition and sorry i'll stop there.

thank you, steve, and thank you for the what you did on brexit the vote as well as eight founding members of economist for breakfast fun being on the same side of you on that campaign and i want to push back perhaps on living wage idea. something that i -- argued a lot with -- from former bosses in the u.k. too. ask a simple principle question and outline different approach. why is it a responsibility of companies to compensate employees for their rents and fuel bill os posed to pay them for value of the work that they undertake for the business? and wouldn't it be better as first step of kind of first do no harm principle applied to look at undoing some of the genuine negative effects of invested in terms of -- housing and zoning laws that drive up cost of housing. child care regulations which -- drive up cost of child care. food protectionism that drives

up grocery bills wouldn't it be better as approach to government to actually undue all of these damaging policies that drive up costs? rather than lamenting that companies don't pay people enough to meet those costs? >> that's a great -- a great question. then i agree with -- nearly all of what you said. in fact, another part of book i talk -- one of the ideas is about housing. i think it would be very much in sympathy there green grounds earning i was trying to i have this a name but old -- policy can be a name for everything. green brown zoning which is basically to say -- every piece of land should either be marked for development or nature. and it is development that's the only -- what you want. there's no you get rid of all control and leave it to individual -- communities to decide. there's really interesting model that we did actually implement in the government which was neighborhooden mr.ing.

neighborhood zoning where actually -- turns out if you give neighborhoods control over what gets built their area they don't behalf but it is imposed on them by some external bureaucracy with no control over. i don't to digress into housing but i agree about housing and those other cost points. i would say in relation to cost of housing aspect but those structural transforms are long time to bear fruit and in the meantime you have this -- this like -- i keep coming back to the pragmatic approach in the meantime while awaiting for that to happen if ever does you have people who are really hurting, and you've got these welfare beurre rock sis that we showers hate and other principle i would articulate back to you is -- if you work full-time you should be able to live on what you earn. now you can say i don't agree with with that principle but i do. it is just a graiment i don't

think we're going to settle it. just by -- intellectual inquiry but assertion that rings true or for most people, and -- so it is kind of a well what's -- what's worse? is it flower should make sure they can live on what their earn bearing in mind to reduce cost of living in all ways you mention and have government do it which makes people dependent and that's other bit this that i don't like relationship between employee and employer feels like it can be a -- fair and reasonable relationship. but when you dependent on the government for your not to be able to live -- i think that's worse. that's really why i got to this position i think it is worse my proposal isn't adeal but better than alternative where you have --

millions of people dependent on the state. even though they're working full-time. >> thank you, steve men with heritage foundation and i do agree that a worker who is working full-time should be able to provide for his or her family. but i would also like to -- bring up a couple of concerns about living wage idea. one in how in your mind qowld that be different are from a taxpayer subsidy in the form of like a welfare -- program and second would this be in opt in and envision a opt in for business or are you concerned that this may increase the role of government in a different way? >> well it's different from the government subsidy because the government suspect involved other than requiring it. it's not getting any money from the government there's no

transaction topping up through food stamps or whatever or income tax. it is just the goth is is not part of it. in terms of the -- i'm sorry you're talking about operation of it. >> voluntary. yes, great. i think that -- again, these are ideas for discussion. i actually am in way of maybe thinking about implementation for example, you may want to exclude younger warningers under 25 you know like with minimum wage you may want to use it to -- to incentivize goals we talk about marriage penalized in welfare system and maybe this is an opportunity to rereward marriage in the living wage system if you like that you -- that you look at it that way because your cost are higher if you have a family and so on so you get this if you're -- married. but maybe that's too bureaucrat uk these are just ideas to

discuss. i think that -- the in order to be real it would be like the minimum wage is that's the law you have to pay the minimum wage. obviously, this needs to be decentralized approach because cost of living varies. greatly -- and so this will be applied on a even city by city basis not just state by state. but it would be the law. that's my concept of this. >> yeah questions from british continued here. jamie over there. >> sorry to not diversify accents now. i apologize. [laughter] jam knee johnson qeivetives abroad here in d.c. steve thanks very much. you must get this question over dinner and events all of the time but if you got call from john kelly asked to perform central roles like on downing

street, what would be your three point strategy for the president and in the coming years to execute his to line him up for second term. >> excuse of the strategy is a different conversation but i'm thinking about your ideas if you -- >> that's a great question. i think that the -- not sure i'll get to coheernght but more time on that but i do think that -- that one of the most important things that he seemed to convey was i'm not going to be like the other politicians and shake things off and do things different. and one of the things that that would really, that would demonstrate it was true was you can delivery of promises. and so -- i think that actually that two things -- that perhaps less structurally important.

but really significant in terms saying you see. like you think back to the campaign, the most famous promise simple phrases and promises that resonated drain the swamp and build the wall. with two of them and i think that there's something more important i'll get to and i'm sort of getting them out of the way to focus on what i think is the the most important. i think that -- delivering those two things one is easy and other one is like easier but build wall straightforward in that sense. but whatever we may think of it, it needs to be done and i've always been a supporter of that. practical and sensible thing to do. in term of controlling immigration, so get it done. i cannot understand why it is so difficult to get it done. i truly don't. the argument about congress funding. i don't understand. there's -- federal government that spends so much money on other things i

just don't understand why that can't be done. immediately -- drain the swamp, i think was resonant because everyone knows everyone understands how deep the the corruption is. it's true that i've talked about about this on my show when they actually had a -- a list of drain the swamp pledges, about so on, and about four or five things on there and three of the five i think have technically been done. but i think anyone in washington you talked to anyone in washington has culture changed has not really, i mean, in the book a number of ideas how you really start to attack the corruption. for example banning donors in other words making it -- impossible requiring legislators to recuse themselves from any legislative activity that relates to the interest of any of their donors. now the minute you even say that, you know the response as well -- why would i give the money if i didn't get if it wasn't

relevant? why would i be on that committee if i couldn't raise money? from the the the relevant businesses and that's how it works but it's total corruption. i mean that financial service committee that regulates wall street and members almost entirely funded by wall street total krups. doing something about that -- really getting to the heart of the corruption -- would be powerful but real big one is -- if you think about why he was lengted why he might be reelected but overwhelming thing was -- get economy moving, jobs, manufacturing that whole story of an economic revival. and i think that you're certainly seeing some of that happen. that's great more of that. more deregulation. lower, i was disappointed remember president trump in the campaign, the tax plan is one of the first moments i thought well this guy is serious we should take this seriously, the second thing he -- policy document that he published was a tax plan with 15% corporate tax.

not the 21 but -- but go for that. you know the the qor ship isn't confident city you get from that but seeing now and other element that's missing that we haven't seen and is really important because it connects to the the issue of -- income and wages and the -- experience of working americans but blue collar workers is infrastructure. and the connection with infrastructure and wages is really important because the reason that we've had this -- in parallel we have this productivity blown down or stagnation and economists scratch their heads about why what's going on with productivity and one of the factors is investment and infrastructure because if the work and if you pay them more -- and so the infrastructure promise was not just not in terms of building things right now that create jobs but actually really good infrastructure creates leads to

productivity. which can lead to wage rises. you actually seeing that right now from the private sector. real big increases in business investments since the tax. tax cuts, since corporate tax cuts i think contradicting starting to contribute to the wage increases but lorming affects sure because the business investment leads to catholic product -- but that would be -- something arranged the infrastructure funded in you know not talking about taking on more debt to do it. but i think that's interesting ways you can do it through privateing but getting it done not as a number one -- >> thank you another question, and we have let's see -- take over there first -- >> i was upset they didn't do that first because --

one of the things whole presidency could have done a very different direction because that was interestingly one of the areas where you have political agreement. democrats and republicans now probably disagreement about how you finance it. sure. you know the democrat yeah. or more taxes, you know, fine. but you can come to some kind of agreement on talking to john delaney the first running for president one of the first to declare on the democrat side and he had a smart idea about how to find out infrastructure through corporate tax cuts and so on in offshore money, et cetera. so you could get creative agreement between democrats and republicans on this infrastructure point. and that sent, of course -- that hasn't turned out like that and we have incredibly divisive. politics right now -- the infrastructure i think could be a way of bringing people together and getting that sense of national purpose and unity back. >> thanks steve for your presentation today and the four

pillars the one that i'm particularly interested in is -- the family. so my name is doctor chapman a recent transplant to the dmv area from jacksonville, florida as i came aboard the area, i just noticed there's a -- a vast differences that you mentioned of income disparitying between communities. i live in arlington crystal city community as i drive through areas such as the d.c. area, and i'm not talking about the good part of the d.c.. i really see some of the issues that our country is facing and someone said coined this phrase before -- so goes the family we can say so goes the nation. and so go the nation we can almost say that some of the issues that we see in our country today whether it be from poverty, income, crime is directly correlated to issues that we have with the family. my question then becomes or to

you -- is as i'm looking at you mentioned one point that every child should have a stable home and won the that be a beautiful thing if every child had a stable home. my particular question with is, now, if you look in our community across the nation -- there's a vast amount of kids in the system i'm 100% for reunification of children with their families but i have a fundamental issue with when we -- reunify and we have parents who are not equipped but government mandates that at some point or some time. we have to give these kids back. so those families, whether they are broken or not and i'm not talking to kids with the family but parents. some of your thoughts and ideas on fixing that issue -- >> great. i can talk all day about it. number one issue and i agree with whatever you said, and a lot of time working on it and, in fact, i'm about job just at

the beginning of -- the launching new business in this exact area you're talking about. flearn i talk about about it in a bit in the book and it's something that when you first hear about it -- conservatives might think oh, no i don't like this. this is a state this is not -- not what we should be about. it's a term that's offputting i understand that. but just bear with me is parenting education. so -- i spent a lot of time working on these issues in the government i mentioned -- one trouble families program. trouble family unit which was really about -- very hands on intervention. with the small number of about 150,000 families in the u.k. who were totally going off a the rails. where -- total dysfunction that you just wouldn't believe -- i spent time visiting -- so shocking. remember, by the way, when we

did audit of families on interesting thing most with single parent families and i remember what thing took me back was -- when you get the average number of children in these families was five. just -- so chaotic and you know, just i don't want to go into details and upsetting. so we actually started to do something about it. by the way, all of these families on receiving end of multiple interventions by government. that's the problem. they have totally disconnected and right about 16 different bits of government poking at them and coming in and a social work and health worker, and this and that, and no one takes responsibility. and no one really is focused on actually l helping that family turn lives around so we -- all approach take that all the way. and have one dedicated family worker per family go there every day to get them out of bed and

this is tough. a really dysfunction. so that was a very -- aggressive government program. now you can say that state. but for this particular group that's exactly what they needed is a nanny. so it totally defend that. more broadly, parents right across the scale -- i put myself in that category because i went along to sigh part of the policy research. i spent a lot of time in -- typically parenting classes are required of parents when their children go off the rail. ....

so much in the instruction, it's typical the ones that work are in group sets. this is a coach who gives tips about how the get the baby to sleep, how to get your teenager how to get off their descreens, how to install discipline in the household. all the things that are part of a stable, loving household. so there's practical instruction. but the real power is in the conversation, is in the parents actually talking and listening to other parents, and realizing

that this struggles they have are not just their own. everyone finds this stuff difficult. it's lifts the burden, and they talk to each other. it's interesting, and therapeutic. very powerfulporosis. and there's evidence from social science that parenting styles is a bigger -- the way you literally do the job of being a parent is the single biggest determinant of children's life chansz. more than the economic status of the family. it's the way the parents parent that makes the difference. we are wrong to think that is innate, that it cannot be taught, that it can't be improved. it can, and i've seen it. so another idea in the book is to again not the government delivering this, faith groups, community groups,

non-profit, social enterprises, private sector, i'm literally opportunity start a private sector business to do this. this is not about the government doing it. but our goal as policymakers, this is what i tried to implement in the uk was to make parenting education, turn it around from being what it is today, which is a minority thing which is seen as negative punishment for batted parents, to make it a positive thing for all parents, an aspirational thing. we started a parenting voucher program in the uk, it was a pilot and we moved it to the states before it took off. that is the genuine -- i put it in a book about populism, because it's about helping families, what's an answer that works? parenting education really works. it's something i would like to see spread much more widely than it is at the moment

and turn from a negative to a positive. >> we have time, just one more question, i have a call on ambassador miller who heads our center for today here at heritage. >> thank you very much for your presentation, and i really want to applaud your focus on the family and on education, because i think that in fact it is pathologies in those two years that underpan almost all of the problems we face at a society. i want to push back on the idea about a living wage. or this economic idea because i don't really think that holds up contact with reality in the world. because you yourself talked about how wages increase with predictive, but your proposal in fact would disconnect productivity and wage

rates at the lower end of the scale because you would wind up paying everyone up to a certain level, the same wage rate. the problem we have in our society is going back to family and education, that you have a large number of potential workers who are coming out of the school system, they can't do basic mathematics, they're in some cases practical illiterate. certainly in standard english. and yet you would say any business that hires those people is required to pay them whatever the living wage is, by the estimates i've seen is significantly higher than today's minimum wages or even higher than the proposed $15 minimum wage that's so popular in the united states right now. so you're compressing the wage rates at the bottom of the

scale. you're forcing businesses to hire people that don't have the basic skills to be productive in any way, whateversoever. it sounds very appealing to say that anybody who works full-time should earn a living wage, but i would say working at what? i would love to be a poet and spend 40 hours a week writing poetry, but does somebody owe me a living wage if i choose to do that? or do we tyke away the choice from people to work at whatever endeavor they choose? >> i'm so excited about your question. let's me respond to it. the poet point, let's start with that. no, it wouldn't apply because you wouldn't be employed as an artist, and by the way, i'll tell you what's coming your way if we don't have a really constructive alternative answer. i see you're suspicious of this idea,

but the universal basic income -- nevermind detaching wages from productivity, that deattaches wages from work. at least the right someone connected to work. that is seriously -- this is happening the universal basic income. it's being implemented as we speak in california, and other parts of the country. i totally disagree with it, precisely for the reason it deattaches work from -- my idea is not a universal income, it's a flaw. it's not a -- so the product iivelt point is well taken but it's a flaw. it's not going to be for everyone. and you'll still have the pay diffresidentials based on productivity. i think the point you made about skills and contribution to the work force of the young people moving in you can't -- don't have to describe it. i think that's

right and i think i mentioned earlier, open to saying this is just for over 25's or 30's, or i think there's all sorts of ways of making it lest not have those disincentive effects. but one thing i would say is -- there is a major employer in this country. right now. you're right it's much higher, the living wage, and we talk about $15 minimum wage, the living wage you talk about to colorado an hour, that kind of level or more. there is a really big employee in america who pays as a matter of policy, as a matter of business practice they believe for social reasons. that pays a living wage to its workers, do people know who that is? well maybe, there's one i know. no. and private sector employer, and it may surprise you. definitely not mcdonalds. it's costco.

they're whole business is a cheap and margins matter hugely, and it's retail, and they're a threat from amazon. they pay a living wage as a matter of policy. they have a stable work force, and loyal employees. it's not impossible to make it work. i definitely agree, it's not ideal and i absolutely take seriously all the objections that we've heard, but it's not this idea is not in ice legislates. there are alternatives. there's what's happening right now, which is welfare dependenty, and bureaucracy associated with that, and what could be coming, which is universal basic income, which i also hate, i'm just trying to be practical. >> we've seen a tremendous discussion ranging from brexit,

jeremy corben, and i'd like to thank steve hilton for a wonderful discussion today and i'm sure we will continue to discuss your ideas for months, and years to come. hopefully you will come back to heritage again in the very near future, and i'd also like to thank everyone for joining us today, and all of you on c-span today, and we look forward to hosting you all again at heritage in the very near future. thank you very much. [applause] >> and before i forget, steve will be signing copies of his new book outside so if anyone would like to have their copy signed by steve. here's a look

at some books being published this week. fox news political analyst juan williams offers a critical examination of the trump's administration in what the hell do you have to lose. nbc host explores general equality and equal pay in the workplace in "know your value." lil activities shares a collection of stories growing up in america with more than one cultural identity. sports commentator, clay travis offers his thoughts in social justice movements. and in beautiful country burn again, best-sellerring author recounts the year leading up to the 2016 presidential election. our look at this week's new releases continues with mit journalism program director debra bloom's recount of how food production was devoid of safety regulations at the end of the 19th century in the poison squad. executive

editor of national review gives his take on america's current immigration policy. and in this is the way the world ends. jeff nez bit, executive director of climate nexus offers his thoughts on the dangers to the earth as a result of climate change. look for these tite ldz in book stores and watch for many authorities in the near future on book tv on c-span 2. >> i think for many a lot of what has been revealed is not necessarily news to them. i think it's questions they've been asking themselveses and reflecting online for a long time. what i think this is a different kind of awakening for people outside of it to see how serious, how it took this particular shape. basically i think what this is revealing is how structural racism works. this is what people mean when

they say it's a system. it perpetuates no matter what the intentions are of any individual actor. it was designed a certain way. it was designed so we created infrastructure and equality because you say people of color you can only live here, and here. and white people you can live here. and you're setting it up so those homes are worth less. they're going to especially as it accumulates over time likely be served by weaker public services and you're going to get on your downward spiral. it has nationally a great triumph that a lot of the way that was enacted is no longer illegal. you cannot have the policies that you used to have before. that's great but we can look around us and we can see that we're still living in a separate

unweekual society. segregation is here, and its worse. when people have measured it, how did that happen? well, like it's because we never approached integration, with as much vigor as segregation was created. we never got into untangling that as excitedly as people created it. as time passes on, neglect becomes as aggressive of a force as anything else. we are getting into this -- getting into we're just encountering the life and death stakes of this again and again. what was going on in flint was an emergency even before we got to the water crisis. why did we need something that exploded in the national news to really start feeling uncomfortable with it? there's a lot of questions why didn't the state do something sooner, the epa, the government,

why didn't they hear what these residents were saying sooner, and i think the same question goes for a lot of us, it goes for journalists like myself, environmental groups, like universities, there's a lot of us that have learned to tune out what makes us uncomfortable. until we really reckon with this stuff we learn this in the 60s and we are learning it now. until we reckon wheat creates the irvin crisis, we're not going to goat through the other side. that's why we are wrestling with -- you can watch this and other programs online at book tv.org. >> good evening everyone. i'm heidi