Jack Straw - British Foreign Secretary (2001 - 2006) HARDtalk

research. Now it's time for HARDTalk. Welcome.

British politics is in an interesting state with a general

election less than a year away and the recent noise was made by the UK

Independence Party. Anti` European Union and anti` immigration.

Traditionally, UKIP has been seen as a problem for David Cameron's

Conservative Party but it is clear that the Labour opposition is

targeted as well. My guest today is Jack Straw, a politician from the

days of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Does today's Labour leadership know

how to navigate the changing political lands cape `` landscape?

Jack Straw, welcome to HARDtalk. It is clear from the recent election

results that Labour is not performing as it needs to to win a

majority in the coming general election. Why is that? First of all,

I don't accept that. We won more than 300 seats which was more than

many were predicting. What we saw from these election results is that

they were patchy. They were extremely good in London with

flagship local victories in Hammersmith and Fulham, which

Conservatives had said was impregnable. We took seats in other

urban areas but There were areas where we didn't do as well. In my

native County of Essex, we didn't pick them up and you are quite right

to say that there is a serious threat from UKIP which has to be

addressed within the party. We must do better was the simple message

from the leader. Yes, we have to do better. Where is it going wrong? If

you have to do better, you have to assume that the leadership is doing

things that aren't working. What are they? Not that things are doing

wrong but you have to do more of some things. First of all, when a

party has lost an election as we did in 2010, it is often difficult to

pick up the pieces and traditionally in British politics, it takes a long

time. I think it is usually to the credit of Ed Miliband that he has

managed to preserve party unity and gradually build the party back up.

But it doesn't win an election. He hasn't focused on issues like

migration but has said that we got some aspects of our policy wrong in

the past. I can explain why we made those decisions but they were not

his. But there is no question that we are moving into a new era, post`

financial crisis where people are much more worried about immigration

than they were. One thing you have to recognise, and I think he does,

is that people are not racist when they express concerns about

migration. Those two used to be mixed up. I don't think UKIP is a

racist party. There used to be some racists there, but I don't think the

leadership is. We do have to get into the detail of the migration

issue and as you were saying, you were crucial in that field for

years. I would challenge your contention that Labour has taken

seriously the UKIP challenge. If you look at the way they have campaigned

in recent months, it has barely mentioned UKIP or frankly, the

European Union or migration and I wonder when they are going to get

real about the threat. Ed Miliband has talked incessantly about the

issue of immigration. Did you look at your own advertising campaign?

Hang on. They have talked about it. There was a decision to deal with

UKIP by not talking about it. Was that right or wrong? In retrospect,

it might have been better if we had talked about it. It is a

misunderstanding of what is happening in the British Parliament

right now. No, I think both parties have to make a judgement when they

are facing attack from a third or fourth party that has not been in

power as to how to handle it. We used to have this party with the Lib

Dems. Did you take on what they were doing or make a conscious decision

to ignore them? Anyway, what has happened in the past has happened

and I'm not in any doubt myself that, given the level of support

that was clocked up by UKIP... It is significant to note that some of

UKIP's biggest gains were in heartland Labour areas coming in the

North of England. Towns that one would never have associated with a

party like UKIP. Some people in your own party have said that this is a

clear signal that many white working`class communities feel a

sense of dispossession and abandonment that Labour,

traditionally their party, is simply not addressing. I think that is

overemphasizing it. In areas where there are very few migrants,

significant part of South Yorkshire and the Southeast, you did get

alienated and often male working`class voters that we have to

deal with. However, I was emphasizing what we are doing for

those people and the policies the party is pursuing, for instance,

improvements to the minimum wage and security at work. Improvements in

terms of training. You haven't used the word migration in that answer at

all. It doesn't address any new polities on immigration? Of course

it involves policies. We are not getting involved with UKIP tomorrow

because we're not going stop the European Union from caring about

migration. You are saying that as members of the European Union, you

can bluster all you like about immigration but you can't do

anything about it? I would like to do something about it but in terms

of any future rules, there may be much more restrictive views at a

later time but what we can do in the meantime is assure accessibility to

benefits is much more restricted. There is scope to do this. The

German government has cut down benefits on migrant workers and that

went before the European Court of Justice and the German government

won. I am in favour of people getting benefits if they live and

work in a country, regardless of nationality, but they have to have a

stake in the country. It is not acceptable for people to come here

and get benefits for nothing. Be specific. This is a very active

debate in British politics. You are saying that you support a bar on

benefits for EU immigrants for a matter of six months or longer? Some

are now arguing for two years. It depends on the benefits but I

certainly wouldn't rule out going beyond six months. You're not a

minister so you can be very forward. Would you support two years? I am

not a minister but I do have to make judgements. I'm not sure whether to

say whether it could be one or two years. We have to create an

environment where we encourage people whose skills we really need

and cannot be filled by people in this country to come in but we want

to discourage people from coming in at the bottom. There is a big issue

here as well about ensuring that the employers of people who are on low

wages, who quite often have been encouraging people from Eastern

Europe to come in rather than taking on Brits as it is easier to exploit

them, how we prevent that exploitation as well. Ed Miliband

has talked about that but what he hasn't talked about and you haven't

either is perhaps the most fundamental challenge of all, one

which UKIP poses. That is to say that we need to reassess our

commitment to the European Union's fundamental principle of freedom of

movement of people within the European Union. Nigel Farage says it

is no longer acceptable to say that workers from poor nations can come,

as a matter of right, to the UK to seek work. The practice of that does

need to be reassessed and I am offering a way in which we can do

that. It does not require a treaty change. Do I regard the full

freedoms as not up for debate, no I don't. I think the European Union

makes a profound mistake if it regards these as inviolable. For

example, on a single`market, there are all kinds of exceptions to a

single market. For example, in France, the difficulty of getting

any kind of free market and free movement in respect to services...

Let's not rove too widely. Seven MPs recently signed an article in a

newspaper asking Ed Miliband to take on this issue and to constrain the

free movement of labour from European countries of much lower

incomes because that is the only way to protect welfare housing, and

public services in this country. Are you with them? I have just said

that. They are going one further than you. They have said that Ed

Miliband needs to no longer accept freedom of movement. I think he's

doing that. He is not. There is an issue of how you affect this trend

and it takes a long time because you have to get 27 other countries to

agree. I think you need to raise the debate and it has been raised

elsewhere as well. On the mainland of Europe, significant politicians

including Nicolas Sarkozy of France have said it needs to be looked at

again so yes, these items need to be put on the agenda. I personally

think that meanwhile, we should take steps like further restricting

access to benefits. Final thoughts on this and it comes back to your

role as a very senior minister in the Brown and Blair administrations,

you now say that the Labour government made a spectacular

mistake in putting no limits on the numbers of migrants who could come

into the UK after the expansion of the European Union in 2004. I just

wonder why it was a spectacular mistake because in economic terms it

wasn't. Those workers in the period between 2004 and 20 contributed a

lot to the UK economy and GDP grew partly because of a result of them

coming in and contributing to the economy. Was it a spectacular

mistake? You now say that social cohesion is fundamentally threatened

by this. In economic terms, you are right and I have made that point.

But looking back on it, we only made that decision on the back of

research that said that the net migration from Eastern Europe would

be around 13 to 15,000 a year. It was quite good research but it was

fundamentally wrong. Had we been presented with evidence that

migration would not be at that level but would be ten times that, we

would not have come to that decision. That is a bit of a

technical answer. This comes to UKIP's presentation of the problem.

In your view today, has the cohesion of the United Kingdom been

fundamentally threatened? Yes, they have contributed to the economy and

have raised GDP but the downside is that the pace of change in many

communities has been too fast and it has affected social cohesion and

that is why... So UKIP are right to that extent? They are not the only

people who have said it. I said it before UKIP rose. You have to make

the judgement you can. If we had known, we would not have made that

decision. We're at the very top of the British political agenda right

now everything pertains to Britain in Europe. How can the Labour Party

continue with this policy of saying that there will be no referendum

with the British public to give them a basic in or out choice as to

whether they want to stay in Europe? We and the Lib Dems have said that

if there are any treaty changes there will be a referendum. But

we're talking about treaty clauses, like the freedom of movement. There

is no sign they will be fundamentally reviewed. Surely the

time has come for British people to be given a choice. My view is there

are plenty of changes which can be made inside the EU, including the

practice of free movement, crucially, on the level of

regulation by Brussels. They do not require treaty changes, and the

Labour Party's view is that of practical Europeans. No`one more

than me wants to reassert the power of national governments and national

parliaments within the EU. But do I believe that this could be achieved

by further treaty changes? Probably not in the next parliament, it takes

such a long time. But there are other things you can do more

rapidly. You are a very experienced politician with a long track record.

Do you not see that the time has come in Britain where the only way

to really sort out our relationship with the EU is to give the people a

fundamental choice? The best way for you to achieve what you want, which

is a strong Britain in a strong European Union, is to win the

argument and win that referendum. I understand the case you are making.

I also strongly support the position that Ed Miliband and Douglas

Alexander have taken, which is that would be frankly a huge diversion

for the United Kingdom government, and moreover, would not deal with

the problems. I believe that despite its failings, it is still in

Britain's interest now to stay in the EU rather than leave. I also

believe, and if you read the continental press, you can see this,

that there is now a mood of change across Europe, to shift the balance

of power between Brussels and independent nation states. That is

happening in Germany, let's make this clear, one of the most

Europhile states in the EU. They also want to see this shift. One of

the key issues is whether we end up with a federalist like Jean`Claude

Juncker as president of the European Commission. I don't believe he would

be a satisfactory candidate. Luxembourg is frankly... You are

with David Cameron on that. I am, and I believe we have to find a

candidate who gets it. Luxembourg is basically...

Luxembourg is frankly... You are with David Cameron on that. I You

are not, are you, trying to suggest to me that there is one man in the

UK who could fit the bill, Tony Blair. It has been mooted by some,

not one million miles from Labour colleagues of yours. Tony's a

friend, but his candidacy would be inappropriate, and he knows that. Do

you think you think he would want it? I don't think he does. Let's

think about Blair, and what he offered as a leader of the Labour

Party. Let's reflect on today's leader Ed Miliband. You say that you

didn't vote for him. We all know that. Again, as an experienced

politician, what does Ed Miliband do to get out of the very deep

political hole he is in. His approval rating with the British

public is at a stunning `41. David Cameron, who actually takes

decisions and may get some opprobrium for that, is at `9. A

recent poll said many regard him as somewhat weird. How do you change

that? Look, of course I understand that perception. It is not reality.

Ed Miliband is very bright, intelligent, witty individual, who

really listens to people. So he is fundamentally failing to get that

across. Well, it's a lens of... I'll tell you this, Stephen. I'm old

enough to remember the election where Callaghan's approval ratings

were far above Margaret Thatcher's. She had not had her makeover, she

had not had her voice training. She trailed in the polls, and often did

quite disastrously in the House of Commons. There was a real focus on

Commons debate. And yet she won the general election in 1979. She had a

lot of coaching. She became a better leader over time. She had the

coaching after she became Prime Minister, not before. She was

dreadful in the 1979 elections. Nonetheless, her message came

through. So it is about ensuring that our message comes through. And

if I want to give... A colleague of yours in the party says that the

leadership right now is trying to be too clever. It's not clear enough in

its message. He and others have pointed to words that Ed Miliband

has used in the past to explain his policies, like predistribution,

which nobody seems understand. You have a platform here, how would you

very briefly change Ed Miliband's message and style to help it cut

through? Well, more of what he is doing, but also... What he is doing

is not working. One of the crucial things we have to do is to get on

top of the economic argument. How would I get on top of it? I would

get this by saying that all the parties were broadly supporting the

same economic policies up to 2008. I completely reject this idea that the

recession that this country has suffered in recent years was a

creation of Labour incompetence, which is what the Tories are trying

to do. It wasn't. No cute mea culpas from you. Labour reforms were

supported by the Conservatives in 2008. David Cameron and George

Osborne weren't going around saying don't spend money in my

constituency. Quite the reverse. What we want to say is there was an

economic crisis, and the circumstances have changed. That is

why we accept the need for much greater restraint now. But we will

not accept that this was a catastrophe, in the Tories' terms,

brought by Labour. It wasn't. We have to advance that argument. We

also have to explain why fairness will be a battleground in the

general election. Before we end, I want to change tack. We have you

sitting here, you were for many years the British Foreign Secretary.

In some ways in recent months of your political life one of the

biggest issues that you have insisted upon talking about is Iran,

a country you have had a lot of dealings with over the years. It

seems to me that you have a very clear message. You say that we have

to take the changes in Iran seriously, we have to make sure that

this deal on the nuclear issue is turned into a long`lasting deal. And

it seems that you put the onus on the Americans, to use a crude

phrase, not to screw up. Am I right? I do. And the Americans screwed up

grievously between 2002 and 2006. You told them in those terms? I did.

Went down well. John Bolton, the Went down well. John Bolton, the

undersecretary of the State Department, briefed that I was

Tehran Jack. But it was vulgar abuse of the regime, when they were

wanting to help, and were helping in Afghanistan. It undermined

previous regime and Ahmadinejad. We are almost out of

say that there is a danger that the Israelis will wield too much

influence in the Netanyahu, and works for the

neocons. It's not a fiction. The deal does allow Iran to continue

enriching uranium. It allows them to continue to work on ballistic

missiles. On those two key points Israel is right. Israel has nuclear

weapons. They refuse to accept any international supervision. So you

say the Israelis have no right to be involved in this debate. They have

Iran's weapons if they ever exist, Iran's weapons if they ever exist,

will be targeting Jerusalem. I don't believe for a start that Iran wants

to create a working nuclear weapon system. OK? The second thing is that

we need to recognise that Rouhani is the best opportunity we have of

helping to create a much greater stability in the Middle East. And we

need to cut him some slack. naive about the Iranians. Not at

all. And the ultimate authority isn't

issuing orders. It is not a natural democracy either, but there is

political space can determine whether Rouhani is empowered or

completely undermined, and then the hardliners would take over. So my

message to the Americans and to the Israelis is be very careful what you

wish for. Jack Straw, we have to end there.

Thank you for Hello. Many of us had a dry and

pretty warm start to the week. Some of us had a wet one. In one or two

places, torrential thunderstorms brought some flooding. We will