16/06/2014 Newsnight

The Islamic fascist forces sweeping through the north of Iraq have to be

stopped, the American Secretary of State said today, since they

threaten the very existence of the country, but how? We have views from

America and Iran and our diplomatic editor is here. With images emerging

of Iraqi prisoners apparently being killed by the insurgents, Iraq falls

deeper into Civil War. Lord Saatchi joins us to argue it is time to

abolish corporation tax. I came out believing it was against God's will

to provide health care or benefits, I was misogynistic because I was

taught women should obey their husbands.

taught women should obey their what goes on behind our private

Christian schools. what goes on behind our private

British women are engaged from what goes on behind our private

land and sea, their mission, to remove Saddam Hussein from power and

disarm Iraq from its weapons of mass destruction. Will our relationship

with Tony Blair ever recover from that moment, or is there some other

reason he makes so many people so angry.

Fighting has continued today between the Iraqi Government and its enemies

in the Sunni militant group ISIS. But while the battlefield seems to

be stablising, the political mercury is risinger, the American Secretary

of State today accused ISIS of massacring huge numbers of captured

Iraqi troops. Disturbing images suggesting this may be happening

have been posted by the Sunni group on its own social media pages. We

have been examining the claims that the Jihadists have been carrying out

executions on a massive scale. When Tikrit fell ISIS captured thousands

of soldiers. There are suggestions they were murdered en masse soon

after the images were taken. It is part of an information strategy,

complete with Twitter and Facebook accounts being run by the Jihadist

group. It is very similar to the kind of videos that we saw from

ISIS's predecessor organisations in the mid-2000s. The style of pictures

and the kinds of executions of so called traitors, Government people.

We have all seen this before. What makes it different are the numbers

of people that are being executed. Still photographs show the men being

herded into trucks and taken to waste ground, there it appears they

were executed by the dozen. It apparently marks an escalation in

the brutality of this conflict. Some have pointed out these are stills

from a video that has not yet appeared. So is this material

genuine? It is very difficult to say with any high degree of certainty,

but certainly from what we know about where the images came from and

what they appear to show and what we know about ISIS already, it is a

pretty fair assumption to make that this is genuine and this happened.

But other footage, believed to show the abuse of Iraqi prisoners also

taken near Tikrit has emerged. Prisoners, bewildered and dehydrated

are taunted and challenged to repeat an ISIS slogan. The man doing this

has a north African accent. You can never be sure for definite, but you

can look at things like the accent of the people in the videos, the

clothes that they are wearing and the environment they are in. These

people appear to be an Iraqi army uniform, the accent spoken by the

people are captured are Iraqi accents for sure, we think the

militants and captors are north African, possibly Libyan or

Tunisian, that is in keeping with ISIS's recruitment, they recruit

from a wide variety of countries. Later the captured Iraqis were

executed, so really any debate is about the scale rather than the fact

that ISIS kills its captives. But why publicise it? I think the

principal audience for this right now are people inside of Iraq. They

want to tell people that there is absolutely no point in trying to

confront ISIS. They want to scare people, they want to terrorise

people, they want to achieving exactly the same effect that we saw

in the taking of Mosul. When seven or eight hundred ISIS people scared

30,000 soldiers so much that they were completely abandoning their

positions and essentially running away. The Iraqi Government has been

blocking certain social media accounts, and tonight there are

reports that they are trying to cut off internet access all together in

the five provinces worst hit by the violence. Volunteers, mostly Shia

have meanwhile been flocking to support the Government. So is the

ISIS strategy designed to terrorise these men, or goad them into

performing their own atrocities in revenge? Social media is the new

battleground in wars around the world, and ISIS is not the only one.

In this conflict the Iraqi Government, or forces, members of

Iraqi forces have also been posting pictures of their atrocities

on-line. Especially Facebook, and we have seen even images of executions

where they are boasting about their crimes. So ISIS is far from the only

player in the game of propaganda on social media. In its professionally

produced videos ISIS boasts that its enemies can expect no mercies. But

its enemies too are multiplying and many no doubt will feel that there

are now scores to be settled. The threat posed by ISIS has caused

such alarm that in keeping with the proverb that the energy of my enemy

is my friend, there are suggestions that the USA might start talking to

Iran in pursuit of a solution to the crisis. Does this mean the United

States is about to join in this fight? Speculation has increased

because of what John Kerry said today. Interestingly rather like the

Syrian crisis, John Kerry, America's chief diplomat has sounded the most

bellicose of the senior official, he said AFSHGs is one -- air strikes

may be one of the options the US is looking at. We know HMS Bush is

getting ready for that type of contingency. As far as I have heard

that this would be regarded as a last resort, the US would prefer to

step up support with more drone flights. Apparently US drones have

been operating in Iraq for the past few months already. They want to

step up that kind of help and intelligence. They want to boost the

performance of the Iraqi army if they possibly can and would only

resort to military action if they felt they absolutely had to. How

does it fit with the biggest picture of American relations with Iran? Of

course people inevitably asked today if we are about to start military

action potentially are we co-operating with Iran, are we tying

this up with them? Fascinatingly the Pentagon said they would not be

co-ordinating with Iran. That is a very specific military term, it

really just says we will not have guys in the same punkers. We are not

going to be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's air force

hitting the targets they want us to. It would mean that the US and the

Iraqi Armed Forces would be operating and co-ordinating and the

Iranians, potentially, and the Iraqi Armed Forces would be doing the same

thing. So it would mean potentionally they were on the same

side. Now, of course talks have been going on in Vienna on the Iranian

nuclear issue which is a whole other major question coming to a political

juncture, the drive to get a final deal resolving that long-running

international problem. The Americans have been there, William Burns who

ran the back channel with Iran who made the progress on the nuclear

dossier has been there. They have been talking for sure, we think they

have been talking about Iraq too. Here now is the US Ambassador to the

UK, you are not going to say this has nothing to do with the 2003

invasion, are you? I would just build on what Mark said, you heard

from Secretary Kerry and President Obama, he made it clear that he is

weighing all the options about how we can help stop the barbarism that

your opening segment showed. But the President also made the point that

in addition to any immediate things we might do to help that ultimately

the solution is not a military one, the solution is a political one and

called on the people of Iraq to build a unity Government so that

Shia and Kurds and Sunni could all work together to isolate and rid

their country of the terrorist scourge. This was seen to come? The

urgency is to deal with the situation on the ground. The

unarguable fact that Al-Qaeda and equivalent and cohorts were not in

Iraq before the invasion of 2003, were they? Indeed and look President

Obama was very outspoken at the time before he was in federal office and

he ran a presidential campaign very publicly many times saying that he

thought that was a mistake for reasons I won't go through right

now. But once he got into office he said he wanted to responsibly wind

down this effort in Iraq, but we will not disengage, America has to

stay engaged, if we don't we are not safe. That is why we have stayed

engaged and tried to train the troops and remain so. The training

wasn't so effective, they seemed to all run away? Look what the

President said a few days ago is we were very troubled. Think about the

sacrifice that the American troops have made and the investment the

American people have made, say what you will about 2003 massive

investment giving the Iraqi people a chance to seize their own future,

and invested in training it. You saw it was very troubling in Mosul with

thousands of people turning and running from the Armed Forces, that

is not what we trained them to do. We can do a lot as America, the

international community, but we can't do it for them. That political

will and determination to fight, that comes from a trust in the

political system that has to be unified and make people feel part of

a shared solution. That is what has gone wrong, there is no faith in the

politic calm system? Not enough, clearly. Paul Bremmer says you can't

sort this out without troops on the ground, do you agree with that? As a

private citizen he's entitled to his opinions. He knows whereof he

speaks? President Obama said he would keep lots of options on the

table, putting troops on the ground is not one of the options the things

he's considering. We have hard won humility from experiences around the

world about our abilities to affect change inside countries. That is why

we're... What does that mean? We had 167,000 ground troops there. And

couldn't contain certain amounts of violence. So we have learned those

lessons and the lesson is not to retreat as a country, America stays

engaged and stays leading but we have to do it with the Iraqi people

taking own anothership and the Iraqi -- ownership and the Iraqi people

building a system that their forces are not only well equipped and well

trained but they have the will to fight for the Iraqis. These ISIS

people, they are not part of the Iraqi political system, they don't

care what is good for Iraq. How are you going to stay engaged faced with

a catastrophe like this? We are staying engaged right now, we have

been engaged since winding down the troops. We have stayed engaged

through training. We have the biggest embassy in the world in

Baghdad. We are diplomatically engaged, we are engaged with

development, training and intelligence. It doesn't work? It

does work, it isn't perfect and the President and the secretary of state

would be the first to say, but just because of that doesn't mean we

don't stay engaged. It makes it more important. If we pull back and other

parts of the international community pull back look what will fill the

void. What are you able to offer the Iranians as an inducement to

co-operate with you in attempting to address this problem? I wouldn't put

it that way, I don't think we are talking about inducements, certainly

we are engaged with everyone in the neighbourhood so to speak, to say we

all have a stake in it. The people of Iraq are under threat, the

neighbouring countries are under threat, the Secretary of State said

today we're not going to rule out any options for constructive

solutions here. So you are perfectly happy to be an ally of Iran in this

matter are you? I would not put it that way at all. We are open to

constructive ideas and it is not a position for me here to rule out any

of those options. Thank you very much ambassador. We have the Middle

East programme director at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington

and she joins me from there. What is the Iranian interest in all of this

please? I think the main interests of Iran is to have a neighbouring

country that is stable and that is not in a chaotic situation as Iraq

that is has been and continues to be. That is the main interest of

Iran. If the United States approached Iran with a view to some

sort of operation and highly unlikely to be a military

co-operation, what would be the likely response in Tehran, do you

think? Well, there is diversity of views coming out from Tehran. There

are certain members of Government who say they would talk about Iraq

with the United States even in Vienna if the United States

approaches them. The head of the National Security Council in Iran

said that we are not going to talk with the United States, except under

certain conditions. There are others who have even hinted that we should

only talk to the United States if they stop supporting ISIS, which is

amazing, to make that kind of statement. What would sensible

members of the regime in Tehran be seeking from any talks? Well, I

think they would like to see what the United States is planning to do,

that is probably their first question and, secondly, the role of

Iran could be to bring maybe some pressure on Al-Maliki to even at

this stage of the game to try to form a more inclusive Government and

also you know try to influence the Shi'ite militias who have been quite

close to the Revolutionary Guards in, during their stay in Iraq. Thank

you very much indeed. Now, as the great Mark Twain the

difference between a tax collector and taxidermist, is the taxidermist

leaves you with your skin! Political right-wingers have argued for

generations the way to improve the economy is free people from

taxation. Now the Conservative peer Lord Saatchi has produced a plan to

abolish corporation tax, a tax on small firms' profits. Paradoxically

he believes that cutting the tax could slash the deficit faster than

it would levy it. In the first term Margaret Thatcher landed on a policy

that would change the political landscape. Right to buy affected six

minion people. Michael Heseltine remarked that no single piece of

legislation transferred wealth from the state to the people. Now another

senior Tory, with a pedigree to match, thinks he has landed on the

same kind of game-changer. Not popcorn, but a policy some might see

Asimly full of hot air. A move to abolish corporation tax for small

businesses, which this company, going for just three years and

facing their first corporation tax bill believe would make all the

difference. Instead of spending money on corporation tax we could

spend it on employing more pastry chef who make our popcorn, we could

invest more in machinery to help us produce more popcorn across more

amazing flavours as well. Free marketeers will cite the curve, the

relationship between the rate of taxation and resulting levels of

revenue that the Government brings in. They will argue that the lower

the rate of taxation for businesses the greater the overall benefit to

the economy will be. They will be persuasive, but will they be right?

Let's test the claim, Lord Saatchi says the impact of the policy would

be to reduce the deficit faster than predicted by the OBR. In this

instance I would be surprised if in the short run you got more revenue

from something like this, in the long run if it changed the structure

of the economy that might happen. What about the claim it would expand

employment faster than predicted? It might increase employment, wages,

they might just increase the profits or the take-home pay of the

entrepeneurs. Or it would increase competition and cartel capitalism,

the domination of the multinational? It might help change the structure

of the economy, but over the foreseeable future you are not going

to break up capitalism as a result of something like this. It is a

policy that doesn't come cheap, with a static cost of ?10 billion,

roughly what the abolition of stamp duty on homes would cost. Businesses

say corporation tax isn't the biggest worry. Most businesses are

struggling with business rates, in the rented accommodation and rented

kitchens we are here, the biggest challenge is moving from a place

with business rates to our own dedicated facility. The greatest

worry says the IFS and the TUC and others is it would increase the

likelihood of tax avoidance, once you have tasted the no increase in

tax on the company and profits made, the opportunity for getting around

the tax system all together would would be irresistable. Is this what

the Treasury wants to sign up to? Lord Saatchi is here with us now,

how would you pay for this to start with? I will answer the question,

but before I do, as you have given me the honour of being one of your

last interviews on Newsnight. This is going to be embarrassing. What is

this gift? On behalf of all your victims, it is... "The Road To

Serfdom". The first edition in the very important book in the history

of politics. Wasn't this Margaret Thatcher's great text? It is written

by Von Hayer and her mentor in many ways. I'm looking forward to reading

it. Your victims wish you well. On to the question, yes, how would you

pay for this? Can I put it, can I ask that directly, I will put this

into the context, if I may, on Wednesday 900 people are coming to

the Centre for PolicStudies '40th an versery, the Thatcher conference on

liberty. And 31 think tanks from around the world. They are coming

and there is an amazing galaxy to address the question of freedom and

liberty. Our aim in the Centre for Policy Studies, as in the aim of

founding the centre is to enhance freedom. We will be publishing on

Wednesday some research, some polling, which people will find, I

think, very distressing. It asks who do you trust? Big companies or big

Government? It finds that 70% of people distrust big Government and

that 70% distrust big companies. Therefore our aim is to increase

people's freedom and our method of doing that is to say that people who

are starting up new companies, or who are in small companies, that is

companies with less than 50 people, will pay no corporation tax, and by

the way, no capital gains tax when the companies are sold. These

companies pay no corporation tax. Can I ask you the question again

then, how do you pay for that? The cost of doing that is ?11 billion.

So it is around that in the national accounts, it is a significant sum.

So your question will be where will this money come from. That is what

it is? Good. The answer is that following the advice of deep throat

in Watergate, you remember that he said "follow the money", and what

the economist who have produced this policy have done is to follow the

money. That ?11 billion which is in that second lost to the Treasury

were does it go? That's what they have done. It doesn't stay under

people's pillows, that is in nobody's interest. Thanks to the

Treasury, the Treasury has recently published its own report on what

happens when corporation tax is reduced. They find that the money

goes in three directions, it is paid in dividends, which then involves

more income tax, it goes in hiring more people, which means less

welfare payments for the Treasury and more income tax for the Treasury

and it goes in the third direction in further investment which speeds

growth. Therefore we are going to say on Wednesday that this policy

recovers the ?11 billion. And there is the very nice man from the IFS as

he said can reduce the deficit faster than the OBR currently

predicts. It is interesting you should choose this tax as opposed to

the tax that businesses care about more, like business rates and VAT

for example? Why not tackle those? Well you could, one could try to

abolish all tax, if you like. But what we are interested in doing is

abolishing two taxes. Corporation tax only on small companies, with

less than 50 employios, and capital gains -- employees, and capital

gains tax that those who sell shares in small companies don't pay tax. If

those two abolitions don't have a similar effect to the effect of

buying your own council house in terms of cultural affects and social

impact. Wouldn't one effect be, as was suggested earlier, to encourage

people to avoid tax because they would choose, well I don't pay any

corporation tax, I'm a small business, why not just pay myself

through my company as opposed to taking it as income and paying

income tax? The thing is this policy doesn't involve any new legislation

or new definitions of small companies. There are things called

small companies now. There is a small company tax regime. There are

different laws and different rules which apply to small companies as

they exist now this is most certainly going to encourage people

to be small companies. And you honestly believe this could be

afforded at a time of financial stringcy. The cost is ??11 billion.

A lot of money? According to figures by the IFS has looked at, that money

is recovered in four years and the result in terms of the deficit...

The Treasury don't think it would be recovered in four years, they think

it will take 20 years to recover 60% of it? We don't know what the

Treasury is saying about it, they are considering it. The case that

has been put to the Treasury and which the IFS was commenting on is

that we are looking here for more freedom. This is in effect a social

policy. Not an economic policy. It is a social policy, being brought

into effect by economic means. The affect of the social policy we are

looking at is Britain to have a more get-up-and-go dynamic entrepeneurial

culture. If the abolition of the taxes for small companies doesn't

get people out of bed in the morning, nothing will. Thank you

very much and thank you for the book.

Government ministers worrying about what children are taught in schools

have made much in the last couple of weeks of claims that Islamic

fundamentalists were trying to imbue young people with a warped view of

the world. It has led to much concern about British values. But do

these concerns extend also to schools of other faiths which teach

extreme interpretations. Parents are allowed to choose an education for

their children, which fits their religious convictions. But where

does belief end and bigotry begin. We report on what's happening in a

number of Christian schools. When the Trojan horse allegations hit the

headlines, Education Secretary, Michael Gove, declared that no pupil

should be exposed to extremist views on radicalisation while at school.

The Government has made it clear there is no place for religious

extremism in Britain's state schools. But some private schools,

which don't receive Government funding are openly teaching what

could be described as a hardline Christian agenda. Private or

independent schools do not have to teach the National Curriculum. And

at least 30 private schools in the UK, and some home schooling parents,

teach the accelerated Christian education, or ACE curriculum. It is

marketed as a Bible-based curriculum, designed to protect

children from secular lies. In science lessons pupils are taught

that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up, that the earth is just a

few thousand years old this instead of the 4. 5 billion years old that

scientists believe, and the curriculum explicitly states that

even on scientific matters the Bible is the final authority. We spoke to

one ex-pupil who has campaigned against the curriculum. I think that

essentially allowing the ACE curriculum means we are letting

children be lied to. They are telling them things as though they

are facts that are not fact. My parents sent me to an ACE school

when I was 11, they wanted a Christian education. I think the

curriculum was more extreme than they realised. I came out of my ACE

school believing it was against God's will to provide healthcare or

benefits to citizens, I was misogynistic because I was taught

that women should submit and obey their husband, I believed science

could show us that homosexuality was immoral and wrong. The ACE biology

textbook mixes questions on cell division and photo synthies with

statements like a"abortion is murder", "homosexuality is sin" and

"sides is a direct consequence of violating God's laws". Michael Rice

is a professor of science education and Anglican priest. He believes the

ACE curriculum is letting pupils down. The ACE curriculum they are

pretty fundamentalist so they are right at one end of the spectrum.

One of the disappointments to me is the way that some ACE schools are

clearly giving the impression that you can't have a strong religious

faith and accept the mainstream scientific understanding of the

world. What you want is all students, whatever sort of school

they are going to, to realise that the theory of evolution is very,

very widely accepted in the scientific community, but it doesn't

help students from fundamentalist Christian families to leave school

thinking that the theory of evolution is just rubbish. But

currently parents have the right to educate their children in line with

their religious beliefs. The 62 pupils at this Christian school near

Swindon learn the ACE curriculum. We spoke to two senior pupils. The

curriculum is based on an American fundamentalist viewpoint. That's

shipped over to here and the teachers then kind of deliver that

to us in a way that associates critical thinking and other ways of

learning. I guess the influence of God really plays a big part in

science and how we view that and how we a taught that. There are a lot of

people in the school that may not 100% believe in creation or

evolution, but I believe that the world was created and that's just my

opinion, but we all have our own opinion in the school and no-one is

forced to believe certain things. I asked the headteacher why

creationism is taught to pupils in science lessons? We teach them that

there are these two sides to the argument. The ACE programme teaches

that, with a heavy emphasis on the creationism being the Christian

viewpoint. And no, I don't believe that it harms their education at

all, after all, if we are talking about choice in education, then the

choice to believe in any kind of area that one chooses must be open,

presumably. It would be perfectly OK for you to teach your pupils that

the earth was flat? Unless, not if I didn't believe that to be the case,

obviously. So if that was in the Bible, you would teach that, that it

was perfectly OK to hold that as a scientific viewpoint? Not

necessarily. What the world doesn't like about bibically-based views is

there are absolutes in there, and that is not a very well received

kind of concept. Do you subscribe to those absolutes? Yeah, I do. Like

many other ACE schools, Ofsted rated this school as good, and said that

the curriculum was good. But what happens when pupils leave? ACE

pupils don't sit GCSEs and A-levels but instead earn the international

certificate of Christian education. Or ICC E. But unlike mainstream

qualifications, the ICCE is not aid and I credited by the exams

regulator, for that reason some universities won't accept it. In

essence, ACE could be regarded as a fundamentalist curriculum,

delivering a little known qualification, all with Ofsted's

blessing. My guest is the current President of the Association of

Science education and has back add new law to prevent creationism being

taught. And my other guest has attended an ACE school and involved

in promoting it. Why do you think ACE creationism in science classes?

There seems to be some attack on ACE students and saying in some way they

are unable to have a decent academic education. That was not my why. If I

could address this issue first. I'm asking you a straight forward

question why is it taught in science not religion? It is taught in both.

It is a potential answer to a question that all of us must face

which is not only how did we get here but questions like why are we

here? Questions like what meaning does life have and where do we go

when we die? These are fundamental questions that many people ask,

rather than closing down questioning in students and saying we have come

to one understanding of the world, we need to be open to questions. It

is a met at that physical question, not a science question? Why are we

here is a met at that physical question not science question. This

is potentially true. Yet you teach it in science? I don't teach

anything. I'm a former student. It is your organisation? It is not my

organisation. It is an organisation you believe in? Yes I do. May I just

explain why I believe in it. My sister is PhD. Let's Alice Robert

have a go. Alice Roberts is a PhD and understands the importance of

academics, my brother is studying masters, I graduated philosophy and

politics at York, to suggest that they are academically impeded is

nonsense. We saw a couple of very smart young students at the school,

the question is not their education? Was implied in the video. I don't

think it was, clearly there were able students there what is the

problem? The problem is basically that of standards. But you saw

perfectly able students there, going off to Cambridge? But being caught

that evolution and this is from their textbook, being taught that

evolution is scientifically unsound, which is patently not true.

evolution is scientifically unsound, Evolution is a theory? So is the

idea that the earth goes round the sun rather than the other way round,

these are scientific theories. That is a disproven idea? We can

establish that the earth is not flat as was said in the piece, the earth

isn't flat we know it isn't, empierically we know it is round?

Empierically we know evolution has happened. There are numerous lines

of evidence, there is no debate in science about this. And the

Government accepts this. Just because you all choose to believe

the same thing doesn't mean it is true, does it? As a scientist we

constantly test what we think is right against the evidence, and no

evidence has come to light that disproves evolution, despite what

the ACE textbooks say. My main issue is the Government is quite clear

that science should be taught as a comprehensive coherent and

extensively evidenced they are year, that is their own words in their

advice to free school, why one rule for our state-funded schools and

when it comes to independent schools we don't seem to find if science is

taught properly or not. Does it matter if they are not funded by

taught properly or not. Does it state? If they are private schools,

why shouldn't they teach what they like? If that's an argument then

they should be able to teach the earth is flat. They are not teaching

the earth is flat are they? Nobody believes this. Let's be honest. If

people pay for their children to be educated we know there should be

standards, Ofsted visits the schools, there is a view standards

should be achieved, and those standards should include the content

of the curriculum not just the quality of teaching and leadership

in the school which is what Ofsted has done before. Ofsted is being

changed partly in response to the Birmingham schools issue. Ofsted

hopefully there is going to be a tighter inspection regime coming

into play, where they will look at content of curriculum. When you look

at this, this textbook of yours here, it does say that the theory of

evolution is false. You believe literal truth of the Bible do you? I

believe that God is the creator, and do you know. Do you believe the

world was created in six days? You will have to forgive me I'm not

actually a scientist. I'm just asking you what you believe? Then

you will bring it down to a faith question, if I believe it was or

wasn't S How long did it create to create the world? You are asking me

a faith-based question. But you have been taught science in school, what

were you taught in science in school? I was taught the theory of

evolution alongside the theory of creation. The two were presented to

me. And do you know what having twoal ternives enables me to be a

critical thinker. It is notable one of your great lines is that you want

students to be open minded and yet you are going completely against

this in what you are saying, you are saying everybody is open minded in

as much as they agree with me. Not at all. Your own textbooks say that

evolution is a scientifically unsound theory, which is patently

not true. This is a lie which children are being taught. I know

that there is certainly a lot of critque around theory of macro

evolution, and all of these different areas that, again, not

being a scientist, I'm not well placed to comment on. You might look

at Provan John Lennox at Oxford's survey of all of this issue about

whether the earth reveals a creator, in his book God's Undertaker which

surveys the issue very well and is a voice worth hearing. Could have

asked him to be on the programme. I don't think the issue is whether

evolution has happened, whether it is a reality. The issue is whether

the Department for Education and the Government, which holds a view on

this which says evolution should be taught as a comprehensive, coherent

and extensively evidenced theory, whether that should be extended to

independent schools when assessing standards. And indeed to other

theories perhaps? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. The crisis in Iraq

has suddenly breathed new life into one of the great issues of British

domestic politics. Just how much do you dislike Tony Blair? He claims

that the invasion of Iraq, which he so vehemently supported and so much

of the country so vehemently didn't support has nothing to do with the

upsurge of violence there. Instead it is the consequence of not

intervening in Syria. He must be unhinged, says the Mayor of London,

Boris Johnson. Even members of his own party accuse Tony Blair of

acting like a neo-con. Prime Minister, performer, statesman. Tony

Blair you Knighted the left and swept -- united the left and swept

to power on a booming economy and improvement of public services. It

is a single decision most will remember him. All we are asking for

in the second receipts devolution is the clear -- resolution, is the

clear ultimatum that if Saddam carries on not co-operating then

force should be used. Even as the death toll mounted he stood by his

decision. The apology so many people want over Iraq has never been forth

coming. This weekend we had a fresh reminder of how unlikely that is.

Even if you left Saddam in place in 2003 there would have still been a

major problem in Iraq, you can see what happens when you leave the --

Tatar in place, like Assad, it doesn't go away. Mayor Boris Johnson

had a different take? If you say seriously that the invasion of 2003

had absolutely nothing to do with the lawlessness and chaos that then

took place, then I think you need your head examined. And yet when

asked in a poll this weekend which leader would most likely make you

vote Labour, twice as many people said Tony Blair as did Ed Miliband.

So how did the British public view this man that they once embraced. My

guest iskm will you pleasist of the Guardian, and author, and the Times

columnist and proponent of intervention in Iraq in 2003 and

now. Is it Iraq that makes Tony Blair such a powerful figure? I

don't know what you mean by powerful. He excites powerful

responses? He certainly does, absolutely, passionate responses. I

think an overwhelming number of people think he was desperately

wrong about Iraq, and some people think he was a war criminal, I don't

take that view. I think he was disastrously wrong I think he has

had to justify himself and that dreadful decision ever since. I

think it must be very hard to live with. He can't leave it alone. He

can't just be quiet about it. He has to persuade himself, I think, that

all those people didn't die in vain, that the country hasn't been in

turmoil for all these years for no reason. It is Iraq isn't it? I don't

know whether, Iraq is a big part of it, but when I was coming on the

programme I was looking back at some of the things I was writing about

the Iraq War about what I described as Blair hatred. There was a section

of opinion, usually writers and other sort of people like this,

artists, a feeling that Blair was an utterly fraudulent character who had

destroyed some how something important about the way in which

politics in Britain worked. Had diminished it down to focus groups,

and had essentially given way to a sub-Thatcherite he agenda, that is

if you were against Thatcher. And then also there were forces on the

right, take the Daily Mail, which in 2010 did this editorial where you

remember when Blair did his autobiography and gave ?5 million to

armed services charities, they said for once in his lying war mongering

career the former Prime Minister has done something right. That level of

hate ed is not just about Iraq it is about something other. It is about

Tony Blair, accept the terrible phrase as a "change agent". He's

associated with a level of change in this country with a lot of people

found discombobulating and difficult, there are aspects of his

character they don't like either. Because he achieved significant

difference in this country? Because the country changed such a lot while

he was Prime Minister actually, and he stands in, actually in a funny

kind of way as the same way as Polly and I do in a much more diminished

way as being the sorts of people who have brought immigrants in lark

numbers of this country, as the sort of people who like the European

Union, and the sort of people who would have given us

Union, and the sort of people who euro, et cetera, et cetera. He was

the representative of it. I think that is partly true, of course we do

have an 80% right-wing press who detest anything that Labour does and

wish to trash his record. What is interesting about him and why there

is quite so much hatred he is has been such a bad custodian of his own

reputation. First of all he spends his whole time on foreign policy

which is his weakest point, he spent very little time talking about the

good things he did. The definitive survey of his social policies came

out, produced by the LSE, just looking at how much he improved

education, poverty, a million pensioners taken out of poverty,

Sour Start, childcare, huge social reforms, very important, very

successful. You would never guess that from a post-political career

given council to the Government of Kazakhstan. That is what is so

strange. If behaved like Jimmy Carter and gone and done good works

and not made skill squillions of money and not lived in a jet set

with highly unsuitable people. If he had given himself to the things he

did best and emphasise that part of his time in power, I think he would

be seen differently now. Mostly people really care about their

legacy, he seems to have squadered it. I will really disappoint you

here, Polly is right! A lot of these things, when texts turn up from Tony

Blair to Rebekah Brooks that I'm right behind you, there is a cast

loyalty going on here between people who ran things that doesn't look

good to people outside. Even if the vast bulk of the money he has got he

has put into charities, and he has. I don't know about the vast bulk, he

still has a huge lot yet. He has. The relationship with the Murdoches

is toxic, and peculiar, weird, the stories coming out since, and he has

fallen out with Murdoch. Do you think he's unhinged as Boris says? I

think pots Blairex after anybody has been -- I think possibly aft eight

years in politics it is enough. He is hypernormal in a way, that means

he's a bit bonkers, it is a bit odd to have Boris going around telling

people they are unhinged. That is enough for now, that is all we have

time for tonight, good night.