26/09/2016 Newsnight

In this party, you no longer have to whisper its name, it's called

On stage in Liverpool, politics on the left

After years of running from it, Labour is now embracing it.

One of the boldest political experiments of the age.

The Shadow Chancellor is here to tell us what the S

And is this a party that can work together, or two

I hope that he can put together a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents,

but that does require Jeremy and his newly re-endorsed

mandate to reach out to the Parliamentary Labour

Party and say, I do want to work together.

And Team Sky defends Sir Bradley Wiggins' use of steroids

We can still trust Sky, we can trust in their achievements?

100%, you can trust in Sky, absolutely, 100%.

That's the very essence of why we created this team in the first

We're here, as the Labour Party is here, for its annual conference.

A changing political order is underway, entrenching.

For a taste of the different style, here is the picture

of Jeremy Corbyn, who abolished the post of shadow mental

health minister, here offering support to the campaign

Campaigning for himself to do something is a novel approach

The other strange moment was around the speech

of shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis.

Here is the footage of him, shot by ITN, just before

giving his speech, apparently being told by email

The autocue was being altered on his behalf.

His compromising tone on perhaps keeping Trident,

toned down to leave open the option of dumping it.

Some of us who live by autocue know that you must never ever

But the excuse was the one that producers use here,

they always say the boss wanted the script change made.

Well, fun and games aside, Labour is, I suppose, two parties

Last year, Labour met just after Jeremy Corbyn

Shell shock was the predominant mood among the old guard.

This year the party is again meeting just after Jeremy Corbyn has been

The mood of the old guard is weary, reluctant, resignation.

However, there is a new guard as well.

And that, to be blunt, is where the action is.

Here is where it's happening, a real buzz, affirmative ideas and

discussion on the alternative left. However this isn't the Labour Party.

It is an event organised by Momentum, nearby. Reflecting its

ambition, it is called the World Transformed. What's wrong with

politics at the moment is that it is about whether you are left wing or

right-wing, which faction, but that's not what people care about,

they care about ideas, issues that affect them. Not only is this not

the hard left, it is very soft and compassionate, but the idea that it

is left rather than just progressive I think is highly misleading.

Momentum only has 18,000 members, far fewer than the Liberal

Democrats. Think about their impact on politics. By organisation and

dedication that centrists struggled to manage from their homes, they

have changed the opposition party beyond recognition and they are

entrenching that change. A certain clarity of purpose fuelling the

organisation's drive. But then this is the visual Labour conference. It

has its moments but it is perhaps a little flat. The stands in the

exhibition area rather obviously well spaced out. It seems that the

businesses who often want to lobby and be seen at these events have

largely stayed away and many of the party malcontents are also absent.

Is there a clarity and unity of purpose here? I think we are kidding

anyone if we think that the wounds are going to be healed overnight but

there is a strong sense that we now have been reminded of the job that

we need to get on and do and what people want to see is a strong

opposition. I think there's a real desire to do things that are going

to make things happen and change in this country. An opposition to

what's going on. It would be wrong to portray this official conference

as in any way lacklustre. They can fill this enormous hall when they

need to, but the official conference has one disadvantage compared to the

leftist enthusiasts on the other side of town. Over there, they are

getting stuck into the issues, the things that matter to them. Over

here, given the different factions in the party and the trouble they

have been through, it is hard to get the conversation to move beyond who

the leader is and what the rules of engagement are. This may or may not

be the year that they managed to progress beyond that. On one measure

of Labour ship -- leadership, Labour is the biggest party in Europe.

Recovery from its traumas will not be instant. Today, John McDonnell

took to the stage, fleshing out his plans and he joins me now. So you

said that it is a government in waiting, policies on the shelf, you

must get down to the detailed implementation for those policies.

Can we start with tax? It is 37% of national income. Roughly where would

you to see that end up after five years of Labour government? One of

the reviews we are undertaking a review of tax, it is the first of

all the requirements of tax that we have but also the range of taxation

we want. That's the first stage that is taking place now. We have done a

review that we commissioned last year with HMRC looking at tax

evasion and avoidance, a lot of work on that. We reviewed HMRC as to how

it should be managed and organised. It is one of the pieces of work we

are doing. That doesn't sound like a government in waiting. I'm not

asking you to give me to the nearest 0.5%, but to the nearest 5%? Nearer

the election, you will know more. There is a sense of urgency on this

and that is why it... You can't tell me now, you've been Shadow

Chancellor for a year, you can't tell me within 5% of national income

where you think the tax burden should be? Roughly it should remain

where it is. Roughly the same as it is? Let me finish. We don't want to

pre-empt the reviews we are doing. What we have said so far is that

first of all, we are not talking about increasing income tax on

middle and low earners, we want to ensure that the corporations start

paying their way, we want to reverse some of the benefits that have been

given to the rich and we want to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We

want to invest in the economy and we can grow the tax base. You have not

told me that you do not see the tax burden changing very much from where

it is. We will look at the tax base and we will come to conclusions

before the general election. But you must have some idea, you've been in

politics for many years, Shadow Chancellor for a year. Do you want

to see us like Sweden and France and the United States? I want to insure

that our taxation is fair. I want to make sure that it falls on those

best able to pay and that corporations pay their way. We're

not talking about your Matic increases in overall taxation but we

want to ensure that the work we do, which I promised in the Labour Party

conference last year and this year, that every instrument we use will be

tested vigorously. You raised the idea of tax in your speech today,

you cannot be taxing salaries and wages, we need to tax more on

wealth. I'm not going to expect you to tell me the details of your

wealth tax plan. We lost the review today. Will it be on housing, a

Mansion Tax? That raised 1 billion. I did not think that was going to be

very successful. In the review, we will go out and listen to people's

ideas and come back fairly quickly on that about the proposals. So you

have said you are going to move to a wealth tax and you, at no point --

at this bite, have no idea how you are going to do that? -- at this

point. We are looking at wealth and we will do it in a way that engages

with the wider community and we will come back with our proposals but the

point of the exercise, launched today, is to ensure that whatever

measure we use is rigorously tested. I thought you were a government in

waiting. The whole point of today's exercise was to say that we need to

be ready for a general election, we need policies on the shelf and

implementation plans ready. A number of areas like this, that is what we

have lost. I'm not expecting you to talk about the detail but I thought

we might get the parameters. Another area, immigration. If Labour comes

to power, would policies be adopted that would have the objective of

trying to get the overall level of net migration down? Migration is

dependent on what the economy needs and you can only determine that as

the economy develops. Take the Brexit issue, we want to ensure that

we have access to the single market. That will be associated with free

movement of Labour but that has consequences, the undercutting of

wages and pressure on public services, so we will address those

issues. Is the answer to the question is, getting immigration

down, no, it will not be your objective? It is a simple question.

The answer is straightforward. No, it wasn't. It will be based on what

the economy needs. Do you expect that to be lower? We will see how

the economy develops, it is unpredictable. We want to grow the

economy and at different stages there may be opportunities where

immigration is important to ensure that the economy grows. Many people

are worried about immigration for a different reason to the one you

emphasise, you talk about they don't like wages being undercut, being

pushed down by the arrival of competing workers. Many people are

not worried about that, they are worried about things going on in

society, change that they find difficult to digest, they see the

community and language changing. Is that a legitimate objection to

immigration? It is not an objection to immigration, people are fearful

of change sometimes and our job in government and at every level is

basically to assist people to overcome those fears and address the

issue of change. That has happened for generations. It sounds like you

won't let that be taken into account, it is just an economic

question. It is also about pressure on public services. Some of the

concerns we have heard on the doorstep, especially during the

Brexit campaign, was about housing and the health service and we can

deal with that by investing in those public services. A third one where

I'm afraid the policy is as clear as mud to me, Trident. Now, is it your

belief that when Labour goes into the next election, its policy will

be to renew Trident? The existing party policy is to renew Trident.

We've had a debate in the House of Commons which was a free vote

because we believe this was a conscience issue and as a result,

the party came to a consideration and the attitude amongst our members

is the same. We will get the right to MPs and our members who support

Trident to vote accordingly but at the same time we will enable others

to campaign against. I don't understand, let's suppose that we

have an election next year or the year after, which is not wild

fantasy, let's suppose we have an election. If I vote Labour, and by

voting for Trident or don't know? In the period until now and the general

election, we will fall our manifesto. There will be people like

me who are going to be arguing that we should have Trident and others

will argue to keep it. At the moment the majority position is to keep it

but at the same time, when we go into Parliament, this is a

conscience issue and there will be a free vote. Clive Lewis, the Defence

Secretary, has said that it is time the party stopped picking at the

scab of Trident and he said that he won't be coming back to conference

between now and the next election to try and undo the policy that you

have an Trident as things stand. Clive Lewis, the Defence Secretary,

saying he isn't coming back to look at the policy again. Is your opinion

that it is open to be discussed again? It is always open within the

Democratic process of the Labour Party for the members to raise an

issue, that is called democracy. So is Clive Lewis just speaking for

himself? What is the point of...? He says that the matter has been

decided but it is always open for the party to raise these issues and

I'm sure that will happen on a range of views. So the Defence Secretary

is confused, the Shadow Defence Secretary, confused about what the

policy is going to be an Trident? He is stating what the position is at

the moment. He has the right to review these policies and to change

these policies. Anybody in the party can campaign on these issues. Your

foreign affairs spokesman says there is an ongoing review. Is that your

understanding? Has been an ongoing review for some time. His view is he

cannot see it coming back however it is open to others in that to say

they wanted discussed again. This is a government in waiting. You're not

a government in waiting now? We need to become a government in waiting.

That means developing these policies. The Trident one makes a

real point because it does not sound like you know what the policy is

what it's going to be. There are different views within this party.

Is it conceivable you will have a policy on Trident which the leader

of your party will not publicly support? Jeremy's position is

straightforward, he does not support the renewal of Trident. But if there

is a view then that will be party policy. And when we go into that

election should we believe the policy or the belief of the leader?

The reality is, whatever happens about Trident policy and development

there will be a free vote in parliament because it is a

conscience issue. We will not know the outcome of that vote? I think

that will happen among a number of parties. It is so significant in the

minds of the people it has become a conscience issue. We are going to

keep you there and talk about party matters. Clive Lewis said you will

stick by the Nato target. That is policy. Labour Government have

consistently spent above that number. We're going to talk little

bit more. We cannot not talk about party unity because if there is none

of the latter there will not be an opportunity to implement the former.

Our political editor gave his weekend up to keep tabs.

The revolution may have some way to run but this was beyond their

imagination a few years ago. Today was the time for generosity, as John

McDonnell called on them to think about how they could change the

world. If Labour came together they could create a radically fear of

society. The world has changed, and the things Jeremy Corbyn is talking

about are the issues people are finding relevant and in their lives,

finding appropriate housing when rent is high and house ownership is

going down and house-building is at the lowest point in peacetime

Britain. We need to address the issues. There is a change in the

atmosphere as both sides peer out of the trenches. Jeremy Corbyn is

embarking on a note reach programme and his critics admit he's here to

stay. -- and our reach. There is still mutual suspicion and most of

the plotters say the need reassurance before they return to

the fore. I hope he can put together a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents.

But that does require Jeremy and his newly reimbursed mandate to reach

out to the PLP and say, I want to work together. That is why Shadow

Cabinet elections are a significant indicator. One old hand says it is

unreasonable for those who turned their back on Jeremy Corbyn to

demand elections to the Shadow Cabinet. The argument about whether

we should have that, I was elected in that process, but the PLP said,

get rid of them. Now they're saying they wanted. We've said a lot of

things, some abusive comments have been made on both sides, whether it

is some in the PLP or some in Momentum. Wipe the slate clean. Over

at the political and cultural festival organised by Jeremy

Corbyn's Pretoria guard in the Momentum movement, one supporter

said the plotters should fall into line and back their leader. I think

he will be popular once he stops being knifed in the back by the

right-wing. If you are a football manager and half the team leave the

pitch before the whistle is blown you're not going to score many

goals. But the former frontbenchers are not giving up and are working as

a group, as they say they need clarity on the contentious issue of

the selection of MPs. I could see the group going back but it would

only be worthwhile if there were signs from the leadership that they

genuinely wanted to be a government of all the talents. Also, making it

clear that the selection is not where time should be spent. It

should be spent on fighting the Tories. Ken Loach says MPs should

learn to come to terms with democracy. They are on the ballot

paper because they are chosen by the Labour Party constituency. If they

got a majority, they got that as the Labour Party. Have you got job

security for five years? Being an MP is not a job for life. Many of the

plotters are contrite and admit it was a mistake of historic

proportions. But when it comes to control of their party, the battle

is far from over. Nick is with me now. You've been out and about

today. How has this marriage guidance business gone? There was a

big moment today. You were just discussing on that issue from

Labour, nuclear disarmament. This conference may be remembered for a

stand-off on personnel. Charlie Faulkner says if Jeremy Corbyn wants

to bring back the frontbenchers he'd need to give ground on the

elections. I understand Jeremy Corbyn is prepared to send out a

pretty tough message and say he would be willing to move before

there is an agreement on Shadow Cabinet elections. No reshuffle

until after this conference concludes but evidently, Jeremy

Corbyn is saying that if he wants to appoint a Shadow Cabinet he could

appoint a very respectable and credible Shadow Cabinet tomorrow and

as per the wider front bench... There are 65 vacancies to fill and

evidently what he is saying is we could have an even more efficient

front bench if we did not have as many. You mentioned in your piece

they are organised, tell me about the organisation of the rebels, the

opposition. There is one laudable. One frontbencher said there are some

loan rules but most of them are swimming in a shawl. Their efforts

are being co-ordinated by the whips and the leadership of the PLP. What

I've learned is when that group here of a lone wolf, they see a name in

the newspapers, that person is tapped on the shoulder and given a

message, watch out because if you go in your going to undermine Tom

Watson's efforts to get Shadow Cabinet elections. Why is there a

fuss? The Shadow Cabinet has three members on the NEC and they are

watching the balance of that very carefully. John McDonnell is still

with me. Let's talk about some of these party matters. Does it bother

you that they are acting as a union? A shoal of fish tapping wolves on

the shoulder? It is a bit of a mixed message. There have always been

different complexions. I'm not aware of this analogy. The whole tenure of

this conference is about uniting and if you talk to the membership and

large amounts of the PLP, they want the party to unite, to develop the

policies that we want for a government in waiting. It would be

tempting to appoint a Shadow Cabinet of Corbynistas rebels who want to

come back. This sort of language about rebels, a number of people

have resigned, some of them want to come back. That's great. I would

welcome them all back. You see you'd welcome them all back. Some of them

have said really nasty things about the leader. Is it literally wiping

the slate clean or are there some for whom that slate is too scarred?

Yes, yes... What we've been saying is what is said on tour remains

onto! Leadership election took place, Jeremy Corbyn and increased

mandate, you put them behind. One person said he could not tolerate

his hypocrisy any longer. You're talking to someone who has also not

been very careful with his language. You said he was part of the

establishment, throwing everything, you regret that... In a campaign,

harsh words get spoken but when you come to the end of that, Democratic

decisions are made and even despite those harsh words, I was in that

green room when the announcement was made and I was extremely friendly

and comradely. Hilary Benn is a big beast of the party. It would be

great if you could get him. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn would like that?

Yell Mac I'm sure. I've worked with Hillary over the years, he was a

local ward councillor in my constituency. He is incredibly

talented and could play a vital role. You would obviously facilitate

unity if you made a compromise. I'm making cup of tea is with everyone.

That is not comprise, it is charm. One of them would be to say you

could have Shadow Cabinet elections. It has not been ruled out. How

likely do you think it is? You could click your fingers and do it. This

is the problem we've got. Any move made by Jeremy could bring some

on-site and push others away. What we've got to do is build a consensus

so we don't push people back into the corners again. That takes a

little bit of time and quite a bit of compromising. Jeremy is into

that. Who will be pushed away by compromise? Some within the party

are seeing if there are Shadow Cabinet elections, we want a role

within that, and that is the membership. But that is just one

issue, there are a whole range of issues about democratising the

party, involving members, how you elect the NEC. The other issue, the

PLP feel very strongly about it, mandatory reselection. At the moment

they can be booted out if the party does not like them. We've ruled out.

On the boundary commission, we've got the Chief Whip leading on that.

We oppose it in the court and Parliament. If it goes ahead, the

existing rules will apply. That means if an MP has a certain

percentage in a constituency, they will have the right. Even if the

membership say they want that. You plan to oppose it? Is our view is

not appropriate, we've got to overcome this problem hopefully by

defeating the boundary commission. We're trying to make sure the

existing rules apply. John McDonnell is the best in the Shadow Cabinet

but how many of the others can you name?

With some of the familiar old names not in the shadow cabinet,

it's taking time for everyone to get to know the new.

We sent Lewis Goodall out in the streets of Liverpool,

to see how well Labour's senior figures are cutting through.

This gentleman here? The Labour leader. His name? It has gone out of

my head. Do you know any members of the Shadow Cabinet? I'm going to

look like the typical stupid person. This person here? John McDonnell,

Shadow Chancellor. Pretty good. This lady? That is Diane Abbott. Do you

know him? No. And her? No. This is bad. You know her? Giving a big

speech today, do you know who that is? Who is that? Any idea? No. John

McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. Is he changing anything? I haven't had

much luck in Liverpool but I'm hoping here will be more successful.

The Shadow Justice Secretary, what do you think of him? Not my cup of

tea. We can find out this stuff, so what is the purpose of you trying to

catch us out? Trying to demonstrate... Showing we are in it

-- showing we are ignorant but I don't think this is a very success

will argument. I'm not criticising this gentleman. He is basically

saying, you don't know who these people are, wouldn't it be more

sensible to let the MPs decide? You have done better than many of the

Labour Party members? Even the members? You should sign up, they

are just down there. Politics can be about vision,

having a clear idea Weighing up different views,

working out the best compromise. You judge whether Mr Corbyn has

the vision, we are going to discuss Two people not in the Corbyn

wing are with me. He was in the shadow

cabinet under Ed Miliband, she was in the shadow cabinet under

Jeremy Corbyn until she resigned. That was back in June. I don't know

if you heard everything John Gunnell was saying there. I wanted to know

how reassuring it was that Macdonald Donnell. He said that there would be

no mandatory reselection, is that correct? That is a positive thing to

hear and I think it is a good thing because what we need after a

bruising summer, there needs to be a reaching out and working together

and addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the

Parliamentary Labour Party. He seemed to imply that it had already

been clarified. Is that clear to you? I hope that is the case. For

John to say that, I haven't heard it clearly before, but for John to say

that I think is important because it sends the message about hearing some

of the concerns and saying that if we are to move forward, as we need

to, to move forward in a way that means we can focus on the Tories

means that we address some of the issues that have been raised. You

have to rack set the rules as they are, we have a set of rules, the

selection of candidates, where people are coming in, new

candidates, you have to rack set that there will be no change to the

rules on parliamentary selection. Shut down the issue and frankly we

shouldn't be having any talk about the deselection of Labour MPs. The

only talk of deselection there should be is of the Conservative MPs

in the next election. Let me ask you, would you both say that you are

socialists? An embarrassed -- not embarrassed to use the word? I have

called myself a democratic socialist, because the words of

equality and fairness. But I also recognise that you need a way in

which you are developing an agenda, the language that can reach out. I

think it is positive, if we can find ways to come together, focus on

common values, that is an agenda. Democratic socialist, Socialist

democrat. Just a socialist. People watching the programme did not care

about labels, they will care about what you will do for me and my

community, how are you going to build a fairer Britain and help me

realise my ambition? I published a pamphlet on the case for socialism.

I think this is a slight distraction, the big message is

about how we invest in the future, shared prosperity, that's what it's

about and I don't want to lose focus on that. I don't think any of us do.

The conference should be about setting the agenda. Being the same

page as the British people, having an economy that works for everybody,

tackling the issues following Brexit, making sure we have the NHS

and social care that are fit for the future. You're both behaving well

and saying what the party should say. We are saying what we think. So

why don't you serve in the Shadow Cabinet? The obvious way to serve

your party, he has the mandate, you have some of the talent and ideas,

why not join the Shadow Cabinet? I'm standing to become the chair of the

House of Commons select committee but I wouldn't rule anything out.

There are a variety of ways that people can contribute. Tom Watson,

part of the way he became the deputy leader is because of the fantastic

work he did on the culture select committee, holding people like you

to account or Margaret Hodge, holding the multinationals to

account. It sounds like you are running away from serving in Jeremy

Corbyn's Labour Party, you would like an independent job. Why not

serve the new leader, he has a mandate? I haven't ruled anything

out. So you are available? I am in the election I'm standing in at the

moment. If people want to serve, I think we need people doing a variety

of things, there is not one exclusive way to contribute. There

will be people who will go back and serve on the front bench and they

will have my support. There is a bigger picture about how we have a

much better way of constructing a better way of working and dealing

with the issues that led to the leadership election. I think that is

right,... Will you serve in the Shadow Cabinet? The reason the

election to the Shadow Cabinet is that it is a win-win. You may not

win that argument. If there isn't an elected Shadow Cabinet, why don't

you serve Jeremy Corbyn? By making the point that if you want a way in

which we build bridges across the Parliamentary Labour Party, which I

want to see, between the leadership and those who have served and those

who chose not to over the last 12 months, some things may need to

change, give and take on both sides and the role of the leader is

central in changing some of the conditions. That's why having a way

for the Parliamentary Labour Party to have a stake in the success of us

as an operation, that is an important move. I think it is

important because we want to see a shift on some of the issues and also

around tackling the abuse we've seen in the party, some action to reduce

and stop that. And we need to move together constructively, that's what

the members want to see. We have a view seconds. You told me many

things you want. Chuka Umunna, what are the compromises you are -- your

wing of the party is willing to make? You have lost, you have been

trounced, you have a leader with different beliefs, what is the

compromise you are going to make for him? I think people are going to go

back and serve on the front bench. Secondly, in many respects, this

internal navel-gazing, the obsession with each other isn't going to win

us the election. The one gold everyone has agreed on is winning

the election but let me say that we're not going to do by talking to

each other about things we agree on -- the one goal. On the economy, one

reason we lost the election is our perceived economic incompetence, we

must deal with that. Just over one third of Labour voters voted against

the official position of the Labour Party, on the referendum,

principally on issues around immigration. Why don't advocate the

adoption of the approach that Ukip toque but we need an approach that

resonates with our values -- that Ukip toque. We're out of time. --

that they took. Now before we go, we've been

reporting for the last week on the controversy surrounding

the use of powerful steroid injections by one of Britain's

greatest sportsmen, Sir Bradley Wiggins,

ahead of three of his biggest races. Details of the injections emerged

after hackers released files from the international

anti-doping body Wada. What they revealed was

perfectly within the rules - but several experts and cyclists

suggested his use of a powerful drug which has been used in the past

by cheats just didn't smell good. Today the head of Wiggins' cycling

team, Sir Dave Brailsford, spoke for the first time

about the affair to the BBC's Here's Mark Daly, who's been

covering the story for us. It was 11 days ago when we first

heard about Bradley Wiggins's therapeutic use exemptions, revealed

by the suspected Russian hackers and on Newsnight we were raising

questions about this powerful drug that he was given special

dispensation to use by the cycling authorities for his asthma and

allergies. It was controversial because it is a banned drug that was

abused for years by cyclists including Michael Rasmussen, the

pro-cyclist who told us that it is one of the most potent drugs are

used. We heard from Sir Bradley Wiggins' former team doctor who said

that he was surprised that his former rider had to have such a

powerful medical intervention. Yesterday we heard from Sir Bradley

himself on the Andrew Marr show when he said that the drug was indeed for

a genuine medical condition and not for performance enhancing purposes

but that appearance raised more questions than answers for many

people and today it was so Dave Brailsford, the boss of Team Sky,

who was being questioned. He mounted a defence of his former rider and

the Team Sky processes. He said they followed advice from the team doctor

and from the specialist who examined Sir Bradley Wiggins. He may have

hoped that his intervention could draw a line under the saga but I

doubt that because there remained some issues not resolved because

four example there was no real explanation as to why it serve a

knee needed the drug in 2011, 2012 and 2013 but not in 2014. He didn't

answer the questions about the inconsistencies in Wiggins' books,

his autobiography, when he said that he had been healthy in 2012 and yet

here he is, having this powerful medical intervention. And also the

issue of whose idea this was in the first place. Was it the ear, nose

and throat specialist who he saw or did the idea come from within Team

Sky itself? That is something that can put two so Dave Brailsford today

-- Daniel. Five or six years ago, I can't pinpoint it exactly but I know

that I've seen the reports from the specialist which quite clearly state

that Bradley is suffering from a condition, he quite clearly states

that the medication he was taking was being used optimally and was

ineffective and he recommended that Bradley was given this particular

medication to alleviate his symptoms. When I read that, I've got

no reason to question the validity, the decision-making of a

professional of that stature. It goes to the authorities. It was

applied for, conveniently, just before the grand tours in three

consecutive years, so effectively it was preventative, right? He was

taking it in case. Let's be clear, a lot of TUEs in sport for asthma

sufferers, allergic reactions, etc, and the nature is that you don't

wait until you are really suffering, you have a puffer beforehand. There

are contradictions that have come out, for example talking to Andrew

Marr he said he wanted different treatment because he was struggling

in the build-up to the 2012 Tour de France but there is no reference to

that in his book and he said that he was in great health, fine form. Do

you remember any evidence of him suffering? I've known him for a long

time and I know that he has asthma and has had problems with allergies

and that has been with him for his whole career. Any regrets about him

taking that medication at those times from you? With the information

I had at the time, five or six years ago, at that moment in time, the way

it was presented and the expert opinion and the entire process, I

would make the same decision then. And with the information you have

now? We definitely reflect as we move on and we have changed our

policies, as have the authorities around TUEs, but that is a

reflection of learning and good practice and everyone's attempts to

be rigorous around the TUE process. So you have crossed the thin blue

line, the cornerstone? Not at all. The one mantra, you can ask anybody

who has been in the team, we absolutely, there is no crossing the

line, we do not go over the line. Maybe there is a grey area where you

are within the rules but perhaps you have contravened the spirit of them?

Claiming to be whiter than white but are you in a grey area? That's a

fair question in terms of the debate about that aspect and people can

have opinions. We can trust Sky and their achievements? 100%,

absolutely, 100%, that is why we created the team in the first place,

don't forget. This sport has had a difficult time in the past and the

whole reason and ambition about creating Team Sky, having worked in

this velodrome for ten years and the time, seeing young guys going out

into a world where you wanted professional teams, where you knew

that they could go and never ever be pressured to cheat or take any kind

of doping substances and that's what we tried to do. We created that team

and environment and I can guarantee you that nobody has or will ever get

put under pressure in this team to do anything outside of the rules.

Sir David Brailsford talking to Dan Roan.

We'll be back here in Liverpool tomorrow night with the latest

on Labour, but that's it for tonight, on a day

that the Shadow Chancellor pledged that under a Labour government

there would be no more Philip Greens.

We estimate there are quite few people with that name in the UK,

so if you're one of them, we suggest you don't answer the door

We will shake up how corporations work and how the economy is owned

and managed, we will clamp down on the abuses of power at the very top.

Under Labour, no more Philip Greens at all.

Expect a rather drab start to your Tuesday morning, lot of cloud, thick

enough