:00:37. > :00:39.Afternoon folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:42.The government's plans to extend shop opening hours in England
:00:43. > :00:45.and Wales have been defeated - but should Scottish MPs have
:00:46. > :00:50.Should this self-confessed Trotskyite who's been accused
:00:51. > :00:54.of justifying the 9/11 hijackers be a member of the Labour Party?
:00:55. > :00:56.I'll be talking to Gerry Downing, who's just been expelled
:00:57. > :01:05.David Cameron says he'll start making the positive case for staying
:01:06. > :01:08.in the EU - one of his cabinet ministers says he's not impressed
:01:09. > :01:11.with the PM's deal on our membership - we'll have the latest
:01:12. > :01:15.And Tony Blair is the Labour party's most successful leader -
:01:16. > :01:17.but is his record something the party should celebrate
:01:18. > :01:31.All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration today
:01:32. > :01:35.is Tony Blair's former speechwriter - now Times columnist,
:01:36. > :01:37.Phil Collins - welcome to the programme.
:01:38. > :01:39.Now - Phil Collins has spent the morning chairing a meeting
:01:40. > :01:43.of the Labour think tank Demos - the star speaker was a man talked
:01:44. > :01:46.of in some quarters as a future leader of the party -
:01:47. > :01:50.Cameras weren't allowed in to listen to the speech by the Barnsley MP
:01:51. > :01:52.who ruled himself out of last year's leadership race -
:01:53. > :01:54.but journalists were - including sketch-writer,
:01:55. > :02:06.I was pleasantly surprised. I went in with very little expectation.
:02:07. > :02:09.Jarvis has a great back story, he was a paratrooper who raised his
:02:10. > :02:15.children on his own after his wife died but he hasn't been an MP for
:02:16. > :02:19.long and little was known about him. He didn't make a great speech but he
:02:20. > :02:25.made a good speech, much better than what had been trailed to the morning
:02:26. > :02:28.papers, which one of my colleagues described as the EU warned of a new
:02:29. > :02:35.era! It was personal, but his narrative, he spoke honestly about
:02:36. > :02:41.the failings of Labour in government as well as the current government,
:02:42. > :02:46.and set out some of his ideas. It was a Blairite piece of
:02:47. > :02:49.triangulation, but this time between old Labour, currently running the
:02:50. > :02:55.party, and new Labour, he was trying to play himself in the middle. --
:02:56. > :02:57.place himself. It was the firing gun, but he was keen to say it
:02:58. > :03:04.wasn't a leadership challenge right now. Given he is not that well-known
:03:05. > :03:13.outside political circles, why didn't he let the cameras in? I
:03:14. > :03:18.don't know, 24 hours live from Demos... I don't know the answer, it
:03:19. > :03:22.wouldn't be the organisation that didn't want the cameras, we would
:03:23. > :03:27.love to have them. It was an interesting speech. He is right, we
:03:28. > :03:33.don't know a lot about Dan Jarvis. Anyone who can start a speech with,
:03:34. > :03:36."I have been to war three times" would be hard to attack. He does
:03:37. > :03:42.things for the party nobody else could do. From the trenches of
:03:43. > :03:49.Helmand to the green benches of Westminster, I liked that line. If
:03:50. > :03:56.he is serious about down the road, he has the raise his profile. Yes,
:03:57. > :04:00.he has to show he can speech, he has ideas, and some of these were
:04:01. > :04:06.starting to be built. He was also distancing himself from a lot of new
:04:07. > :04:11.Labour without totally damning them. Without mentioning Peter Mandelson,
:04:12. > :04:20.he said there were people in new Labour, who were... Intensely
:04:21. > :04:24.relaxed... About people being for the rich. He also said the Labour
:04:25. > :04:28.Party has to realise, we are on the side of the workers and generate
:04:29. > :04:34.help for them through having a successful economy. Was this the
:04:35. > :04:39.starting gun? I don't mean to trigger a leadership attempt this
:04:40. > :04:44.year, but the starting gun for a long march towards an attempted
:04:45. > :04:49.leadership? I think inevitably it is: you don't do a look at me speech
:04:50. > :04:56.if you don't want people to look at you, I don't think it is the start
:04:57. > :05:01.of a coup, but in a sense, it was, here am I, here are my arguments and
:05:02. > :05:08.if there should be a vacancy, don't forget about me! Where would you
:05:09. > :05:12.position him? Would it be right to position him in the centre of the
:05:13. > :05:15.Labour Party? I think the next leader is probably going to come
:05:16. > :05:19.from the soft left of the Labour Party so I think it was an attempt
:05:20. > :05:23.to talk about things like that. There are a lot of things Ed
:05:24. > :05:27.Miliband would have been comfortable saying, it just sounds different
:05:28. > :05:30.coming from Dan Jarvis, partly because we don't know about him but
:05:31. > :05:35.party has the background which makes you think differently. Tactically,
:05:36. > :05:41.it is a clever thing to do, positioned himself with the soft
:05:42. > :05:47.left. This morning he is speaking to labour people, inside Westminster,
:05:48. > :05:50.how would he go down with the broader British electorate? They
:05:51. > :05:56.know next to nothing about him and so repeatedly, of course they will
:05:57. > :06:00.only see it from what they read because the TV cameras weren't
:06:01. > :06:04.there, he was trying to base himself, he spoke about Barnsley a
:06:05. > :06:09.lot, talked about when things were going well when Labour were in
:06:10. > :06:13.government, they saw it on television but didn't feel it in
:06:14. > :06:17.their own bank balances, he is trying to get out into the country.
:06:18. > :06:23.I think at the moment David Cameron is playing PMQ 's on the easy
:06:24. > :06:28.setting. He needs someone to raise his game and George Osborne to raise
:06:29. > :06:31.his game. There is plenty of time before the next election.
:06:32. > :06:34.Last night the SNP joined forces with Tory rebels to block
:06:35. > :06:35.the government's plans to devolve Sunday shopping hours
:06:36. > :06:39.An amendment tabled by Conservative MP David Burrowes removing
:06:40. > :06:42.the changes was carried, despite the PM's personally
:06:43. > :06:55.intervening to try and convince his colleagues.
:06:56. > :06:58.Yes, Nicola Sturgeon's party have helped to shut the door on longer
:06:59. > :07:10.new rules in the Commons designed to stop Scots MP's blocking laws
:07:11. > :07:12.which don't affect their constituents,
:07:13. > :07:20.so called England Votes for English Laws.
:07:21. > :07:23.But EVEL did not apply to proposed changes to Sunday trading yesterday,
:07:24. > :07:27.because other parts of the Enterprise Bill apply
:07:28. > :07:38.Now some English MPs are now calling for it to be extended to prevent
:07:39. > :07:41.Scottish MPs having any say on legislation that does not apply
:07:42. > :07:56.We asked the SNP for an interview but our request was declined. But we
:07:57. > :07:57.will speak to Nicola Sturgeon this weekend.
:07:58. > :08:02.We're joined now by the Conservative MP Philip Davies.
:08:03. > :08:10.So it turns out EVEL wasn't worth the paper it was written on? No, it
:08:11. > :08:15.doesn't deliver what English voters think it is, it delivers an English
:08:16. > :08:18.veto for English laws, basically it stops things being imposed on
:08:19. > :08:22.England against the wishes of England but doesn't mean that
:08:23. > :08:26.English MPs can positively make a difference to England without other
:08:27. > :08:30.people interfering, England has been sold a bit of a turkey, it doesn't
:08:31. > :08:38.deliver English votes for English laws. Was it also a mess to put this
:08:39. > :08:42.particular measure applying to England and Wales into a bill which
:08:43. > :08:46.did have Scottish things in it? Shouldn't have made a difference
:08:47. > :08:52.because you still need on these issues, a double majority, of the
:08:53. > :08:56.whole house, and of English MPs. So whichever Bilby government put this
:08:57. > :09:05.into, Scottish MPs could have torpedoed it in the way that they
:09:06. > :09:09.did anyway. If Scottish MPs who have their own opening hours, more
:09:10. > :09:14.liberal than down here, they have voted against liberalisation down
:09:15. > :09:16.here, if they can argue that that has some connection with Scotland
:09:17. > :09:23.and an impact on Scotland, then almost anything has an impact on
:09:24. > :09:29.Scotland, you could argue. The Sunday trading laws in Scotland are
:09:30. > :09:35.completely deregulated, you can shop at any hour of the day in Scotland,
:09:36. > :09:39.this is all about, as far as I can see, the SNP, in advance of the
:09:40. > :09:42.Scottish elections, trying to show to their voters that they are more
:09:43. > :09:46.effective opposition than the Labour Party are, this is all about the
:09:47. > :09:53.pathetic kind of competition with the Labour Party in Scotland,
:09:54. > :09:57.nothing to do with Sunday trading, they are happy with their
:09:58. > :10:01.deregulated hours in Scotland, it's a political game they are playing in
:10:02. > :10:05.advance of the election. If you wanted to criticise the government,
:10:06. > :10:11.they could put the measure after the Scottish election. None of this
:10:12. > :10:19.could have happened if the amendment had been moved by a conservative
:10:20. > :10:25.colleague of yours. There were 27 conservative rebels, they are
:10:26. > :10:29.principled people, on religious grounds, they felt strongly about
:10:30. > :10:34.this. I have no quibble about that. They voted on this because of their
:10:35. > :10:37.own personal principle and nobody can argue with that. But the SNP
:10:38. > :10:45.were not voting on any principle at all. It's interesting that they
:10:46. > :10:48.can't get Tory votes for Tory laws. Despite the personal intervention of
:10:49. > :10:53.the Prime Minister, who was getting people to talk to them, people were
:10:54. > :10:59.not been persuaded. Every one of them I am sure has a marvellous
:11:00. > :11:07.principled reason, but a disciplined party doesn't do this. Mrs Thatcher
:11:08. > :11:11.lost a three line whip on Sunday trading, when she had a huge
:11:12. > :11:18.majority, this always raises... What were the books doing? Identity
:11:19. > :11:24.anyone would say that her as government wasn't disciplined and
:11:25. > :11:30.effective. This has an issue... Quite poor parliamentary management
:11:31. > :11:34.to lose a vote. You must know that you're going to lose a vote by 30 if
:11:35. > :11:39.you are a whip and then wonder why you went ahead with the boat but
:11:40. > :11:45.that shouldn't get the SNP off the hook by acting in a way that is
:11:46. > :11:48.unjustified. Though they're now be a head of steam of the Tory
:11:49. > :11:52.backbenches to toughen up the English votes for English laws? I
:11:53. > :11:57.hope so, I raised it today in business questions that we need to
:11:58. > :12:00.revisit this and deliver real English votes for English laws which
:12:01. > :12:05.is what being this public think is happening. It is a bit of a turkey
:12:06. > :12:09.and the only thing that has come out of this vote is that now it is
:12:10. > :12:14.therefore all to see that we don't actually have English votes for
:12:15. > :12:19.laws. In the end the only way to secure it is that for a couple of
:12:20. > :12:22.days the building across the road becomes English parliament dealing
:12:23. > :12:28.with English only matters. That's one way around it. I don't have a
:12:29. > :12:33.problem with dealing with it built by Bill, all I want is we have a
:12:34. > :12:37.situation where English and Welsh MPs can vote on issues that only
:12:38. > :12:41.affect their constituents and Scottish MPs can't come down and
:12:42. > :12:46.veto something. I asked that if Scottish MPs want to vote on these
:12:47. > :12:49.things in Westminster, let's bring the powers back from Holyrood to
:12:50. > :12:56.Westminster that will soon sort them out! If we return the power back to
:12:57. > :13:03.dispense to. I think there is a moved south of the border that if
:13:04. > :13:08.the Scots are in complete control of certain major domestic areas, like
:13:09. > :13:13.Sunday trading, the things that affect us in England, that should be
:13:14. > :13:20.down to the people we elect. I think there is, and it's obviously a
:13:21. > :13:23.slight change of heart from Scottish Nationalists, it was clear before
:13:24. > :13:29.the election that they would not interfere on votes of this kind. You
:13:30. > :13:33.can always say there are implications, but as you said, that
:13:34. > :13:37.can apply to anything. This seems a clear breach of something Nicola
:13:38. > :13:41.Sturgeon was pretty candid on before the election. I think it will
:13:42. > :13:45.inevitably mean that we will go back and look at the English votes for
:13:46. > :13:50.English laws to see if it can be toughened up. Will that happen? I
:13:51. > :13:53.hope so, whether the government has the appetite for it, I don't know,
:13:54. > :13:54.but there is a feeling on the backbenches that we have to sort
:13:55. > :13:57.this out. The question for today
:13:58. > :14:01.is all about where David Cameron He's written a piece for one
:14:02. > :14:05.regional paper extolling the beauty of the local area and reminiscing
:14:06. > :14:08.about the trips he's enjoyed there. Unfortunately he'd also spelled
:14:09. > :14:11.the name of one famous beach wrong. Now - yesterday David Cameron used
:14:12. > :14:34.Prime Minister's questions to attack the Labour Party for re-admitting
:14:35. > :14:37.into their ranks someone who the PM said had defended both Islamic State
:14:38. > :14:41.and the 9/11 hijackers. In a moment we will be talking
:14:42. > :14:44.to the man in question. First here is the Prime
:14:45. > :14:48.Minister yesterday. We are protecting counterterrorism
:14:49. > :14:51.policing and investing in our intelligence
:14:52. > :14:53.and security services, as we did
:14:54. > :14:55.in the last parliament. In terms of Iraq and Syria,
:14:56. > :14:57.we are making good progress at pushing Daesh back,
:14:58. > :15:00.this is something we need to do both But I have to say, I was completely
:15:01. > :15:05.appalled to see yesterday that the Labour Party has readmitted
:15:06. > :15:08.someone to their party who says, and I believe, that the "9/11
:15:09. > :15:12.suicide bombers must never be condemned", and belongs
:15:13. > :15:15.to an organisation that says, "we defend Islamic State
:15:16. > :15:19.in Syria and Iraq." Those are appalling views and I hope
:15:20. > :15:22.the Leader of the Opposition will throw this person
:15:23. > :15:24.out of the party rather who was expelled from the Labour
:15:25. > :15:38.Party again last night was "further evidence that
:15:39. > :15:46.has come to light". welcome to the programme, we will
:15:47. > :15:54.come onto 9/11 and Islamic State in a minute, but the organisation you
:15:55. > :15:57.are part of, Socialist Fight,, says Mr Advocaat marks, support
:15:58. > :16:03.revolutionary socialism, so why do you want to be in the Labour Party
:16:04. > :16:09.-- support, arcs. It has traditionally been the party of the
:16:10. > :16:12.working class. It is linked to the trade unions and organically, it
:16:13. > :16:18.reflects the class consciousness of the class itself. Would it be fair
:16:19. > :16:21.to say that you see being a part of the member party as a tactical move,
:16:22. > :16:26.in your view of bourgeois party like the Labour Party couldn't bring
:16:27. > :16:33.about in itself the kind of changes you want? It can bring about some of
:16:34. > :16:37.the changes, of course, but it cannot actually get rid of
:16:38. > :16:41.capitalism itself, but it can advance the cause of the working
:16:42. > :16:49.class seriously and because of the working class has been in decline
:16:50. > :16:54.now since 1997, I believe, when the GE coefficient shows the balance of
:16:55. > :16:59.wealth flowing from the poor to the rich. Do you work with Labour people
:17:00. > :17:06.at the moment? We have some footage of you on a platform here with John
:17:07. > :17:10.McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. Are you quite close to John
:17:11. > :17:16.McDonnell? No, I am not a personal friend of his, that was a dispute at
:17:17. > :17:24.my workplace, where I was sacked unjustly and he came to defend me
:17:25. > :17:28.because we admit in the Labour representation committee -- we had
:17:29. > :17:32.met. He stood on a picket line outside the bus garage and it
:17:33. > :17:36.secured my reinstatement and my job, so I think he owed some justice for
:17:37. > :17:44.me and I was very pleased but I am not a friend as such. Do you work
:17:45. > :17:49.with many Labour people? I am a member of the Central Labour Party
:17:50. > :17:55.and I am on the GC. You are a member? Well, I had been until last
:17:56. > :17:59.night. Either way, everybody tells me I was expelled last night but
:18:00. > :18:06.nobody has bothered inform me, no communication whatsoever. The Prime
:18:07. > :18:10.Minister yesterday said that you had defended the 9/11 hijackers and you
:18:11. > :18:18.said that had been taken out of context. Had it? Yes, indeed, and I
:18:19. > :18:22.don't support politically ISIS and I don't support the 9/11 attack in any
:18:23. > :18:28.way whatsoever. What I was doing was to explain the reasons for it and
:18:29. > :18:36.the reasons for the attack are basically what imperialism did in
:18:37. > :18:42.the Middle East. But you did right, of the 9/11 attack, you said it is
:18:43. > :18:48.the "Justified outrage of the oppressed as opposed to the outrage
:18:49. > :18:52.of the oppressor. " The first you say is progressive no matter how
:18:53. > :18:56.distorted and you said "Must never be condemned, that is the entirely
:18:57. > :19:03.understandable motivation for 9/11 and suicide bombers." Yes, well, I
:19:04. > :19:08.would explain it in this way. Back in 1996, Madeleine Albright was
:19:09. > :19:14.asked what she thought of the fact that half a million Iraqi children
:19:15. > :19:19.had died because of the US sanctions and she was asked if she thought the
:19:20. > :19:23.price was worth it and she said, "This is a very hard choice, but the
:19:24. > :19:31.price, we think the prizes worth it." It would be to be appalled by
:19:32. > :19:36.Madeleine Albright's reply and not say the 9/11 bombers should never be
:19:37. > :19:39.condemned. I think you would have to say that in those circumstances, the
:19:40. > :19:45.first thing you have to do is to understand why that happened. It
:19:46. > :19:49.didn't happen because these are madmen or because they are lunatics
:19:50. > :19:55.or because they are bad people, it happened because they were outraged
:19:56. > :20:00.at what had happened to their land. Most of the 9/11 bombers came from
:20:01. > :20:11.Saudi Arabia. But do you still not condemn the 9/11 attack? I wouldn't
:20:12. > :20:15.use the phrase "Condemn", because I think like it was said, I have
:20:16. > :20:20.striven not to laugh that human actions, not to weep or hate them,
:20:21. > :20:24.but understand them, so if you understand them... So you would
:20:25. > :20:27.understand rather than condemn. I would understand the motivation of
:20:28. > :20:32.the people that did that. The article that is referred to is an
:20:33. > :20:39.article that says the ridiculous conspiracy theories about 9/11 are
:20:40. > :20:44.entirely wrong. You attack the conspiracy theories. On Islamic
:20:45. > :20:50.State, the Prime Minister again mentioned that you had supported
:20:51. > :20:56.Islamic State and in terms of tactical military assistance, you
:20:57. > :21:01.do, don't you? No, I don't. I don't support them militarily or
:21:02. > :21:07.politically in any way. Can I put the quote to you, from your group
:21:08. > :21:17.that you are a key member of? You say," you mentioned the Taliban and
:21:18. > :21:22.the Sunni and sheer, Hamas, Gaddafi, Assad, the Islamic State, we give no
:21:23. > :21:26.military support to that, but we recognise the US-led world
:21:27. > :21:31.imperialism is the main enemy of humanity, so we do advocate critical
:21:32. > :21:36.support and tactical military assistance from the working class to
:21:37. > :21:40.all those fighting for the defeat of imperialism, "Referring to all of
:21:41. > :21:46.the groups above, meaning Islamic State. Well if you think what has
:21:47. > :21:53.happened in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, these countries were
:21:54. > :22:00.all bombed by America. These countries have their infrastructure
:22:01. > :22:07.totally degraded, over a million people killed, apparently, in Iraq,
:22:08. > :22:11.and it has produced absolutely no progressive outlook, this states --
:22:12. > :22:16.the states have no democracy, they are worse than when it happened. I
:22:17. > :22:19.understand that, very legitimate line of argument and many people
:22:20. > :22:23.across the political spectrum will share that but you say as a result
:22:24. > :22:25.of that, you advocate critical support and tactical military
:22:26. > :22:37.assistance to groups like Islamic State. Tactical support means that
:22:38. > :22:42.we are opposed to the US bombing of them. We would not be for the US
:22:43. > :22:46.bombing, because first of all, US bombing involves the killing of what
:22:47. > :22:51.they call collateral damage, that is a vast number of civilians. And what
:22:52. > :22:57.about tactical military assistance, what would that require or involve?
:22:58. > :23:02.If you analyse world imperialism as the main enemy, you always oppose
:23:03. > :23:09.its actions, that follows logic. You would always be for driving out US
:23:10. > :23:15.imperialism from the Middle East, etc. You have also said that we need
:23:16. > :23:24.to confront the Jewish question. What is the Jewish question? Well,
:23:25. > :23:28.the fact that Israel can commit absolutely heinous crimes against
:23:29. > :23:35.the Palestinians, they can bomb them without let or hindrance and this is
:23:36. > :23:39.presented in the Western media as an attack on terrorists. That is
:23:40. > :23:50.Israel, that is not the Jewish question. It is Zionism, as such. I
:23:51. > :23:58.am interested, because you talk about Zionism a lot. You and your
:23:59. > :24:01.group say that Zionism plays a major role in politics, all the advanced
:24:02. > :24:05.capitalist countries. You say that the Zionists are behind the
:24:06. > :24:09.witchhunt against Jeremy Corbyn. You say that Zionists hold great sway
:24:10. > :24:17.over our three main political parties. You say that Zionism is the
:24:18. > :24:24.vanguard of injecting anti-Muslim hatred into Western politics. You
:24:25. > :24:27.say Zionism is on the vanguard in a capitalist offensive against the
:24:28. > :24:31.workers. It would sound, when you see all that, that for you, the
:24:32. > :24:36.Jewish question is a Zionist conspiracy. Doesn't all that add up
:24:37. > :24:39.to a conspiracy? No, it doesn't. It adds up to something very material
:24:40. > :24:45.and that is the number of millionaires and billionaires of
:24:46. > :24:50.Zionist persuasion within the American ruling class and within the
:24:51. > :24:55.European ruling classes in general. It is their economic and political
:24:56. > :25:01.power that leads to ridiculous situations. You think that Zionists,
:25:02. > :25:07.as you call them, play a key role in that? They obviously do play a key
:25:08. > :25:11.role. They have dual citizenship, most of them. Isn't that very
:25:12. > :25:14.reminiscent of what the Nazis said in Germany in the 1930s, there were
:25:15. > :25:22.these rich Jews controlling the German economy? Indeed, no. Look, if
:25:23. > :25:26.you want to take what Benjamin Netanyahu says, he says that
:25:27. > :25:34.actually the Holocaust was caused by the grand mufti of Jerusalem and not
:25:35. > :25:38.by the Nazis. With respect, I don't have Mr Netanyahu to interview, I
:25:39. > :25:44.have you and I just think that if you list all these things you accuse
:25:45. > :25:48.of Zionism, it sounds very much bulk-macro I don't want to push this
:25:49. > :25:55.too far but I would suggest people listening to this, they will hear
:25:56. > :26:01.shades of the protocols of Zion. I reject totally the protocols of
:26:02. > :26:07.Zion, this is based on the material, political fact of the overwhelming
:26:08. > :26:10.political authority of Zionist politicians within the ruling
:26:11. > :26:18.classes of America and Europe. It is not to do with their actual Jewish
:26:19. > :26:24.origins, as such. You have been listening to this. I suspect you are
:26:25. > :26:29.happy, I mean I am pre-empting this, that Mr Downing is not in a Labour
:26:30. > :26:33.Party now? Absolutely. Outrageous. Tactical support for ISIS, the
:26:34. > :26:37.Jewish question. I am a member of the Labour Party and I'm delighted
:26:38. > :26:40.you are not. I hope they will call you this afternoon to confirm you
:26:41. > :26:45.are not, because there is no place in the party for those kind of use.
:26:46. > :26:49.Nor is their impact on your less toxic but nevertheless non-labour
:26:50. > :26:53.views about social revolution is on. Labour is not committed to the
:26:54. > :26:56.overthrow of capitalism. Trade unions are remedial organisation to
:26:57. > :27:01.get a better deal for their workers and very good they are too, but they
:27:02. > :27:05.are not rubidium organisation so given that alone, you have no place
:27:06. > :27:10.in the Labour Party. You may have the final word. I believe one of the
:27:11. > :27:17.motivations for readmitting me at the time was politicians like Keir
:27:18. > :27:22.Hardie etc said something is very similar to that in the past and the
:27:23. > :27:26.ambition to overthrow capitalism is a very legitimate political
:27:27. > :27:30.ambition, if you take the state of the planet today. You feel that
:27:31. > :27:35.Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party is a more welcoming party feel sort of
:27:36. > :27:42.socialism? I think it should be, if it allows in Ukip councillors who
:27:43. > :27:46.defect and it allows in people from the far right of that nature, I
:27:47. > :27:52.cannot see why you shouldn't allow in people like me. Will you appeal
:27:53. > :27:55.against the decision? I will, of course. Thank you. Don't go away
:27:56. > :27:57.just yet. Now it's 19 days since the deal
:27:58. > :28:01.was done on our membership of the EU But don't worry -
:28:02. > :28:05.there are still more than three And the pace doesn't seem
:28:06. > :28:08.to be slowing. Luckily our political correspondent,
:28:09. > :28:20.Vicki Young, has been keeping up Let's go straight to her,
:28:21. > :28:26.overlooking Westminster. So speeches by the Prime Minister, obviously
:28:27. > :28:30.poor remain, and for Macklin it from Cabinet Minister Grayling for leave,
:28:31. > :28:35.what are they telling us? We are being told by Downing Street that
:28:36. > :28:39.today's speech by the Prime Minister will be 80% positive, they say,
:28:40. > :28:43.talking about what he sees as the economic benefits, before he goes on
:28:44. > :28:46.to one that we are all going to end up paying higher mortgages because
:28:47. > :28:52.interest rates will come under pressure if we do leave the EU. What
:28:53. > :28:56.they have done, the remain side, is dug out a load of quotes for those
:28:57. > :29:00.who are campaigning to leave, which they say shows that people on the
:29:01. > :29:06.other side willing to sacrifice people's jobs in the United Kingdom
:29:07. > :29:10.and they talk about this thing, the Nike tick, you will have seen it on
:29:11. > :29:14.your trainers, Andrew, the idea that if we leave the EU, there will be a
:29:15. > :29:19.downturn but in the long term, we go up and there is a huge recovery. It
:29:20. > :29:22.is insulting to those on the other side and Chris Grayling was asked
:29:23. > :29:25.and said it would be a lively debate. He has talked about
:29:26. > :29:29.sovereignty, about this place. He has been very rude about the deal
:29:30. > :29:33.the Prime Minister got in Brussels after all of the negotiations and
:29:34. > :29:36.says it hasn't achieved anything, that the parliament here isn't
:29:37. > :29:41.sovereign and the EU is in crunching on all parts of our lives,
:29:42. > :29:46.including, he says, things like vacuum cleaners -- encroaching. We
:29:47. > :29:50.have heard from Mr Cameron, Mr Grayling, have we heard from the
:29:51. > :29:54.Queen yet today on Europe? We haven't and as you know, this is a
:29:55. > :29:57.very sensitive subject. You will remember when the Prime Minister let
:29:58. > :30:02.slip and said the Queen had heard them the phone at him when he told
:30:03. > :30:08.her the result of the Scottish referendum -- had purred down the
:30:09. > :30:12.phone. He had to issue a grovelling apology. This story from the Sun, a
:30:13. > :30:15.great story, because we will never know what was said in the room, so
:30:16. > :30:19.we can endlessly speculate. People have tried to put the pieces
:30:20. > :30:22.together, saying if it happened on this date, not only was declared
:30:23. > :30:25.their but also a certain Michael Gove, said the finger being pointed
:30:26. > :30:32.at him but his advisers saying he has no idea where the story came
:30:33. > :30:34.from. The palace is denying it is true, Nick Clegg is denying it, but
:30:35. > :30:39.the editor of the newspaper is sticking to it, saying they have two
:30:40. > :30:43.sources for the story. It goes back to 2011. I think the headline which
:30:44. > :30:48.said the Queen was in favour of Brexit is probably just a twinkle in
:30:49. > :30:50.the eye at that time, so it was a long time ago we cannot establish
:30:51. > :30:58.the facts. I understand the were two sources,
:30:59. > :31:03.but they were both corgi dogs! Now - some people's minds will be
:31:04. > :31:06.changed over the next three months - But what makes someone go
:31:07. > :31:09.from committed europhile Here's the director of the Institute
:31:10. > :31:13.of Economic Affairs, I used to believe in the European
:31:14. > :31:29.dream, a free market, liberal and open democratic
:31:30. > :31:32.brotherhood of man. So inspired was I by this
:31:33. > :31:35.vision that 20 years ago, I even became president of the UK
:31:36. > :31:38.branch of the Young European With every passing year,
:31:39. > :31:45.I've had to come to terms with the European Union as it is,
:31:46. > :31:50.not as I would like it to be. The EU has become a sprawling,
:31:51. > :31:54.inefficient, petty, self obsessed bureaucracy, with a vociferous
:31:55. > :31:58.appetite for controlling nearly every aspect of our
:31:59. > :32:03.lives, however tiny. It is wonderful that we have had
:32:04. > :32:07.peace in most of Europe for over 70 years, but that has not been brought
:32:08. > :32:13.about by Eurocrats issuing directives, stipulating the maximum
:32:14. > :32:18.suction power of a vacuum cleaner. Worse still, the EU has failed
:32:19. > :32:22.to tackle the big issues. Rules around the single currency
:32:23. > :32:25.have largely been observed Only Luxembourg has abided
:32:26. > :32:29.consistently with the convergence And the migrant crisis has found
:32:30. > :32:35.the European Union badly wanting. These might be surmountable problem
:32:36. > :32:41.is if the European Union had To witness the British Prime
:32:42. > :32:49.Minister staying up, negotiating till half past
:32:50. > :32:53.five in the morning, arguing over how he would be allowed
:32:54. > :32:57.to spend about ?25 million worth of child benefit, barely 0.1%
:32:58. > :33:01.of our total welfare spending, It is true that leaving
:33:02. > :33:08.the European Union would involve some uncertainties and even a few
:33:09. > :33:13.risks, but virtually every substantial human achievement
:33:14. > :33:16.involves having the guts And, of course, how Britain would
:33:17. > :33:22.look outside of the European Union It means remaining remember club
:33:23. > :33:30.which has a very different agenda to that of the United Kingdom
:33:31. > :33:37.and merely having a seat around that table, especially if that seat
:33:38. > :33:40.is occupied by a Prime Minister who has deluded himself that the EU
:33:41. > :33:44.has substantially reformed, The referendum will split
:33:45. > :33:51.families, political parties Even my own think tank
:33:52. > :33:56.takes no corporate view But I have reached the personal
:33:57. > :34:01.conclusion that the brave, self-confident, forward-looking step
:34:02. > :34:22.to take is to vote leave on June 23. As if by magic, he joins us here,
:34:23. > :34:29.not far to walk! You were once the president of the UK branch of the
:34:30. > :34:33.Young European Federalists. So I guess you didn't get out much when
:34:34. > :34:40.you were a junk! It felt like a good hobby at the time! Mark's journey is
:34:41. > :34:48.not uncommon. Many people have made this journey, of his generation and
:34:49. > :34:52.older, who without doubt voted to stay in England in 75 and there are
:34:53. > :34:59.either saying, I'm not going to do that again, or I am more uncertain,
:35:00. > :35:03.something has changed. Yes, 40 years of history, also some of the
:35:04. > :35:08.justifications for the EU back then seem like ancient history now, war
:35:09. > :35:13.was a much bigger presence in British life back then and doesn't
:35:14. > :35:17.really feature now in the debate. So we are 40 years on and it's very
:35:18. > :35:23.different stop anyone who has ever had dealings with the EU tends to
:35:24. > :35:25.become more sceptical of it then you were before. I have had some
:35:26. > :35:32.dealings myself and you cannot help being frustrated by its endless
:35:33. > :35:35.delays, the sort of things Mark was saying. I don't myself conclude it
:35:36. > :35:40.is better to come out because you candidly said that there are risks
:35:41. > :35:45.with coming out, I would be interested to hear what you think
:35:46. > :35:48.they are. I think it is true that if you want certainty about where
:35:49. > :35:52.Britain is going to be the next five years you should probably vote to
:35:53. > :36:00.remain, if you care about certainty can you should vote to remain. It is
:36:01. > :36:06.a powerful impulse. I am conceding that out is less certain than in.
:36:07. > :36:11.The risks are, what sort of trade deals can we get and how quickly,
:36:12. > :36:18.what would our relationship with the rest of the European Union look
:36:19. > :36:22.like, would we reform the free-trade arrangements, that is a lot of
:36:23. > :36:26.uncertainty. And big business doesn't like uncertainty. So I am
:36:27. > :36:33.unsurprised that most of the FTSE 100 want things as they are. Unless
:36:34. > :36:37.things are terrible, the status quo is the default option for those who
:36:38. > :36:44.are doing well out of it. So there would be uncertainty... That is an
:36:45. > :36:50.awful lot not to know. Do not also be uncertainty in staying in? I can
:36:51. > :36:55.understand the argument that there would be less uncertainty staying
:36:56. > :37:00.in, because it's the status quo, but the status quo isn't going to last
:37:01. > :37:03.forever, there is uncertainty in the future of migration policy,
:37:04. > :37:09.particularly if Turkey becomes closer to the EU, which is beginning
:37:10. > :37:16.to happen, the number of migrants we may face, we don't know how the
:37:17. > :37:19.Eurozone is going to consolidate itself in the future and exactly
:37:20. > :37:26.what the fallout would be for us. If you vote out you will probably get
:37:27. > :37:30.both sets of uncertainty, we can't kid ourselves we would be isolated
:37:31. > :37:35.from those problems. I think Mark would accept that it is the
:37:36. > :37:41.uncertainty of not even knowing what our relationship on trade would be
:37:42. > :37:45.with you is a huge one and would take is years, there is another risk
:37:46. > :37:52.to, we might end up where we are anyway. That hardly sounds like a
:37:53. > :37:56.risk. They are making the case that actually there is a future for us
:37:57. > :38:00.which is significantly better. It may be the case that the future is
:38:01. > :38:05.not that different. In that case leaving would not be a risk. To my
:38:06. > :38:12.mind, this goes to the confident around the UK, and this clinging to
:38:13. > :38:17.nurse for fear of worse idea. Do you believe that the UK, in the two
:38:18. > :38:22.years it would take to negotiate except from the U, could put in
:38:23. > :38:29.place sensible, pragmatic, improved trade deals with the rest of the EU
:38:30. > :38:33.and the world or do you think that the UK and our government, of
:38:34. > :38:39.whatever complexion, is incapable of doing so? It seems if you don't have
:38:40. > :38:43.confidence that the UK Government could put these things in place, you
:38:44. > :38:47.are probably better off being run by Brussels. If you are confident the
:38:48. > :38:51.UK Government can put these things in place over a two-year period, I
:38:52. > :38:59.don't see what the fear is of leaving. You point to some
:39:00. > :39:04.irritations, but they are quite minor, the jury is out on that one
:39:05. > :39:11.anyway. As we go about our daily lives, in what way does the European
:39:12. > :39:18.Union in pinch on us? You are right, the practically nothing is a side
:39:19. > :39:24.issue, it has not substantially diminished British GDP! But if it
:39:25. > :39:27.goes to the nature of the beast... Whilst there are substantial,
:39:28. > :39:32.serious issues confronting the European Union, the migrant crisis,
:39:33. > :39:36.the stability of the Eurozone, what we have in Brussels is committees of
:39:37. > :39:42.people dealing with trivial health and safety factors, that is not a
:39:43. > :39:48.major impact on the British economy but speaks to the nature of the EU.
:39:49. > :39:53.But today, in what way will it prints your life? Every single
:39:54. > :39:59.product you buy is readily to buy a used ended. Everything you buy in
:40:00. > :40:04.the shop will be dictated... What couldn't you buy here that you could
:40:05. > :40:11.buy in America? There are every conditions about confectionery. The
:40:12. > :40:16.issue is this. What I am worried about is the British government, who
:40:17. > :40:20.often hides behind the figleaf of European Union directives, it is not
:40:21. > :40:23.the case that we have a bunch of civil servants who are secret
:40:24. > :40:28.free-market Liberals, we have our own regulations but they will be
:40:29. > :40:32.ours and we will be able to hold to account the people making those
:40:33. > :40:37.regulations and argue about the pettiness and change them rather
:40:38. > :40:39.than looking across the water to Brussels bureaucracy nobody
:40:40. > :40:44.understands finds impenetrable. Thank you very much.
:40:45. > :40:46.Now as we were discussing earlier, the Labour backbencher Dan Jarvis -
:40:47. > :40:50.seen by many on the centre and right of the party as a future leader -
:40:51. > :40:53.has made a speech this morning setting out his vision
:40:54. > :40:56.His intervention comes amid speculation that a bad performance
:40:57. > :41:03.But is it Jeremy Corbyn's message or his delivery that's the problem?
:41:04. > :41:05.And could another figure from the Corbynite wing of the party
:41:06. > :41:10.do a better job at articulating that message?
:41:11. > :41:12.MUSIC: "I Still Believe" by Frank Turner
:41:13. > :41:22.The conveyor belt moves on and I've just been elevated up to here.
:41:23. > :41:34.I'm Cat Smith, I'm the MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood.
:41:35. > :41:40.And I've just been told that I have two minutes to try and sum up
:41:41. > :41:42.what has happened in the past 100 days,
:41:43. > :41:51.To get ready for today's speech, I went to my favourite local cafe,
:41:52. > :41:54.next to my house, called Jirasol, drank some excellent coffee
:41:55. > :41:58.setting this thing up a year ago, employing six people,
:41:59. > :42:02.doing really well and hopefully expanding in the future,
:42:03. > :42:06.because I fully understand the importance of innovation
:42:07. > :42:10.and supporting very small businesses in order to get underway
:42:11. > :42:12.and the work they do within our community.
:42:13. > :42:17.# Now anybody could take this stage...
:42:18. > :42:22.There is no issue that better illustrates the internationalism
:42:23. > :42:28.that is at the core of progressive politics than our commitment
:42:29. > :42:41.Let's go into that next election with a leader who has got
:42:42. > :42:47.a coherent economic strategy, so we don't see another failure.
:42:48. > :42:53.Jeremy was elected leader of the Labour Party
:42:54. > :42:55.by an overwhelming majority of the members and supporters
:42:56. > :43:00.on the basis of a programme that rested on three pillars.
:43:01. > :43:02.First, a new politics, the creation of a more democratic,
:43:03. > :43:08.engaging and kinder politics in both the Labour Party and society.
:43:09. > :43:12.We are getting there on the kinder bit.
:43:13. > :43:16.Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
:43:17. > :43:26.We're joined now by James Schneider, press adviser to Momentum,
:43:27. > :43:29.the grassroots movement designed to sustain Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
:43:30. > :43:35.Phil Collins from The Times remains with us.
:43:36. > :43:48.Is Mr Corbyn the best message of his vision? The best messenger?
:43:49. > :43:51.Absolutely. I think part of the problem of politics is a disconnect
:43:52. > :43:55.between Westminster and most people, who don't trust politicians and what
:43:56. > :43:59.they are saying. With Jeremy Corbyn, we have got somebody who doesn't
:44:00. > :44:03.seem like a traditional politician because he isn't. He seemed honest,
:44:04. > :44:07.straightforward and he's clearly on people's side. Use a disconnect, you
:44:08. > :44:12.have a leader who can connect with the several hundred thousand people
:44:13. > :44:18.who have recently joined the Labour Party, no doubt about that, but is
:44:19. > :44:21.there not a huge disconnect between these people and the wider
:44:22. > :44:25.electorate, otherwise you would be doing better in the polls? I don't
:44:26. > :44:30.think so, what we're seeing with the Corbyn project is rather than the
:44:31. > :44:33.traditional thing, PR led, bring your new product and your high point
:44:34. > :44:38.is at the beginning, when it is fresh, exciting, what Corbyn is
:44:39. > :44:44.doing is building a movement over the course of the next four years.
:44:45. > :44:47.There has to be a process of reconnecting with voters across
:44:48. > :44:51.communities which we can now do with this huge membership, we need to get
:44:52. > :44:55.that growing and we need to get people more active in their local
:44:56. > :45:00.parties. At the moment the polls are pretty dire both personally for Mr
:45:01. > :45:04.Corbyn and for the Labour Party. When would you expect to see, if
:45:05. > :45:10.your strategy is right, a turnaround in these polls? I think the polling
:45:11. > :45:19.position will grow and it will get better over the next four years. As
:45:20. > :45:21.the message homes and the opposition to a criticism of the Tory
:45:22. > :45:27.government builds, we will see the polls moving.
:45:28. > :45:33.Currency-macro so not in time for good results for Labour outside
:45:34. > :45:36.London in the May elections. Perfectly in time, we will have an
:45:37. > :45:41.extremely strong ground campaign in councils across the country and will
:45:42. > :45:46.see good results. In May? A good result would be winning the mayoral
:45:47. > :45:50.battle in London. What else would be a good result? Doing well in
:45:51. > :45:55.councils across the country, in Harlow, in Rotherham, across the
:45:56. > :46:04.country, doing well in whales. Does that mean winning seats, net gain?
:46:05. > :46:07.Holding councils, winning councils, advancing the councils, getting good
:46:08. > :46:11.councillors in. At the moment, it looks like the Scottish Nationalists
:46:12. > :46:15.will sweep to power again in Edinburgh and you lose overall
:46:16. > :46:20.control of the Welsh Assembly and between 200 and 400 seats, you will
:46:21. > :46:30.lose, net, in the English local elections. If that was to happen,
:46:31. > :46:34.your strategy would suffer something of a setback. I have not seen the
:46:35. > :46:37.polling that is based on. I expect things to be very difficult in
:46:38. > :46:41.Scotland, I think everybody understands that is going to be the
:46:42. > :46:45.case. I think we stand a very good chance of maintaining the position
:46:46. > :46:49.in whales and will be campaigning councils across the country. I am
:46:50. > :46:54.hearing figures bandied about but I'm not sure. Is it the man or the
:46:55. > :47:00.message? It is both. I think if you had a better messenger, you would
:47:01. > :47:04.have a more articulate exposition of a message that nobody wants to hear,
:47:05. > :47:08.but certainly it is both and the main trouble with Momentum is you
:47:09. > :47:12.haven't got any, no Momentum out of the party into the public at all.
:47:13. > :47:17.You are suggesting something completely unprecedented, which is
:47:18. > :47:20.you go backwards first and gradually this unheralded figure suddenly
:47:21. > :47:24.becomes really popular over time. It has never happened before and there
:47:25. > :47:28.is absolutely no reason to suppose beyond your mere assertion that it
:47:29. > :47:31.is ever going to happen. Why should anybody think that that, which has
:47:32. > :47:36.never happened before, that gradual recovery from a desperately low
:47:37. > :47:41.base, should happen? Let's hear from James Schneider. The Labour Party at
:47:42. > :47:45.the last election had a very difficult position, a lot of
:47:46. > :47:50.building back to do, and I think there wasn't that bank option which
:47:51. > :47:53.would immediately have hugely supported candidate across the
:47:54. > :47:57.country in the leadership election. I think with Jeremy Corbyn we have
:47:58. > :48:01.by miles our best chance to re-energise, as we have done,
:48:02. > :48:04.reenergise the party and reenergise activists and communities across the
:48:05. > :48:09.country and we will see the fruits of that as we go on and get a more
:48:10. > :48:14.activist Labour Party. At the moment, Mr Corbyn's net approval
:48:15. > :48:19.score is plus 55% among Labour voters, exactly what you are saying,
:48:20. > :48:25.he has got them... Sorry, among Labour members, he has got them, but
:48:26. > :48:30.only plus 17 among Labour voters and -24 among the wider electorate.
:48:31. > :48:34.Clearly we have to get the message across and I think what you can see
:48:35. > :48:37.is the people that know Corbyn the best and have seen the most about
:48:38. > :48:41.him like him the most. What we do need to do is make the message at
:48:42. > :48:46.times sharper but I think the message is essentially right. What
:48:47. > :48:49.we are seeing being built is a new economic strategy belt on
:48:50. > :48:55.investment, high technology. These are the things that are going to cut
:48:56. > :48:59.through. How long has he got to begin to show at least in the polls
:49:00. > :49:02.and in the by-elections and local Government elections in the next
:49:03. > :49:10.couple of years, that this is strategy is working? I don't see it
:49:11. > :49:14.being a significant... He is there until the election. Until 2020
:49:15. > :49:18.election. He has the support because Labour's membership, and lots of
:49:19. > :49:23.people right across the country, want to see a new strategy from
:49:24. > :49:26.Labour and also want to see a new alternative economic strategy and
:49:27. > :49:30.new political strategy for the country and that is the sort of
:49:31. > :49:42.change which Corbyn can bring and is bringing. We interviewed Jerry
:49:43. > :49:45.Durning earlier from Socialist Fight -- -- Gerry Downing. He has been
:49:46. > :49:52.kicked that, should he be allowed to be part of that? I don't know him
:49:53. > :49:57.but I am extremely uncomfortable about the views on the Jewish
:49:58. > :50:02.question. How big roles are you intending Momentum to play in the
:50:03. > :50:07.European referendum? -- how big a role. We need to meet to discuss
:50:08. > :50:13.that, which will probably happened in the second week of May. Only a
:50:14. > :50:17.month before the referendum? It will be seven or eight weeks. Our first
:50:18. > :50:22.priority is the May elections and building for the people's March for
:50:23. > :50:26.health, homes, jobs and education on the 16th of April. And very briefly,
:50:27. > :50:32.in your own view, would you like to campaign strongly to keep us in?
:50:33. > :50:36.Personally, yes, I would like to see a social Europe. I think we are
:50:37. > :50:40.better in Europe, we can deal with tax avoidance, environmental issues.
:50:41. > :50:45.But Momentum as an organisation won't decide until after the May
:50:46. > :50:48.five elections? Probably. Come back and tell us what you think.
:50:49. > :50:50.So much for Labour's future - what about Labour's past?
:50:51. > :50:52.Tony Blair is the subject of a new biography
:50:53. > :50:54.by the investigative journalist Tom Bower.
:50:55. > :50:56.Broken Vows - Tony Blair and the Tragedy of Power.
:50:57. > :50:59.As the title suggests, the book's not got many good things
:51:00. > :51:00.to say about the former Prime Minister.
:51:01. > :51:03.One of Tom Bower's suggestions is that Tony Blair did a secret deal
:51:04. > :51:07.with George Bush to go to war in Iraq - something that was put
:51:08. > :51:09.to the former Prime Minister at the Chilcott Inquiry.
:51:10. > :51:11.During the course of these discussions,
:51:12. > :51:14.do you think you gave him any commitments?
:51:15. > :51:17.The only commitment I gave, and I gave this very openly
:51:18. > :51:21.at the meeting, was a commitment to deal with Saddam.
:51:22. > :51:23.So you were at one that you had to deal with...
:51:24. > :51:25.Absolutely, and that wasn't a private commitment,
:51:26. > :51:31.So you were agreed on the end, but not by the means?
:51:32. > :51:34.So you were agreed on the end, but not on the means?
:51:35. > :51:37.Well, we were agreed on both, actually, as it came to you finally,
:51:38. > :51:40.but we were agreed that we had to confront this issue,
:51:41. > :51:42.that Saddam had to come back into compliance
:51:43. > :51:46.and as I think I said in a press conference with President Bush,
:51:47. > :51:52.the method of doing that is open. And indeed, he made the same point.
:51:53. > :51:59.And we are joined now by Tom Bower, welcome to the programme. Let me
:52:00. > :52:04.come straight to what for many people is the biggest question of
:52:05. > :52:08.all for Mr Blair, did he take us into the invasion of Iraq knowing
:52:09. > :52:15.that there were no weapons of mass destruction? No, he thought there
:52:16. > :52:23.were. Because of the intelligence services? Yes. And so it was a
:52:24. > :52:28.mistake, he made the mistake of believing them, but he did not, us,
:52:29. > :52:34.if I can put it that way? Well, he did not con us about WMD is, but he
:52:35. > :52:39.had corrupted the Government machine which would have tested MI6's
:52:40. > :52:46.intelligence and found it wanting, he short-circuited it, but what my
:52:47. > :52:51.book shows and argues is that the WMDs was the smoke screen, he had
:52:52. > :52:58.believed in regime change from 1998 onwards. Was that the Chicago
:52:59. > :53:03.speech? Before Chicago, when he bombed Iraq with Bill Clinton, so at
:53:04. > :53:08.the 9/11, he wanted to remove Saddam but he knew the regime change was
:53:09. > :53:14.illegal so WMDs, he could show that Saddam had breached UN resolutions,
:53:15. > :53:18.he could say we were going after the WMDs, because unlike Bush, who was
:53:19. > :53:24.allowed regime change, he needed a different excuse. And you think he
:53:25. > :53:29.made an agreement -- an agreement with President Bush for the
:53:30. > :53:35.invasion, in Texas? Long before that. What many of us think is the
:53:36. > :53:40.central part of the Chilcott inquiry, what evidence have you been
:53:41. > :53:45.able to bring to show that there was a Bush Blair deal on the invasion?
:53:46. > :53:51.It is quite clear from all of the memos from the British Embassy
:53:52. > :53:56.before Crawford in April, at the ranch in Texas, that they had agreed
:53:57. > :54:00.on the invasion. The Americans had agreed on it already before the turn
:54:01. > :54:04.of the year in 2001 and the British, through their conversations with
:54:05. > :54:09.Bush and Blair, had agreed they would go along. So Crawford, a ranch
:54:10. > :54:14.in Texas, was not the beginning of the process, it was the end. At that
:54:15. > :54:18.stage, they put the seal on it and the Americans started the plans for
:54:19. > :54:23.invasion. The British were excluded until they formally committed.
:54:24. > :54:27.Blair, as I show in the book, conducted all these things in secret
:54:28. > :54:31.by keeping a very tight number of people involved and it all changed
:54:32. > :54:36.on the 26th of July 2002 when Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6,
:54:37. > :54:39.comes back from Washington and says the invasion is on we either have to
:54:40. > :54:43.commit ourselves or not. At that stage, he had to bring in more
:54:44. > :54:46.people to begin preparing and at that stage, it slowly becomes more
:54:47. > :54:51.apparent but he is at all times committed. What is remarkable and
:54:52. > :54:57.comes out in the book is that the Cabinet didn't know until January
:54:58. > :55:02.2,000 and three. Only Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon knew about it but even
:55:03. > :55:07.they were kept away. -- 2003. It was a very tightly kept secret. So he
:55:08. > :55:10.did a deal to go to war than we did not know about? It depends on what
:55:11. > :55:14.you think about when a commitment was made. If that was the case, why
:55:15. > :55:18.go to Parliament and have a vote? Why risk that, if you say he had a
:55:19. > :55:22.commitment and had the wherewithal to put the commitment into effect?
:55:23. > :55:30.He went to Parliament on the eve of war in March 2003. He could have
:55:31. > :55:35.lost the vote and then couldn't have gone to war, so the point stands,
:55:36. > :55:41.why go? He had to carry public opinion. He also had to carry his
:55:42. > :55:44.own party. So therefore the commitment is not worth something
:55:45. > :55:53.until you can get the binding into a resolution of those... It is his own
:55:54. > :55:59.view, which as we said from a long time back, his own view of world
:56:00. > :56:02.politics was as it was. 45,000 British troops were ready on the
:56:03. > :56:08.border of Iraq. The British fleet was already off the coast. So why
:56:09. > :56:12.have a vote in Parliament about whether to go to war and you vote to
:56:13. > :56:16.say, you cannot then say, we haven't even thought about having any
:56:17. > :56:21.troops. Those troops would have had to have been withdrawn. But it was a
:56:22. > :56:25.done deal, he had the Tory party support, so he had no doubt he would
:56:26. > :56:29.get a majority in parliament. There was never a doubt about that.
:56:30. > :56:34.Overlooking it all, I have not finished the book yet, but would it
:56:35. > :56:42.be unfair to say, because it is a very critical book, that you regard
:56:43. > :56:47.Mr Blair almost as... Is this too strong a word? Almost as a
:56:48. > :56:52.charlatan? No, that is accurate. It came as a surprise to people, people
:56:53. > :56:56.always think I start these books without prejudice, but believe me, I
:56:57. > :57:00.was just curious. I just wondered what happened in that ten years of
:57:01. > :57:06.Government. We have had Blair's book, 35 other books all described
:57:07. > :57:09.in great virtues by Prescott, Jack Straw, Blunkett, and I went to the
:57:10. > :57:13.civil servants and the ministers and the generals and the rest and ask
:57:14. > :57:16.them what happened and it is a very different picture to what we,
:57:17. > :57:24.through the brilliance Labour spin, believe. He was surprisingly
:57:25. > :57:28.unprepared for power. Fatally unprepared. It completely threw him
:57:29. > :57:33.off course. Even though he knew he was going to win. And worse, he is
:57:34. > :57:36.an intelligent man but his great weaknesses he was an educated and if
:57:37. > :57:42.you are not educated of Government in history, you make the sort of
:57:43. > :57:45.mistakes he made, and that was the tragedy, that is why it is The
:57:46. > :57:51.Tragedy of Power, because he could have been a phenomenal success and
:57:52. > :57:55.was his own worst enemy. Even among his supporters, there was a huge
:57:56. > :58:00.wasted opportunity. We look back on that day in May 19 97. That is true,
:58:01. > :58:03.the part of the book I agree with is the Government was not prepared for
:58:04. > :58:06.power, I don't think they knew what they wanted to do and in some areas
:58:07. > :58:12.where they did know what they wanted to do, they did the wrong things, so
:58:13. > :58:16.he subsequently had to undo things urgently. The Labour Party hated the
:58:17. > :58:21.subsequent reforms, that is when he became really unpopular in his own
:58:22. > :58:24.party. We need to leave it there, whether you disagree or agree, it is
:58:25. > :58:26.a great read, so thank you very much, Tom Bower.
:58:27. > :58:29.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:30. > :58:32.The question was which beach did David Cameron say he'd enjoyed
:58:33. > :58:39.visiting, but unfortunately spelled its name wrong?
:58:40. > :58:56.Is it Holkham? Yes, he said he had enjoyed visiting Holcombe, but that
:58:57. > :58:58.is in Devon. When the pace is fast or
:58:59. > :59:14.the traffic is slow...