10/03/2016 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.

The government's plans to extend shop opening hours in England

and Wales have been defeated - but should Scottish MPs have

Should this self-confessed Trotskyite who's been accused

of justifying the 9/11 hijackers be a member of the Labour Party?

I'll be talking to Gerry Downing, who's just been expelled

David Cameron says he'll start making the positive case for staying

in the EU - one of his cabinet ministers says he's not impressed

with the PM's deal on our membership - we'll have the latest

And Tony Blair is the Labour party's most successful leader -

but is his record something the party should celebrate

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration today

is Tony Blair's former speechwriter - now Times columnist,

Phil Collins - welcome to the programme.

Now - Phil Collins has spent the morning chairing a meeting

of the Labour think tank Demos - the star speaker was a man talked

of in some quarters as a future leader of the party -

Cameras weren't allowed in to listen to the speech by the Barnsley MP

who ruled himself out of last year's leadership race -

but journalists were - including sketch-writer,

I was pleasantly surprised. I went in with very little expectation.

Jarvis has a great back story, he was a paratrooper who raised his

children on his own after his wife died but he hasn't been an MP for

long and little was known about him. He didn't make a great speech but he

made a good speech, much better than what had been trailed to the morning

papers, which one of my colleagues described as the EU warned of a new

era! It was personal, but his narrative, he spoke honestly about

the failings of Labour in government as well as the current government,

and set out some of his ideas. It was a Blairite piece of

triangulation, but this time between old Labour, currently running the

party, and new Labour, he was trying to play himself in the middle. --

place himself. It was the firing gun, but he was keen to say it

wasn't a leadership challenge right now. Given he is not that well-known

outside political circles, why didn't he let the cameras in? I

don't know, 24 hours live from Demos... I don't know the answer, it

wouldn't be the organisation that didn't want the cameras, we would

love to have them. It was an interesting speech. He is right, we

don't know a lot about Dan Jarvis. Anyone who can start a speech with,

"I have been to war three times" would be hard to attack. He does

things for the party nobody else could do. From the trenches of

Helmand to the green benches of Westminster, I liked that line. If

he is serious about down the road, he has the raise his profile. Yes,

he has to show he can speech, he has ideas, and some of these were

starting to be built. He was also distancing himself from a lot of new

Labour without totally damning them. Without mentioning Peter Mandelson,

he said there were people in new Labour, who were... Intensely

relaxed... About people being for the rich. He also said the Labour

Party has to realise, we are on the side of the workers and generate

help for them through having a successful economy. Was this the

starting gun? I don't mean to trigger a leadership attempt this

year, but the starting gun for a long march towards an attempted

leadership? I think inevitably it is: you don't do a look at me speech

if you don't want people to look at you, I don't think it is the start

of a coup, but in a sense, it was, here am I, here are my arguments and

if there should be a vacancy, don't forget about me! Where would you

position him? Would it be right to position him in the centre of the

Labour Party? I think the next leader is probably going to come

from the soft left of the Labour Party so I think it was an attempt

to talk about things like that. There are a lot of things Ed

Miliband would have been comfortable saying, it just sounds different

coming from Dan Jarvis, partly because we don't know about him but

party has the background which makes you think differently. Tactically,

it is a clever thing to do, positioned himself with the soft

left. This morning he is speaking to labour people, inside Westminster,

how would he go down with the broader British electorate? They

know next to nothing about him and so repeatedly, of course they will

only see it from what they read because the TV cameras weren't

there, he was trying to base himself, he spoke about Barnsley a

lot, talked about when things were going well when Labour were in

government, they saw it on television but didn't feel it in

their own bank balances, he is trying to get out into the country.

I think at the moment David Cameron is playing PMQ 's on the easy

setting. He needs someone to raise his game and George Osborne to raise

his game. There is plenty of time before the next election.

Last night the SNP joined forces with Tory rebels to block

the government's plans to devolve Sunday shopping hours

An amendment tabled by Conservative MP David Burrowes removing

the changes was carried, despite the PM's personally

intervening to try and convince his colleagues.

Yes, Nicola Sturgeon's party have helped to shut the door on longer

new rules in the Commons designed to stop Scots MP's blocking laws

which don't affect their constituents,

so called England Votes for English Laws.

But EVEL did not apply to proposed changes to Sunday trading yesterday,

because other parts of the Enterprise Bill apply

Now some English MPs are now calling for it to be extended to prevent

Scottish MPs having any say on legislation that does not apply

We asked the SNP for an interview but our request was declined. But we

will speak to Nicola Sturgeon this weekend.

We're joined now by the Conservative MP Philip Davies.

So it turns out EVEL wasn't worth the paper it was written on? No, it

doesn't deliver what English voters think it is, it delivers an English

veto for English laws, basically it stops things being imposed on

England against the wishes of England but doesn't mean that

English MPs can positively make a difference to England without other

people interfering, England has been sold a bit of a turkey, it doesn't

deliver English votes for English laws. Was it also a mess to put this

particular measure applying to England and Wales into a bill which

did have Scottish things in it? Shouldn't have made a difference

because you still need on these issues, a double majority, of the

whole house, and of English MPs. So whichever Bilby government put this

into, Scottish MPs could have torpedoed it in the way that they

did anyway. If Scottish MPs who have their own opening hours, more

liberal than down here, they have voted against liberalisation down

here, if they can argue that that has some connection with Scotland

and an impact on Scotland, then almost anything has an impact on

Scotland, you could argue. The Sunday trading laws in Scotland are

completely deregulated, you can shop at any hour of the day in Scotland,

this is all about, as far as I can see, the SNP, in advance of the

Scottish elections, trying to show to their voters that they are more

effective opposition than the Labour Party are, this is all about the

pathetic kind of competition with the Labour Party in Scotland,

nothing to do with Sunday trading, they are happy with their

deregulated hours in Scotland, it's a political game they are playing in

advance of the election. If you wanted to criticise the government,

they could put the measure after the Scottish election. None of this

could have happened if the amendment had been moved by a conservative

colleague of yours. There were 27 conservative rebels, they are

principled people, on religious grounds, they felt strongly about

this. I have no quibble about that. They voted on this because of their

own personal principle and nobody can argue with that. But the SNP

were not voting on any principle at all. It's interesting that they

can't get Tory votes for Tory laws. Despite the personal intervention of

the Prime Minister, who was getting people to talk to them, people were

not been persuaded. Every one of them I am sure has a marvellous

principled reason, but a disciplined party doesn't do this. Mrs Thatcher

lost a three line whip on Sunday trading, when she had a huge

majority, this always raises... What were the books doing? Identity

anyone would say that her as government wasn't disciplined and

effective. This has an issue... Quite poor parliamentary management

to lose a vote. You must know that you're going to lose a vote by 30 if

you are a whip and then wonder why you went ahead with the boat but

that shouldn't get the SNP off the hook by acting in a way that is

unjustified. Though they're now be a head of steam of the Tory

backbenches to toughen up the English votes for English laws? I

hope so, I raised it today in business questions that we need to

revisit this and deliver real English votes for English laws which

is what being this public think is happening. It is a bit of a turkey

and the only thing that has come out of this vote is that now it is

therefore all to see that we don't actually have English votes for

laws. In the end the only way to secure it is that for a couple of

days the building across the road becomes English parliament dealing

with English only matters. That's one way around it. I don't have a

problem with dealing with it built by Bill, all I want is we have a

situation where English and Welsh MPs can vote on issues that only

affect their constituents and Scottish MPs can't come down and

veto something. I asked that if Scottish MPs want to vote on these

things in Westminster, let's bring the powers back from Holyrood to

Westminster that will soon sort them out! If we return the power back to

dispense to. I think there is a moved south of the border that if

the Scots are in complete control of certain major domestic areas, like

Sunday trading, the things that affect us in England, that should be

down to the people we elect. I think there is, and it's obviously a

slight change of heart from Scottish Nationalists, it was clear before

the election that they would not interfere on votes of this kind. You

can always say there are implications, but as you said, that

can apply to anything. This seems a clear breach of something Nicola

Sturgeon was pretty candid on before the election. I think it will

inevitably mean that we will go back and look at the English votes for

English laws to see if it can be toughened up. Will that happen? I

hope so, whether the government has the appetite for it, I don't know,

but there is a feeling on the backbenches that we have to sort

this out. The question for today

is all about where David Cameron He's written a piece for one

regional paper extolling the beauty of the local area and reminiscing

about the trips he's enjoyed there. Unfortunately he'd also spelled

the name of one famous beach wrong. Now - yesterday David Cameron used

Prime Minister's questions to attack the Labour Party for re-admitting

into their ranks someone who the PM said had defended both Islamic State

and the 9/11 hijackers. In a moment we will be talking

to the man in question. First here is the Prime

Minister yesterday. We are protecting counterterrorism

policing and investing in our intelligence

and security services, as we did

in the last parliament. In terms of Iraq and Syria,

we are making good progress at pushing Daesh back,

this is something we need to do both But I have to say, I was completely

appalled to see yesterday that the Labour Party has readmitted

someone to their party who says, and I believe, that the "9/11

suicide bombers must never be condemned", and belongs

to an organisation that says, "we defend Islamic State

in Syria and Iraq." Those are appalling views and I hope

the Leader of the Opposition will throw this person

out of the party rather who was expelled from the Labour

Party again last night was "further evidence that

has come to light". welcome to the programme, we will

come onto 9/11 and Islamic State in a minute, but the organisation you

are part of, Socialist Fight,, says Mr Advocaat marks, support

revolutionary socialism, so why do you want to be in the Labour Party

-- support, arcs. It has traditionally been the party of the

working class. It is linked to the trade unions and organically, it

reflects the class consciousness of the class itself. Would it be fair

to say that you see being a part of the member party as a tactical move,

in your view of bourgeois party like the Labour Party couldn't bring

about in itself the kind of changes you want? It can bring about some of

the changes, of course, but it cannot actually get rid of

capitalism itself, but it can advance the cause of the working

class seriously and because of the working class has been in decline

now since 1997, I believe, when the GE coefficient shows the balance of

wealth flowing from the poor to the rich. Do you work with Labour people

at the moment? We have some footage of you on a platform here with John

McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. Are you quite close to John

McDonnell? No, I am not a personal friend of his, that was a dispute at

my workplace, where I was sacked unjustly and he came to defend me

because we admit in the Labour representation committee -- we had

met. He stood on a picket line outside the bus garage and it

secured my reinstatement and my job, so I think he owed some justice for

me and I was very pleased but I am not a friend as such. Do you work

with many Labour people? I am a member of the Central Labour Party

and I am on the GC. You are a member? Well, I had been until last

night. Either way, everybody tells me I was expelled last night but

nobody has bothered inform me, no communication whatsoever. The Prime

Minister yesterday said that you had defended the 9/11 hijackers and you

said that had been taken out of context. Had it? Yes, indeed, and I

don't support politically ISIS and I don't support the 9/11 attack in any

way whatsoever. What I was doing was to explain the reasons for it and

the reasons for the attack are basically what imperialism did in

the Middle East. But you did right, of the 9/11 attack, you said it is

the "Justified outrage of the oppressed as opposed to the outrage

of the oppressor. " The first you say is progressive no matter how

distorted and you said "Must never be condemned, that is the entirely

understandable motivation for 9/11 and suicide bombers." Yes, well, I

would explain it in this way. Back in 1996, Madeleine Albright was

asked what she thought of the fact that half a million Iraqi children

had died because of the US sanctions and she was asked if she thought the

price was worth it and she said, "This is a very hard choice, but the

price, we think the prizes worth it." It would be to be appalled by

Madeleine Albright's reply and not say the 9/11 bombers should never be

condemned. I think you would have to say that in those circumstances, the

first thing you have to do is to understand why that happened. It

didn't happen because these are madmen or because they are lunatics

or because they are bad people, it happened because they were outraged

at what had happened to their land. Most of the 9/11 bombers came from

Saudi Arabia. But do you still not condemn the 9/11 attack? I wouldn't

use the phrase "Condemn", because I think like it was said, I have

striven not to laugh that human actions, not to weep or hate them,

but understand them, so if you understand them... So you would

understand rather than condemn. I would understand the motivation of

the people that did that. The article that is referred to is an

article that says the ridiculous conspiracy theories about 9/11 are

entirely wrong. You attack the conspiracy theories. On Islamic

State, the Prime Minister again mentioned that you had supported

Islamic State and in terms of tactical military assistance, you

do, don't you? No, I don't. I don't support them militarily or

politically in any way. Can I put the quote to you, from your group

that you are a key member of? You say," you mentioned the Taliban and

the Sunni and sheer, Hamas, Gaddafi, Assad, the Islamic State, we give no

military support to that, but we recognise the US-led world

imperialism is the main enemy of humanity, so we do advocate critical

support and tactical military assistance from the working class to

all those fighting for the defeat of imperialism, "Referring to all of

the groups above, meaning Islamic State. Well if you think what has

happened in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, these countries were

all bombed by America. These countries have their infrastructure

totally degraded, over a million people killed, apparently, in Iraq,

and it has produced absolutely no progressive outlook, this states --

the states have no democracy, they are worse than when it happened. I

understand that, very legitimate line of argument and many people

across the political spectrum will share that but you say as a result

of that, you advocate critical support and tactical military

assistance to groups like Islamic State. Tactical support means that

we are opposed to the US bombing of them. We would not be for the US

bombing, because first of all, US bombing involves the killing of what

they call collateral damage, that is a vast number of civilians. And what

about tactical military assistance, what would that require or involve?

If you analyse world imperialism as the main enemy, you always oppose

its actions, that follows logic. You would always be for driving out US

imperialism from the Middle East, etc. You have also said that we need

to confront the Jewish question. What is the Jewish question? Well,

the fact that Israel can commit absolutely heinous crimes against

the Palestinians, they can bomb them without let or hindrance and this is

presented in the Western media as an attack on terrorists. That is

Israel, that is not the Jewish question. It is Zionism, as such. I

am interested, because you talk about Zionism a lot. You and your

group say that Zionism plays a major role in politics, all the advanced

capitalist countries. You say that the Zionists are behind the

witchhunt against Jeremy Corbyn. You say that Zionists hold great sway

over our three main political parties. You say that Zionism is the

vanguard of injecting anti-Muslim hatred into Western politics. You

say Zionism is on the vanguard in a capitalist offensive against the

workers. It would sound, when you see all that, that for you, the

Jewish question is a Zionist conspiracy. Doesn't all that add up

to a conspiracy? No, it doesn't. It adds up to something very material

and that is the number of millionaires and billionaires of

Zionist persuasion within the American ruling class and within the

European ruling classes in general. It is their economic and political

power that leads to ridiculous situations. You think that Zionists,

as you call them, play a key role in that? They obviously do play a key

role. They have dual citizenship, most of them. Isn't that very

reminiscent of what the Nazis said in Germany in the 1930s, there were

these rich Jews controlling the German economy? Indeed, no. Look, if

you want to take what Benjamin Netanyahu says, he says that

actually the Holocaust was caused by the grand mufti of Jerusalem and not

by the Nazis. With respect, I don't have Mr Netanyahu to interview, I

have you and I just think that if you list all these things you accuse

of Zionism, it sounds very much bulk-macro I don't want to push this

too far but I would suggest people listening to this, they will hear

shades of the protocols of Zion. I reject totally the protocols of

Zion, this is based on the material, political fact of the overwhelming

political authority of Zionist politicians within the ruling

classes of America and Europe. It is not to do with their actual Jewish

origins, as such. You have been listening to this. I suspect you are

happy, I mean I am pre-empting this, that Mr Downing is not in a Labour

Party now? Absolutely. Outrageous. Tactical support for ISIS, the

Jewish question. I am a member of the Labour Party and I'm delighted

you are not. I hope they will call you this afternoon to confirm you

are not, because there is no place in the party for those kind of use.

Nor is their impact on your less toxic but nevertheless non-labour

views about social revolution is on. Labour is not committed to the

overthrow of capitalism. Trade unions are remedial organisation to

get a better deal for their workers and very good they are too, but they

are not rubidium organisation so given that alone, you have no place

in the Labour Party. You may have the final word. I believe one of the

motivations for readmitting me at the time was politicians like Keir

Hardie etc said something is very similar to that in the past and the

ambition to overthrow capitalism is a very legitimate political

ambition, if you take the state of the planet today. You feel that

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party is a more welcoming party feel sort of

socialism? I think it should be, if it allows in Ukip councillors who

defect and it allows in people from the far right of that nature, I

cannot see why you shouldn't allow in people like me. Will you appeal

against the decision? I will, of course. Thank you. Don't go away

just yet. Now it's 19 days since the deal

was done on our membership of the EU But don't worry -

there are still more than three And the pace doesn't seem

to be slowing. Luckily our political correspondent,

Vicki Young, has been keeping up Let's go straight to her,

overlooking Westminster. So speeches by the Prime Minister, obviously

poor remain, and for Macklin it from Cabinet Minister Grayling for leave,

what are they telling us? We are being told by Downing Street that

today's speech by the Prime Minister will be 80% positive, they say,

talking about what he sees as the economic benefits, before he goes on

to one that we are all going to end up paying higher mortgages because

interest rates will come under pressure if we do leave the EU. What

they have done, the remain side, is dug out a load of quotes for those

who are campaigning to leave, which they say shows that people on the

other side willing to sacrifice people's jobs in the United Kingdom

and they talk about this thing, the Nike tick, you will have seen it on

your trainers, Andrew, the idea that if we leave the EU, there will be a

downturn but in the long term, we go up and there is a huge recovery. It

is insulting to those on the other side and Chris Grayling was asked

and said it would be a lively debate. He has talked about

sovereignty, about this place. He has been very rude about the deal

the Prime Minister got in Brussels after all of the negotiations and

says it hasn't achieved anything, that the parliament here isn't

sovereign and the EU is in crunching on all parts of our lives,

including, he says, things like vacuum cleaners -- encroaching. We

have heard from Mr Cameron, Mr Grayling, have we heard from the

Queen yet today on Europe? We haven't and as you know, this is a

very sensitive subject. You will remember when the Prime Minister let

slip and said the Queen had heard them the phone at him when he told

her the result of the Scottish referendum -- had purred down the

phone. He had to issue a grovelling apology. This story from the Sun, a

great story, because we will never know what was said in the room, so

we can endlessly speculate. People have tried to put the pieces

together, saying if it happened on this date, not only was declared

their but also a certain Michael Gove, said the finger being pointed

at him but his advisers saying he has no idea where the story came

from. The palace is denying it is true, Nick Clegg is denying it, but

the editor of the newspaper is sticking to it, saying they have two

sources for the story. It goes back to 2011. I think the headline which

said the Queen was in favour of Brexit is probably just a twinkle in

the eye at that time, so it was a long time ago we cannot establish

the facts. I understand the were two sources,

but they were both corgi dogs! Now - some people's minds will be

changed over the next three months - But what makes someone go

from committed europhile Here's the director of the Institute

of Economic Affairs, I used to believe in the European

dream, a free market, liberal and open democratic

brotherhood of man. So inspired was I by this

vision that 20 years ago, I even became president of the UK

branch of the Young European With every passing year,

I've had to come to terms with the European Union as it is,

not as I would like it to be. The EU has become a sprawling,

inefficient, petty, self obsessed bureaucracy, with a vociferous

appetite for controlling nearly every aspect of our

lives, however tiny. It is wonderful that we have had

peace in most of Europe for over 70 years, but that has not been brought

about by Eurocrats issuing directives, stipulating the maximum

suction power of a vacuum cleaner. Worse still, the EU has failed

to tackle the big issues. Rules around the single currency

have largely been observed Only Luxembourg has abided

consistently with the convergence And the migrant crisis has found

the European Union badly wanting. These might be surmountable problem

is if the European Union had To witness the British Prime

Minister staying up, negotiating till half past

five in the morning, arguing over how he would be allowed

to spend about ?25 million worth of child benefit, barely 0.1%

of our total welfare spending, It is true that leaving

the European Union would involve some uncertainties and even a few

risks, but virtually every substantial human achievement

involves having the guts And, of course, how Britain would

look outside of the European Union It means remaining remember club

which has a very different agenda to that of the United Kingdom

and merely having a seat around that table, especially if that seat

is occupied by a Prime Minister who has deluded himself that the EU

has substantially reformed, The referendum will split

families, political parties Even my own think tank

takes no corporate view But I have reached the personal

conclusion that the brave, self-confident, forward-looking step

to take is to vote leave on June 23. As if by magic, he joins us here,

not far to walk! You were once the president of the UK branch of the

Young European Federalists. So I guess you didn't get out much when

you were a junk! It felt like a good hobby at the time! Mark's journey is

not uncommon. Many people have made this journey, of his generation and

older, who without doubt voted to stay in England in 75 and there are

either saying, I'm not going to do that again, or I am more uncertain,

something has changed. Yes, 40 years of history, also some of the

justifications for the EU back then seem like ancient history now, war

was a much bigger presence in British life back then and doesn't

really feature now in the debate. So we are 40 years on and it's very

different stop anyone who has ever had dealings with the EU tends to

become more sceptical of it then you were before. I have had some

dealings myself and you cannot help being frustrated by its endless

delays, the sort of things Mark was saying. I don't myself conclude it

is better to come out because you candidly said that there are risks

with coming out, I would be interested to hear what you think

they are. I think it is true that if you want certainty about where

Britain is going to be the next five years you should probably vote to

remain, if you care about certainty can you should vote to remain. It is

a powerful impulse. I am conceding that out is less certain than in.

The risks are, what sort of trade deals can we get and how quickly,

what would our relationship with the rest of the European Union look

like, would we reform the free-trade arrangements, that is a lot of

uncertainty. And big business doesn't like uncertainty. So I am

unsurprised that most of the FTSE 100 want things as they are. Unless

things are terrible, the status quo is the default option for those who

are doing well out of it. So there would be uncertainty... That is an

awful lot not to know. Do not also be uncertainty in staying in? I can

understand the argument that there would be less uncertainty staying

in, because it's the status quo, but the status quo isn't going to last

forever, there is uncertainty in the future of migration policy,

particularly if Turkey becomes closer to the EU, which is beginning

to happen, the number of migrants we may face, we don't know how the

Eurozone is going to consolidate itself in the future and exactly

what the fallout would be for us. If you vote out you will probably get

both sets of uncertainty, we can't kid ourselves we would be isolated

from those problems. I think Mark would accept that it is the

uncertainty of not even knowing what our relationship on trade would be

with you is a huge one and would take is years, there is another risk

to, we might end up where we are anyway. That hardly sounds like a

risk. They are making the case that actually there is a future for us

which is significantly better. It may be the case that the future is

not that different. In that case leaving would not be a risk. To my

mind, this goes to the confident around the UK, and this clinging to

nurse for fear of worse idea. Do you believe that the UK, in the two

years it would take to negotiate except from the U, could put in

place sensible, pragmatic, improved trade deals with the rest of the EU

and the world or do you think that the UK and our government, of

whatever complexion, is incapable of doing so? It seems if you don't have

confidence that the UK Government could put these things in place, you

are probably better off being run by Brussels. If you are confident the

UK Government can put these things in place over a two-year period, I

don't see what the fear is of leaving. You point to some

irritations, but they are quite minor, the jury is out on that one

anyway. As we go about our daily lives, in what way does the European

Union in pinch on us? You are right, the practically nothing is a side

issue, it has not substantially diminished British GDP! But if it

goes to the nature of the beast... Whilst there are substantial,

serious issues confronting the European Union, the migrant crisis,

the stability of the Eurozone, what we have in Brussels is committees of

people dealing with trivial health and safety factors, that is not a

major impact on the British economy but speaks to the nature of the EU.

But today, in what way will it prints your life? Every single

product you buy is readily to buy a used ended. Everything you buy in

the shop will be dictated... What couldn't you buy here that you could

buy in America? There are every conditions about confectionery. The

issue is this. What I am worried about is the British government, who

often hides behind the figleaf of European Union directives, it is not

the case that we have a bunch of civil servants who are secret

free-market Liberals, we have our own regulations but they will be

ours and we will be able to hold to account the people making those

regulations and argue about the pettiness and change them rather

than looking across the water to Brussels bureaucracy nobody

understands finds impenetrable. Thank you very much.

Now as we were discussing earlier, the Labour backbencher Dan Jarvis -

seen by many on the centre and right of the party as a future leader -

has made a speech this morning setting out his vision

His intervention comes amid speculation that a bad performance

But is it Jeremy Corbyn's message or his delivery that's the problem?

And could another figure from the Corbynite wing of the party

do a better job at articulating that message?

MUSIC: "I Still Believe" by Frank Turner

The conveyor belt moves on and I've just been elevated up to here.

I'm Cat Smith, I'm the MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood.

And I've just been told that I have two minutes to try and sum up

what has happened in the past 100 days,

To get ready for today's speech, I went to my favourite local cafe,

next to my house, called Jirasol, drank some excellent coffee

setting this thing up a year ago, employing six people,

doing really well and hopefully expanding in the future,

because I fully understand the importance of innovation

and supporting very small businesses in order to get underway

and the work they do within our community.

# Now anybody could take this stage...

There is no issue that better illustrates the internationalism

that is at the core of progressive politics than our commitment

Let's go into that next election with a leader who has got

a coherent economic strategy, so we don't see another failure.

Jeremy was elected leader of the Labour Party

by an overwhelming majority of the members and supporters

on the basis of a programme that rested on three pillars.

First, a new politics, the creation of a more democratic,

engaging and kinder politics in both the Labour Party and society.

We are getting there on the kinder bit.

Thank you very much for inviting me here today.

We're joined now by James Schneider, press adviser to Momentum,

the grassroots movement designed to sustain Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Phil Collins from The Times remains with us.

Is Mr Corbyn the best message of his vision? The best messenger?

Absolutely. I think part of the problem of politics is a disconnect

between Westminster and most people, who don't trust politicians and what

they are saying. With Jeremy Corbyn, we have got somebody who doesn't

seem like a traditional politician because he isn't. He seemed honest,

straightforward and he's clearly on people's side. Use a disconnect, you

have a leader who can connect with the several hundred thousand people

who have recently joined the Labour Party, no doubt about that, but is

there not a huge disconnect between these people and the wider

electorate, otherwise you would be doing better in the polls? I don't

think so, what we're seeing with the Corbyn project is rather than the

traditional thing, PR led, bring your new product and your high point

is at the beginning, when it is fresh, exciting, what Corbyn is

doing is building a movement over the course of the next four years.

There has to be a process of reconnecting with voters across

communities which we can now do with this huge membership, we need to get

that growing and we need to get people more active in their local

parties. At the moment the polls are pretty dire both personally for Mr

Corbyn and for the Labour Party. When would you expect to see, if

your strategy is right, a turnaround in these polls? I think the polling

position will grow and it will get better over the next four years. As

the message homes and the opposition to a criticism of the Tory

government builds, we will see the polls moving.

Currency-macro so not in time for good results for Labour outside

London in the May elections. Perfectly in time, we will have an

extremely strong ground campaign in councils across the country and will

see good results. In May? A good result would be winning the mayoral

battle in London. What else would be a good result? Doing well in

councils across the country, in Harlow, in Rotherham, across the

country, doing well in whales. Does that mean winning seats, net gain?

Holding councils, winning councils, advancing the councils, getting good

councillors in. At the moment, it looks like the Scottish Nationalists

will sweep to power again in Edinburgh and you lose overall

control of the Welsh Assembly and between 200 and 400 seats, you will

lose, net, in the English local elections. If that was to happen,

your strategy would suffer something of a setback. I have not seen the

polling that is based on. I expect things to be very difficult in

Scotland, I think everybody understands that is going to be the

case. I think we stand a very good chance of maintaining the position

in whales and will be campaigning councils across the country. I am

hearing figures bandied about but I'm not sure. Is it the man or the

message? It is both. I think if you had a better messenger, you would

have a more articulate exposition of a message that nobody wants to hear,

but certainly it is both and the main trouble with Momentum is you

haven't got any, no Momentum out of the party into the public at all.

You are suggesting something completely unprecedented, which is

you go backwards first and gradually this unheralded figure suddenly

becomes really popular over time. It has never happened before and there

is absolutely no reason to suppose beyond your mere assertion that it

is ever going to happen. Why should anybody think that that, which has

never happened before, that gradual recovery from a desperately low

base, should happen? Let's hear from James Schneider. The Labour Party at

the last election had a very difficult position, a lot of

building back to do, and I think there wasn't that bank option which

would immediately have hugely supported candidate across the

country in the leadership election. I think with Jeremy Corbyn we have

by miles our best chance to re-energise, as we have done,

reenergise the party and reenergise activists and communities across the

country and we will see the fruits of that as we go on and get a more

activist Labour Party. At the moment, Mr Corbyn's net approval

score is plus 55% among Labour voters, exactly what you are saying,

he has got them... Sorry, among Labour members, he has got them, but

only plus 17 among Labour voters and -24 among the wider electorate.

Clearly we have to get the message across and I think what you can see

is the people that know Corbyn the best and have seen the most about

him like him the most. What we do need to do is make the message at

times sharper but I think the message is essentially right. What

we are seeing being built is a new economic strategy belt on

investment, high technology. These are the things that are going to cut

through. How long has he got to begin to show at least in the polls

and in the by-elections and local Government elections in the next

couple of years, that this is strategy is working? I don't see it

being a significant... He is there until the election. Until 2020

election. He has the support because Labour's membership, and lots of

people right across the country, want to see a new strategy from

Labour and also want to see a new alternative economic strategy and

new political strategy for the country and that is the sort of

change which Corbyn can bring and is bringing. We interviewed Jerry

Durning earlier from Socialist Fight -- -- Gerry Downing. He has been

kicked that, should he be allowed to be part of that? I don't know him

but I am extremely uncomfortable about the views on the Jewish

question. How big roles are you intending Momentum to play in the

European referendum? -- how big a role. We need to meet to discuss

that, which will probably happened in the second week of May. Only a

month before the referendum? It will be seven or eight weeks. Our first

priority is the May elections and building for the people's March for

health, homes, jobs and education on the 16th of April. And very briefly,

in your own view, would you like to campaign strongly to keep us in?

Personally, yes, I would like to see a social Europe. I think we are

better in Europe, we can deal with tax avoidance, environmental issues.

But Momentum as an organisation won't decide until after the May

five elections? Probably. Come back and tell us what you think.

So much for Labour's future - what about Labour's past?

Tony Blair is the subject of a new biography

by the investigative journalist Tom Bower.

Broken Vows - Tony Blair and the Tragedy of Power.

As the title suggests, the book's not got many good things

to say about the former Prime Minister.

One of Tom Bower's suggestions is that Tony Blair did a secret deal

with George Bush to go to war in Iraq - something that was put

to the former Prime Minister at the Chilcott Inquiry.

During the course of these discussions,

do you think you gave him any commitments?

The only commitment I gave, and I gave this very openly

at the meeting, was a commitment to deal with Saddam.

So you were at one that you had to deal with...

Absolutely, and that wasn't a private commitment,

So you were agreed on the end, but not by the means?

So you were agreed on the end, but not on the means?

Well, we were agreed on both, actually, as it came to you finally,

but we were agreed that we had to confront this issue,

that Saddam had to come back into compliance

and as I think I said in a press conference with President Bush,

the method of doing that is open. And indeed, he made the same point.

And we are joined now by Tom Bower, welcome to the programme. Let me

come straight to what for many people is the biggest question of

all for Mr Blair, did he take us into the invasion of Iraq knowing

that there were no weapons of mass destruction? No, he thought there

were. Because of the intelligence services? Yes. And so it was a

mistake, he made the mistake of believing them, but he did not, us,

if I can put it that way? Well, he did not con us about WMD is, but he

had corrupted the Government machine which would have tested MI6's

intelligence and found it wanting, he short-circuited it, but what my

book shows and argues is that the WMDs was the smoke screen, he had

believed in regime change from 1998 onwards. Was that the Chicago

speech? Before Chicago, when he bombed Iraq with Bill Clinton, so at

the 9/11, he wanted to remove Saddam but he knew the regime change was

illegal so WMDs, he could show that Saddam had breached UN resolutions,

he could say we were going after the WMDs, because unlike Bush, who was

allowed regime change, he needed a different excuse. And you think he

made an agreement -- an agreement with President Bush for the

invasion, in Texas? Long before that. What many of us think is the

central part of the Chilcott inquiry, what evidence have you been

able to bring to show that there was a Bush Blair deal on the invasion?

It is quite clear from all of the memos from the British Embassy

before Crawford in April, at the ranch in Texas, that they had agreed

on the invasion. The Americans had agreed on it already before the turn

of the year in 2001 and the British, through their conversations with

Bush and Blair, had agreed they would go along. So Crawford, a ranch

in Texas, was not the beginning of the process, it was the end. At that

stage, they put the seal on it and the Americans started the plans for

invasion. The British were excluded until they formally committed.

Blair, as I show in the book, conducted all these things in secret

by keeping a very tight number of people involved and it all changed

on the 26th of July 2002 when Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6,

comes back from Washington and says the invasion is on we either have to

commit ourselves or not. At that stage, he had to bring in more

people to begin preparing and at that stage, it slowly becomes more

apparent but he is at all times committed. What is remarkable and

comes out in the book is that the Cabinet didn't know until January

2,000 and three. Only Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon knew about it but even

they were kept away. -- 2003. It was a very tightly kept secret. So he

did a deal to go to war than we did not know about? It depends on what

you think about when a commitment was made. If that was the case, why

go to Parliament and have a vote? Why risk that, if you say he had a

commitment and had the wherewithal to put the commitment into effect?

He went to Parliament on the eve of war in March 2003. He could have

lost the vote and then couldn't have gone to war, so the point stands,

why go? He had to carry public opinion. He also had to carry his

own party. So therefore the commitment is not worth something

until you can get the binding into a resolution of those... It is his own

view, which as we said from a long time back, his own view of world

politics was as it was. 45,000 British troops were ready on the

border of Iraq. The British fleet was already off the coast. So why

have a vote in Parliament about whether to go to war and you vote to

say, you cannot then say, we haven't even thought about having any

troops. Those troops would have had to have been withdrawn. But it was a

done deal, he had the Tory party support, so he had no doubt he would

get a majority in parliament. There was never a doubt about that.

Overlooking it all, I have not finished the book yet, but would it

be unfair to say, because it is a very critical book, that you regard

Mr Blair almost as... Is this too strong a word? Almost as a

charlatan? No, that is accurate. It came as a surprise to people, people

always think I start these books without prejudice, but believe me, I

was just curious. I just wondered what happened in that ten years of

Government. We have had Blair's book, 35 other books all described

in great virtues by Prescott, Jack Straw, Blunkett, and I went to the

civil servants and the ministers and the generals and the rest and ask

them what happened and it is a very different picture to what we,

through the brilliance Labour spin, believe. He was surprisingly

unprepared for power. Fatally unprepared. It completely threw him

off course. Even though he knew he was going to win. And worse, he is

an intelligent man but his great weaknesses he was an educated and if

you are not educated of Government in history, you make the sort of

mistakes he made, and that was the tragedy, that is why it is The

Tragedy of Power, because he could have been a phenomenal success and

was his own worst enemy. Even among his supporters, there was a huge

wasted opportunity. We look back on that day in May 19 97. That is true,

the part of the book I agree with is the Government was not prepared for

power, I don't think they knew what they wanted to do and in some areas

where they did know what they wanted to do, they did the wrong things, so

he subsequently had to undo things urgently. The Labour Party hated the

subsequent reforms, that is when he became really unpopular in his own

party. We need to leave it there, whether you disagree or agree, it is

a great read, so thank you very much, Tom Bower.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was which beach did David Cameron say he'd enjoyed

visiting, but unfortunately spelled its name wrong?

Is it Holkham? Yes, he said he had enjoyed visiting Holcombe, but that

is in Devon. When the pace is fast or

the traffic is slow...