:00:38. > :00:41.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:46.It was a damning indictment of his conduct.
:00:47. > :00:49.But, after the Chilcot Report, Tony Blair insists we would be
:00:50. > :00:52.in a worse position if he hadn't taken us into the Iraq War.
:00:53. > :00:58.But is his reputation damaged beyond repair?
:00:59. > :01:00.Morning, thank you so much for coming.
:01:01. > :01:04.Do you think Mr Blair should be prosecuted?
:01:05. > :01:08.Silence on the issue from Jeremy Corbyn this morning.
:01:09. > :01:13.So, can Labour get over its Iraq legacy?
:01:14. > :01:16.Conservative MPs are voting to decide which two leadership
:01:17. > :01:20.candidates will be be put to the party's membership.
:01:21. > :01:27.Will Gove or Leadsom survive the day?
:01:28. > :01:29.Alcohol has oiled the cogs of politics for as long
:01:30. > :01:44.But does it help or hinder the machinery of Government?
:01:45. > :01:49.Cheers! What do you think?
:01:50. > :01:53.And sitting here in the studio stone-cold sober for a whole hour
:01:54. > :01:55.today, how will we cope, is the former Conservative MP
:01:56. > :02:08.Tony Blair was not on trial and Sir John Chilcot does not
:02:09. > :02:13.the headline writers have made their own mind up this morning
:02:14. > :02:18.The Chilcot Report is perhaps the most comprehensive account
:02:19. > :02:21.of the build-up to a war, its conduct and its
:02:22. > :02:30.So, what do its 2.5 million words say about the role of politicians,
:02:31. > :02:31.the intelligence services and the military?
:02:32. > :02:39.Sir John Chilcot's report spans almost a decade of UK
:02:40. > :02:42.Government policy decisions between 2001 and 2009.
:02:43. > :02:46.On military action, Sir John said the UK chose to join the invasion
:02:47. > :02:52."before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted".
:02:53. > :02:55.Tony Blair wrote to George W Bush eight months before the Iraq
:02:56. > :02:57.invasion to offer his unqualified backing well before UN
:02:58. > :02:58.weapons inspectors had complete their work,
:02:59. > :03:00.saying: "I will be with you, whatever."
:03:01. > :03:03.On weapons of mass destruction, the report found that judgments
:03:04. > :03:06.about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
:03:07. > :03:08.destruction or WMD were made "with a certainty
:03:09. > :03:11.On the legal case, the circumstances in which it was decided
:03:12. > :03:14.that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far
:03:15. > :03:25.On military preparedness, Sir John found there was "little
:03:26. > :03:36.time" to properly prepare three military brigades for
:03:37. > :03:41.The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully
:03:42. > :03:52.exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls".
:03:53. > :04:00.On the aftermath, despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the
:04:01. > :04:03.invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq
:04:04. > :04:06.after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.
:04:07. > :04:12.I'm joined now by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw.
:04:13. > :04:18.Tony Blair said yesterday, I made the right decision and the world is
:04:19. > :04:25.better and safer, do you agree? Yes, I do. If we had left Saddam
:04:26. > :04:29.Hussein in place and his sons, the most brutal dictator the world has
:04:30. > :04:33.seen since the Second World War, who had used chemical weapons, who had
:04:34. > :04:39.invaded two neighbouring countries, the last group that went in off
:04:40. > :04:42.inspectors said he would reconstitute his weapons programme,
:04:43. > :04:49.Tony is probably right. At the same time, we need to learn the lessons
:04:50. > :04:53.just outlined, many of which are serious and critical.
:04:54. > :04:58.How can the world be safer when the whole Middle East is in chaos? And
:04:59. > :05:04.spawning terrorist groups that threaten all of us.
:05:05. > :05:10.You know as well as I do, Islamic terrorism goes back far beyond Iraq.
:05:11. > :05:18.It has never been worse. Long before 9/11. Look at Syria...
:05:19. > :05:21.Appoint Tony was making was these judgments are always really
:05:22. > :05:26.difficult. In the end, prime ministers have to make judgments.
:05:27. > :05:31.Those who do not agree with those judgments need to reflect on what
:05:32. > :05:36.the alternative would have been. Saddam Hussein was not behind
:05:37. > :05:40.Islamic extremism. You are right. The context at the
:05:41. > :05:46.time, soon after 9/11, was not just about whether he supported Islamic
:05:47. > :05:53.extremism, it was about the danger of weapons of mass destruction.
:05:54. > :05:57.But he didn't have any. We now know that. But the consensus of all the
:05:58. > :06:03.intelligence agencies, not just our own, but across the western world,
:06:04. > :06:10.Germany, France, was that he did. They moan more equivocal.
:06:11. > :06:15.-- they were. We knew from the UN he had no nuclear programme, that could
:06:16. > :06:20.be rolled out. There were reports he had some chemical capability, that
:06:21. > :06:27.turned out to be false. Where was the threat it is true Iraq was not a
:06:28. > :06:33.land of Islington liberalism when he was there. Nor was it a threat to
:06:34. > :06:39.us. It is possible to argue that there have been far more deaths and
:06:40. > :06:42.far more misery in Iraq since the invasion than before it.
:06:43. > :06:49.We know there were millions of deaths before. That he invaded two
:06:50. > :06:55.countries. He had used chemical weapons. He murdered the Kurds in
:06:56. > :06:59.the north, the Marsh Arabs in the south.
:07:00. > :07:04.What Sir John Chilcot made clear yesterday, one of the allegations
:07:05. > :07:08.levelled at Tony, was that there was some fabrication or deceit around
:07:09. > :07:13.the intelligence. That has been put to rest.
:07:14. > :07:20.Chilcott says the intelligence should have been challenged.
:07:21. > :07:25.And it was but not enough. Not challenged by Mr Blair. That is
:07:26. > :07:30.not what he said this morning. In the end, we rely on our intelligence
:07:31. > :07:33.services to give us accurate intelligence that they have tested.
:07:34. > :07:38.You are right the intelligence was wrong but we have known this since
:07:39. > :07:42.the Butler report. The intelligence was across the
:07:43. > :07:45.developed world. We took it on good faith and made that decision on good
:07:46. > :07:49.faith. The other allegations made against
:07:50. > :07:54.Tony that somehow the Cabinet was misled or there was a secret prior
:07:55. > :07:57.agreement to go to war, all those things in the report had been laid
:07:58. > :08:03.to rest. I put it to you the Cabinet was not
:08:04. > :08:08.involved. At no stage did it take a decision to go to war.
:08:09. > :08:13.I am sorry, the Cabinet was involved in discussions. I wasn't a member so
:08:14. > :08:16.I wasn't there. There was a parliamentary vote and for the first
:08:17. > :08:20.time in British history the Prime Minister gave Parliament a vote.
:08:21. > :08:26.Knowing what we know today would you still have voted the way you did?
:08:27. > :08:33.Yes. With the benefit of hindsight, I am not one of those people...
:08:34. > :08:38.That is a cop out. Explain that. The motion that took us to war was full
:08:39. > :08:44.of references to WMD and the threat of those. We now know today there
:08:45. > :08:50.were no weapons of mass destruction. How could you have rated given what
:08:51. > :08:54.you know today, voted that motion? Because my prime motivation for
:08:55. > :08:58.voting to that motion was a humanitarian one, to uphold the
:08:59. > :09:03.integrity of the UN. You are going against the UN, they
:09:04. > :09:08.didn't back you. There was a record 17 mandatory
:09:09. > :09:22.resolutions against Saddam Hussain, unique in modern history.
:09:23. > :09:30.But, I am amazed that you say you would still vote for emotion full of
:09:31. > :09:35.references to the threat of WMD even though you know now there was no
:09:36. > :09:41.WMD. People will find that bizarre. You may find it bizarre. I am not
:09:42. > :09:47.the only one. Many people including my colleagues, good people, who have
:09:48. > :09:51.spent their life time focusing and working on Saddam's abuse of human
:09:52. > :09:55.rights, who would have done exactly the same. Their main motivation, if
:09:56. > :10:00.you look at the debate on that day, it did not focus on the intelligence
:10:01. > :10:03.but on the UN resolutions and upholding the integrity of the
:10:04. > :10:06.resolutions. Even though you couldn't get a
:10:07. > :10:10.resolution through paving the way to war which is why the French wouldn't
:10:11. > :10:14.go for it. Even though the report shows you
:10:15. > :10:19.haven't exhausted the options for war, there were other options.
:10:20. > :10:24.That there was no proper post-war planning for the aftermath.
:10:25. > :10:32.No WMD. And we didn't equip our army properly to fight. Despite all that,
:10:33. > :10:34.you would still proceed with what you did then.
:10:35. > :10:37.Those last three criticisms are legitimate and should be taken on
:10:38. > :10:45.board. But I do not agree with his finding. If you listen to what Sir
:10:46. > :10:53.Gerry Greenstock said today, do I agree there was somehow more time we
:10:54. > :11:01.could have given Saddam -- Jeremy. We could have given him more time?
:11:02. > :11:04.30 days to comply and he hadn't complied.
:11:05. > :11:08.Sir John Chilcot himself said we might have had to go to war. It is
:11:09. > :11:12.easy for him to say that but when you are Prime Minister and faced
:11:13. > :11:17.with this decision, the decision you take is based on a judgments. Given
:11:18. > :11:22.the history of Saddam Hussein, all the games he played with the UN, and
:11:23. > :11:26.his record, that was the decision Tony Blair faced, and I still think
:11:27. > :11:29.you took the right decision based on what we knew at that time in good
:11:30. > :11:35.faith. After the invasion of Kuwait when
:11:36. > :11:41.the collision kick him out, much of his army was broken. We now know he
:11:42. > :11:46.ended his attempt to have WMD. His status in the region was in decline.
:11:47. > :11:50.If we hadn't invaded, in what way would Saddam Hussein have been a
:11:51. > :11:55.threat? Look at what has happened in Syria
:11:56. > :11:59.as a result of non-intervention, where you have a similarly brutal
:12:00. > :12:04.dictator, where far more people have died. We have the biggest refugee
:12:05. > :12:09.crisis since World War II. We can't be sure that would have happened.
:12:10. > :12:15.Given Saddam's record and what happened in the Arab Spring...
:12:16. > :12:21.In what way would Saddam had been a threat to our allies in the region
:12:22. > :12:25.or to us? If he had stayed in power? We know from the last report of the
:12:26. > :12:30.Iraqi inspection group he would have tried to redevelop his nuclear
:12:31. > :12:37.weapons of mass to programme. You know what they found, one disk.
:12:38. > :12:42.But they talked to people in his regime, and it was quite clear from
:12:43. > :12:45.their report, it is in the Chilcot Report if he had stayed, he would
:12:46. > :12:53.have done this. He had done it before. The idea if we had left him
:12:54. > :12:59.in place, Iraq would have been some great, peaceful...
:13:00. > :13:02.No one is saying that. You are asking me to say with certainty what
:13:03. > :13:08.would have happened in Iraq if we have left Saddam in place. The
:13:09. > :13:12.closest parallel is what we have seen in Syria. That is why we must
:13:13. > :13:17.learn the lessons of this report but please let us not learn the wrong
:13:18. > :13:23.lessons which is that it is never right and justified to intervene.
:13:24. > :13:29.Matthew Parris? Listening, I get some sense of why the Labour left
:13:30. > :13:36.and the Jeremy Corbyn faction are so angry, of what drives them at this
:13:37. > :13:42.denial of a total catastrophe. I was against the Iraq war from the start.
:13:43. > :13:48.But it was not a crime. It was worse, a huge blunder, a chapter of
:13:49. > :13:53.miscalculations and incompetence. Two charges laid against Tony Blair
:13:54. > :13:57.go too far, however. That he knowingly lied. I don't think he did
:13:58. > :14:06.and I didn't think the Chilcot Report suggests it. And that he had
:14:07. > :14:09.private understandings with the US president, I don't think it is wrong
:14:10. > :14:14.for statesmen to have private understandings with other statesmen,
:14:15. > :14:20.even if in this case they lead to a catastrophe.
:14:21. > :14:30.The wedding, I will be with you what ever. But... Remember, at that time,
:14:31. > :14:36.Tony's priority was to get the US to go down the UN route. We did go down
:14:37. > :14:43.the UN route. There were no caveats to the word,
:14:44. > :14:48.what ever. What follows in that memo is the need to get a wider coalition
:14:49. > :14:54.together. Nope caveats to, I will be with you, what ever.
:14:55. > :14:58.Any fair-minded person reading the rest of the note would see it in the
:14:59. > :15:02.context of a British Prime Minister trying to persuade the American
:15:03. > :15:09.Government when we knew that Donald Rumsfeld wasn't interested in going
:15:10. > :15:13.down the UN route, and it did happen.
:15:14. > :15:20.But he did say, if we don't get UN support, I am not with you.
:15:21. > :15:24.In a further note from Bush, he made quite clear that if the UN route
:15:25. > :15:27.succeeded there would be no military action. That was the context in
:15:28. > :15:32.which Tony Blair was persuading the Americans.
:15:33. > :15:42.Stay with us because there are developments in this attempted slow
:15:43. > :15:45.motion coup in the Labour Party. Len McCluskey, the biggest union leader
:15:46. > :15:56.in their country was questioned about reports
:15:57. > :16:01.asked Owain Smith and Angela Eagle to hold off a leadership challenge.
:16:02. > :16:11.we are seeking time, we are asking people to give us time. There is no
:16:12. > :16:16.haste here, no rush for anybody to declare. We are asking people to
:16:17. > :16:23.give us a little bit of time to see what we can do. It looks like they
:16:24. > :16:28.have agreed to that, so this isn't just a slow motion coup, it's a coup
:16:29. > :16:32.without a leader. I would not call it a coup when the majority of your
:16:33. > :16:35.Shadow Cabinet and people who have served you loyally for ten months
:16:36. > :16:42.have decided you are not the right person to lead the party. It's more
:16:43. > :16:48.like a strike. I hope he succeeds for the sake of the country.
:16:49. > :16:55.Succeeds in asking Jimmy Corrigan to stand down? Absolutely, we need a
:16:56. > :17:01.competent and well lit progressive centre-left party to speak for the
:17:02. > :17:06.48% of the population who voted to remain. Why won't anyone step
:17:07. > :17:12.forward? I think what people are trying to do is give Jeremy that
:17:13. > :17:21.space to be persuaded... I don't get the feeling Len McCluskey will try
:17:22. > :17:25.to tell Jeremy Corbyn to step down. It was said that talks have been
:17:26. > :17:29.productive and they need more time to reach a resolution over the
:17:30. > :17:34.weekend and you must be hoping that Len McCluskey says it is time to go
:17:35. > :17:39.to Jeremy Corbyn. It sounds to me that Len McCluskey is thinking they
:17:40. > :17:43.could build bridges? We are trying to read the mind of Len McCluskey
:17:44. > :17:47.which is not always the easiest thing. The vast majority of those
:17:48. > :17:51.colleagues, Labour MPs who have worked very hard with Jeremy to try
:17:52. > :17:59.to make this work would like and hope that he can persuade Jeremy to
:18:00. > :18:01.do the right thing for the party. If somebody doesn't step forward we
:18:02. > :18:07.have a dysfunctional opposition don't we? I have no doubt this can't
:18:08. > :18:15.go on for much longer and if somebody doesn't... If Jeremy cannot
:18:16. > :18:19.be persuaded to step down and do the right thing there will be a
:18:20. > :18:23.challenge. It would drag on indefinitely. Is it not remarkable
:18:24. > :18:27.that even though after the referendum the Tories formed a
:18:28. > :18:31.circular firing squad and behaved in a way that made even the Oxford
:18:32. > :18:33.University will up that they may resolve, they will probably resolve
:18:34. > :18:40.their leadership problems before your party? That wouldn't be for the
:18:41. > :18:44.first time, the Conservatives tend to be much more effective and brutal
:18:45. > :18:48.in how they deal with their leaders and settle leadership contests. Ben
:18:49. > :18:50.Bradshaw, thank you very much for being with us.
:18:51. > :18:52.Earlier this morning, Tony Blair expressed regret
:18:53. > :18:54.that he didn't challenge intelligence about Saddam
:18:55. > :18:55.Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
:18:56. > :18:58.But he insisted he still believed he was right to overthrow
:18:59. > :19:08.He was speaking on Radio 4's Today Progamme.
:19:09. > :19:11.I agree completely when you go back over it, for example
:19:12. > :19:13.on intelligence, yes, in retrospect, it would be
:19:14. > :19:19.I understand the mistakes of planning, there are lots
:19:20. > :19:22.of things I will take responsibility for and express deep regret for.
:19:23. > :19:32.It was the biggest decision I ever took in Government.
:19:33. > :19:35.But, sometimes, the problem is that I feel, until I say to people, OK,
:19:36. > :19:41.I wish we had not joined the American coalition,
:19:42. > :19:45.that we had not got rid of Saddam, until I say that, people will not
:19:46. > :19:51.I can regret the mistakes, many things about it.
:19:52. > :19:54.But I genuinely believe not just that we acted out of good motives
:19:55. > :20:00.I sincerely believe we would be in a worse position
:20:01. > :20:07.These are incredibly difficult judgments.
:20:08. > :20:19.Why don't they just see the disagree? Tony Blair this morning,
:20:20. > :20:20.they should turn that into a TV show.
:20:21. > :20:23.I'm joined now by the George Galloway, the leader
:20:24. > :20:31.The Chilcot report has been described by many as robust and even
:20:32. > :20:35.damning, do you share that judgment? Utterly damning and even more so
:20:36. > :20:40.because it came from the heart of the establishment. When it was
:20:41. > :20:44.appointed I described it as a parade of establishment flunkies which they
:20:45. > :20:48.did not turn out to be, but they the establishment. John Chilcot has
:20:49. > :20:55.performed a National Service and in the neck of time, the British state
:20:56. > :21:02.was rocking after Brexit, the expenses scandal. I would say give
:21:03. > :21:06.him a knighthood but Tony Blair already gave him one, Sir John
:21:07. > :21:10.Chilcot has pulled some iron is out of the fire for us. He has recovered
:21:11. > :21:14.some national honour although as we have been listening to their are
:21:15. > :21:19.some like those Japanese soldiers who used to be found on the mort
:21:20. > :21:24.islands coming out of a Vauxhall still declaring their undying
:21:25. > :21:28.loyalty to the Emperor. There are such people still around and one has
:21:29. > :21:33.just been on your programme. But the will of the people is that John
:21:34. > :21:39.Chilcot was right and with all the Augusta language and demeanour that
:21:40. > :21:46.he displayed yesterday it seems to me utterly damning and no road back.
:21:47. > :21:52.Do you therefore accept that Chilcot does not show or claim that Tony
:21:53. > :21:57.Blair lied? You can only know what is in somebody's heart and mind if
:21:58. > :22:06.you are the mighty. The fact is whether he was the idiot or a nave
:22:07. > :22:09.the same results. I think it has opened up now and I am sure as we
:22:10. > :22:17.are speaking lawyers are working on it. Joshua Rosenberg wrote in The
:22:18. > :22:23.Guardian this morning, it opens up the door for Tony Blair having to
:22:24. > :22:26.appear in court. What would be the basis for that since Chilcot does
:22:27. > :22:32.not opine on the issue of whether this was an illegal war? Perhaps it
:22:33. > :22:36.does not provide evidence that it was an illegal war, what would be
:22:37. > :22:43.the legal basis of the walk in charge? Misconduct. I don't think it
:22:44. > :22:47.would be war criminal charges, it would be misconduct in public
:22:48. > :22:52.office. There is plenty in Chilcot to demonstrate that the use of his
:22:53. > :23:01.primer studio towers were reckless. To establish a case of misuse,
:23:02. > :23:04.misconduct in public office. I am sure the wide, mothers, fathers and
:23:05. > :23:11.even children of those who fell in the British forces are examining and
:23:12. > :23:16.exploring these options. You think the war, no road which many on the
:23:17. > :23:22.left have talked about, that that is pretty much for closed at misconduct
:23:23. > :23:29.in public office could still be a legal route to pursue? Yes, the ICC
:23:30. > :23:34.doesn't have the power to punish aggressive war, even unlawful war
:23:35. > :23:38.although I have asked the Pope to punish it today. It is established
:23:39. > :23:43.in Chilcot that Tony Blair waged what we call on just war, the
:23:44. > :23:48.catholic teaching is very clear from Saint Thomas on this. Unjust war
:23:49. > :23:53.where all other options have not been explored. You are bringing the
:23:54. > :23:58.Pope into this? Yes, I think Catholics all over the world deserve
:23:59. > :24:04.the holy Father to opine on this but that's perhaps are rarefied issue
:24:05. > :24:09.only for Catholics. But the ICC cannot because its statutes don't
:24:10. > :24:13.allow it to prosecute war prior... It does not define what an
:24:14. > :24:23.aggressive war would be. What do you make of, not the war, no road, many
:24:24. > :24:29.will not be happy until he is, what you make of the misconduct in public
:24:30. > :24:32.office route? I think if proceeding on the basis of only partial
:24:33. > :24:41.evidence, not giving the electorate or the media the whole story
:24:42. > :24:45.amounted to misconduct there is hardly a Prime Minister who would
:24:46. > :24:54.not be guilty of misconduct in public office. Not with the same
:24:55. > :24:57.scale of cost. Ben Bradshaw's statement, Tony Blair's statement
:24:58. > :25:02.that the world is safer because of what he did does not even past the
:25:03. > :25:08.straightfaced test, never mind any legal test. The world is in flames,
:25:09. > :25:13.fanatic extremism cascading everywhere, exploding everywhere
:25:14. > :25:19.even in our own streets. Iraq is in pieces, Syria is in pieces, Libya,
:25:20. > :25:27.Yemen, Saudi Arabia may soon be. The idea that the world is saved her now
:25:28. > :25:31.because of these jokers is utterly ridiculous. The cost of this
:25:32. > :25:39.misconduct is far greater than getting the marginal rate of income
:25:40. > :25:42.tax wrong or the DVL regulations. What are the foreign policy
:25:43. > :25:46.implications? Let me put a point I pity somebody else yesterday, we
:25:47. > :25:55.intervened in Iraq and occupied Iraq, it's a mess. We intervened in
:25:56. > :26:00.Libya but we did not occupy and it's a mess. We did not intervene or
:26:01. > :26:08.occupy Syria and it is a mess. What are the foreign policy implications?
:26:09. > :26:20.They were afraid to repeat the Iraqi experience. Which would have
:26:21. > :26:26.happened if they had occupied Libya. It's flying in the face of the
:26:27. > :26:32.reality, it almost leaves one speechless. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was a
:26:33. > :26:41.response to the invasion of Iraq, they moved into Syria and became
:26:42. > :26:45.Isis. You ask about foreign policy implications, I think they are about
:26:46. > :26:52.containment is often a better way of dealing with dangers in the world
:26:53. > :26:57.than trying to go in and destroy and remove people. In the memo, the
:26:58. > :27:06.whatever memo he does say we could go for containment. Incidentally the
:27:07. > :27:12.next word is not but as Ben Bradshaw wrongly stated, there are a series
:27:13. > :27:21.of caveats but not the word whatever and it isn't but. Where does foreign
:27:22. > :27:31.policy go from here? It is in a dreadful mess, the policy options we
:27:32. > :27:34.poor sued -- we poor sued -- per sued it's hard to see how we put
:27:35. > :27:40.these pieces back together. One thing ought to be a lesson, that
:27:41. > :27:46.supporting dictators like Saudi Arabia and Iraq before it, because
:27:47. > :27:50.the Iran war was fought with our weapons and our taxpayers gave
:27:51. > :27:59.export credit guarantees. British weapons? British weapons, German,
:28:00. > :28:05.American. Remember the super-gun. That was a con. What British
:28:06. > :28:11.weapons? British arms companies work heavily involved in supplying Saddam
:28:12. > :28:15.Hussein. I don't know which particular calibre of gun but they
:28:16. > :28:21.were definitely... When I was in Iraq all the weapons were Soviet. Of
:28:22. > :28:38.course the Soviet Union supplied a Lot. They denied, they blamed Iran
:28:39. > :28:43.464 months after it. -- for six full months after it. The moral authority
:28:44. > :28:47.of these people is gone, a period of ashamed silence would be in order.
:28:48. > :28:50.George Galloway, thank you for being with us.
:28:51. > :28:51.Yesterday, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn apologised
:28:52. > :28:54.on behalf of the Labour Party for the disastrous decision to go
:28:55. > :28:57.to war but he did not attack Tony Blair personally.
:28:58. > :28:59.Politicians and political parties can only grow stronger
:29:00. > :29:02.by acknowledging when they get it wrong, and by facing
:29:03. > :29:09.So, I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party
:29:10. > :29:13.for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq.
:29:14. > :29:16.Apologies are owed first to the people in Iraq.
:29:17. > :29:19.Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country
:29:20. > :29:22.is still living with the devastating consequences of the war,
:29:23. > :29:27.They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy
:29:28. > :29:35.Apologies are also owed to the families of those soldiers
:29:36. > :29:37.who died in Iraq or who returned injured and incapacitated.
:29:38. > :29:40.They did their duty but it was in a conflict they should
:29:41. > :29:51.We're joined now by the Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
:29:52. > :29:57.Should Jeremy Corbyn have cited and condemned the actions of Tony Blair
:29:58. > :30:02.personally? No, I think that would be a mistake,
:30:03. > :30:08.the lessons from the Chilcot Report are much wider. We have to be very
:30:09. > :30:14.careful not to get ourselves into traditional scapegoats mode. If we
:30:15. > :30:21.focus on Tony Blair, and say he made all the mistakes, then we don't, the
:30:22. > :30:27.lessons are so much wider. And they apply today, two actions in the
:30:28. > :30:33.future. We cannot take a short cut. The Chilcot Report is very
:30:34. > :30:39.challenging for all of us, we have decisions to make on Libya coming
:30:40. > :30:44.up, on Syria. Those decisions should be informed by the report.
:30:45. > :30:47.But will the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party, a lot of
:30:48. > :30:51.the membership will have been disappointed not to have heard his
:30:52. > :30:56.direct condemnation of Tony Blair. You can't blame one man, but he was
:30:57. > :30:59.the thread running through this whole report.
:31:00. > :31:03.The thread running through was that we went into war without thinking it
:31:04. > :31:08.through properly. The failure was a collective
:31:09. > :31:13.failure. My question was about the supporters being disappointed.
:31:14. > :31:16.I think they understand Jeremy is a thoughtful man. He does think these
:31:17. > :31:22.things through and he speaks the truth as he sees it.
:31:23. > :31:27.Does this go to the root causes of the divisions you are experiencing
:31:28. > :31:31.now in the Labour Party in terms of Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters,
:31:32. > :31:37.people like you, and the other MPs who would like to see Jeremy Corbyn
:31:38. > :31:40.stand down. Does this still divide the party?
:31:41. > :31:45.No, I don't think it does. When Jeremy apologised on behalf of the
:31:46. > :31:53.Labour Party yesterday, I think he did apologise on behalf of the vast
:31:54. > :31:57.majority. Not so Ben Bradshaw. Nor for Austin who shouted at him to
:31:58. > :32:01.sit down. We are a collision on the left,
:32:02. > :32:06.there will always be dissenting voices.
:32:07. > :32:10.He spoke on the vast McCutcheon on behalf of the vast majority, and
:32:11. > :32:16.generally. Does this still infect the Labour
:32:17. > :32:23.Party at times when it is imploding? We need to think carefully about
:32:24. > :32:27.intervention. One of the things we have did -- Heated debates.
:32:28. > :32:33.On domestic policy there is little disagreement in the Labour Party.
:32:34. > :32:37.There is a difference of interpretation in foreign policy,
:32:38. > :32:40.whether we should or should not intervene.
:32:41. > :32:45.You saw that in the vote on Syria. On domestic policy, we are much more
:32:46. > :32:50.united. The idea that it still doesn't still
:32:51. > :32:57.divide the party? It does.
:32:58. > :33:01.It is a fatal stain if one can have a fatal stain on the Labour
:33:02. > :33:08.moderates, their involvement with that part of Blairism for invading
:33:09. > :33:14.Iraq. They have as it were diminished themselves by that. Some
:33:15. > :33:19.of them like Ben Bradshaw are still sticking by it.
:33:20. > :33:22.I am interested in your view that you take collective responsibility.
:33:23. > :33:27.You don't talk about individuals. But he was Prime Minister, Tony
:33:28. > :33:30.Blair. Are you saying any Labour leader would have behaved in the way
:33:31. > :33:37.Tony Blair did? No, you know I'm not saying that.
:33:38. > :33:42.But it was a collective decision, and we need to look at the
:33:43. > :33:46.intelligence. Why did they get it so wrong? Why did it end with
:33:47. > :33:51.parliament being misled? Whether it was done on purpose or not doesn't
:33:52. > :33:55.matter. The fact is Parliament was misled.
:33:56. > :34:00.How did it happen? Why was evidenced not looked at more carefully?
:34:01. > :34:07.Why was there and not more collective decision-making?
:34:08. > :34:13.That is Sir John Chilcot. We don't have to go through that again.
:34:14. > :34:18.I am re-emphasising. Tony Blair was in charge but these
:34:19. > :34:29.things are collective decisions. Sir John Chilcott said these things
:34:30. > :34:33.must be collective. From a point of view of your own
:34:34. > :34:36.internal therapy I can see you don't want to point fingers. For the rest
:34:37. > :34:41.of the world we are still quite interested in whether Tony Blair
:34:42. > :34:46.made some very serious mistakes. He has apologised for making
:34:47. > :34:51.mistakes. Clearly he made mistakes but he was not the only one.
:34:52. > :34:55.Still the Labour Party is in stalemate, can it carry on for much
:34:56. > :35:00.longer? Yes, the Labour Party can carry on.
:35:01. > :35:07.We have enough people with good will to find a proper future. The country
:35:08. > :35:10.is crying out for a proper opposition.
:35:11. > :35:13.Can you carry on where there is a case of the bulk of the Parliament
:35:14. > :35:22.tree party still at odds with Jeremy Corbyn being leader?
:35:23. > :35:25.As I said last time I was on, we have two sort something out.
:35:26. > :35:30.Should there be a leadership challenge?
:35:31. > :35:37.We have a great advantage of having had quite senior people whose
:35:38. > :35:44.professional job is as negotiators, Len McCluskey...
:35:45. > :35:47.How did you read Len McCluskey's comments earlier about talks with
:35:48. > :35:53.Jeremy Currin. Owen Smith has said he is there will be a resolution,
:35:54. > :35:56.will it be that Jeremy Corbyn stand down?
:35:57. > :36:02.The best way of conducting negotiations is to do it behind
:36:03. > :36:05.closed doors in an of trust. Do you understand the resolution is
:36:06. > :36:10.he will go? The resolution is we need to talk
:36:11. > :36:12.together and find a collective decision.
:36:13. > :36:16.Is that what Len McCluskey is negotiating?
:36:17. > :36:23.I have not been directly involved, it is not for me to comment or
:36:24. > :36:28.second-guess. I know Len McCluskey is going in without a predetermined
:36:29. > :36:31.outcome. He wants to draw people together.
:36:32. > :36:36.Owen Smith says he is reassured, he is one of those who considered
:36:37. > :36:42.challenging Jeremy Corbyn, that is the outcome he wants. Should Angela
:36:43. > :36:47.Eagle challenge for the leadership and get this going?
:36:48. > :36:51.I think it is a good idea to allow Len McCluskey to have time to
:36:52. > :36:56.conduct discussions properly. We need to back off and be sensible and
:36:57. > :37:00.see where this takes us. You may be back on the programme
:37:01. > :37:03.before too long. We have a bunk bed in the corner for
:37:04. > :37:06.you! Saves you from going home.
:37:07. > :37:09.Now, Conservative MPs are voting in their party's leadership contest.
:37:10. > :37:14.Theresa May, Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom.
:37:15. > :37:16.The candidate with the fewest votes after today's round
:37:17. > :37:26.The final two being put to a ballot of the entire Tory membership.
:37:27. > :37:29.This morning, Andrea Leadsom has been making a final pitch
:37:30. > :37:57.She spoke to us about criticisms that she had embellished her CV of
:37:58. > :38:01.her experience in the City before becoming an MP.
:38:02. > :38:03.None of my colleagues have misrepresented I was managing
:38:04. > :38:05.investments on behalf of pensioners and savers. I was not a fund
:38:06. > :38:07.manager. I have been very clear, I have
:38:08. > :38:14.worked in the markets, I have worked in banking, I have worked in funds
:38:15. > :38:16.management as head of corporate governance working closely
:38:17. > :38:21.with the chief investment officer. You don't regret how your previous
:38:22. > :38:23.experience has My CV as I have presented
:38:24. > :38:30.it is exactly accurate. My CV is accurate that
:38:31. > :38:39.I have set out with the We're now joined by the Conservative
:38:40. > :38:43.MPs Daniel Kawczynski And Matthew Parris doesn't
:38:44. > :39:01.have a vote any more but, if he did, We have all candidates covered.
:39:02. > :39:05.Heather, let us talk about that CV. Had she overstated her experience of
:39:06. > :39:09.her CV? It is incredible that here we are a
:39:10. > :39:14.week into everything and the dirty tricks have started. Of course not.
:39:15. > :39:17.She is Constable with her CV. I am comfortable she is the fresh start
:39:18. > :39:22.our party needs. Let us look at the claims. The Times
:39:23. > :39:28.reported Andrea Leadsom had no role in managing funds or advising
:39:29. > :39:36.clients during ten years from 19 at 9-2009. Is that the case or not?
:39:37. > :39:42.I have no idea, I wasn't in the City on that side, I was in the insurance
:39:43. > :39:47.side. She has answered it clearly. You believe her and the experience
:39:48. > :39:51.she put down on that CV is true. I am appalled the dirty tricks have
:39:52. > :39:55.started. Who is responsible? You will have to
:39:56. > :40:00.ask another person. Is that coming from the Michael Gove
:40:01. > :40:04.camp? All I am interested in is who will
:40:05. > :40:09.be in the final Dawlat. It is important it should be Michael Gove
:40:10. > :40:13.and Theresa May. I have been supporting Michael Gove because of
:40:14. > :40:18.the leadership he showed over Brexit but I am comfortable with either as
:40:19. > :40:21.our next Prime Minister. And the responsibility for dirty
:40:22. > :40:26.tricks, are you as appalled about this?
:40:27. > :40:31.The contest could have been done in a better way, with maybe fewer
:40:32. > :40:40.personal attacks and dirty tricks, of course. Unfortunately, when there
:40:41. > :40:44.is a lot at stake, of course, tempers will fray. People are very
:40:45. > :40:47.emotional. We are doing a very important thing, selecting the next
:40:48. > :40:53.Prime Minister. This isn't student politics, this is
:40:54. > :40:58.incredibly important. Also, it is incredibly important,
:40:59. > :41:00.and trust is important, so is accuracy in terms of personal
:41:01. > :41:05.details. To return to the CV again, Andrea
:41:06. > :41:10.Leadsom said she was a managing director at her brother in law's
:41:11. > :41:14.investment fund. When you look at companies house documents, she is
:41:15. > :41:21.referred to as marketing director. Is it important she is accurate? Her
:41:22. > :41:27.spokesman said they updated the CV to prevent any further
:41:28. > :41:30.misapprehension. Misapprehension or misconstruing.
:41:31. > :41:34.That is done. The team have explained what happened.
:41:35. > :41:38.I am comfortable with that. We need to talk about the policies and why
:41:39. > :41:43.Andrea will be the fresh start our country needs.
:41:44. > :41:51.People don't know who she is. She is and is tested.
:41:52. > :41:54.Her speech was superb. -- She is not tested.
:41:55. > :41:58.It is about policy which is why the speech this morning was important. I
:41:59. > :42:01.hope the BBC will show all of that speech.
:42:02. > :42:06.In terms of tempers running high, emotions out there in the Tory
:42:07. > :42:10.party, is that why Nick Boles sent a text message to fellow MPs
:42:11. > :42:14.suggesting they vote tactically to stop Andrea Leadsom being in the
:42:15. > :42:19.final Dawlat? That is regrettable and he has
:42:20. > :42:25.issued an apology for that. He has stated Michael Gove was not aware of
:42:26. > :42:29.that initiative? I am glad he has apologised, that was inappropriate.
:42:30. > :42:35.Is there something frightening about Andrea Leadsom as he says?
:42:36. > :42:40.An important point. I would like to tell you there are members of my
:42:41. > :42:45.association in Shrewsbury who have approached me, senior members, who
:42:46. > :42:49.have genuine concerns about Andrea Leadsom becoming Prime Minister
:42:50. > :42:55.because of the lack of experience. Highly competent but only an MP for
:42:56. > :42:59.six years. She has never held a senior position in Cabinet.
:43:00. > :43:03.She has more experience than David Cameron when he became Leader of the
:43:04. > :43:10.Opposition. What is her experience? Two years as
:43:11. > :43:13.a minister, she has been at the dispatch box goodness knows how many
:43:14. > :43:18.times. David Cameron going the Leader of
:43:19. > :43:21.the Opposition, as opposed to Prime Minister, does that make a
:43:22. > :43:27.difference? Absolutely not. She is a lead -- She
:43:28. > :43:32.is a lady of steel. Michael Gove is running scared.
:43:33. > :43:35.We are not running scared. We want to reflect what our own members are
:43:36. > :43:40.saying to us. I spent last week in my constituency
:43:41. > :43:46.of Shrewsbury listening to my executive Council and members. They
:43:47. > :43:51.want two alternatives to be put to them from different perspectives but
:43:52. > :43:54.they want experience. By members have said to me they are concerned
:43:55. > :43:59.that this lady, very competent though she is, does not have the
:44:00. > :44:03.experience of running major Government departments, to be
:44:04. > :44:07.catapulted into becoming our Prime Minister.
:44:08. > :44:10.I hope this process ends with her getting a very senior position.
:44:11. > :44:15.What would you like to see in a Michael Gove Government?
:44:16. > :44:19.That is something for him to decide if he becomes Prime Minister. She is
:44:20. > :44:25.a raw talent, she ought to be utilised. She is not yet ready to be
:44:26. > :44:28.Prime Minister. Isn't that patronising? I wonder
:44:29. > :44:31.whether the good old boys are having a go.
:44:32. > :44:36.She is not part of the metropolitan elite, but a Midlands MP. How
:44:37. > :44:42.refreshing would that be, to lead the country?
:44:43. > :44:45.You think it is student politics, why?
:44:46. > :44:51.Such is the atmosphere of intrigue and mistrust, I even begin to wonder
:44:52. > :44:55.whether Nick Boles and his text was a loose cannon straying off brief,
:44:56. > :45:00.or whether it is one of those, because it was only Nick Boles, it
:45:01. > :45:04.can be denied by the Michael Gove camp.
:45:05. > :45:07.Can you imagine Michael Gove being involved?
:45:08. > :45:10.He might have guessed it would be helpful and was careful not to ask
:45:11. > :45:13.for permission. Does it fit with the Machiavellian
:45:14. > :45:25.view of Michael Gove? My experience of Michael Gove was
:45:26. > :45:28.when he was Chief Whip and I think he's one of the most dependable and
:45:29. > :45:35.articulate politicians I have come across. That is not what I asked.
:45:36. > :45:42.The media have tried to perceive him, show him as... We did not make
:45:43. > :45:45.up that he stabbed Boris Johnson... I have heard two versions of this
:45:46. > :45:50.story and only those in that dispute will know the truth. The media loves
:45:51. > :45:55.disputes of this nature. My own experience is he is dependable and
:45:56. > :45:59.trustworthy. Matthew Parris, Theresa May riding high out in front, what
:46:00. > :46:06.do we know of her outside the Home Office? Not very much, she has stuck
:46:07. > :46:10.to her brief and colleagues say she does not open intervene in areas of
:46:11. > :46:14.government outside of the Home Office so we don't know much. We
:46:15. > :46:17.know she is what you might call a fairly progressive conservative who
:46:18. > :46:24.thinks the party needs to appeal more broadly. Remarks about the
:46:25. > :46:29.nastier party have been endlessly... They have dogged her for years. What
:46:30. > :46:34.about her stance on the future and security of EU foreign nationals
:46:35. > :46:40.living here at the moment? Has it been a mistake? I think it's been
:46:41. > :46:44.phrased mistakenly, I think what she should have said was that it was her
:46:45. > :46:49.fervent wish and she was pretty confident she could achieve it, that
:46:50. > :46:53.foreign nationals here would be able to stay but this must be a matter
:46:54. > :46:58.for negotiation when we have our own nationals on the continent to thank.
:46:59. > :47:03.That would've been a better way of putting it. It has been condemned by
:47:04. > :47:09.the others saying they shouldn't be bargaining chips. Everything is a
:47:10. > :47:13.bargaining chip in politics. We have just been interviewing the Foreign
:47:14. > :47:16.Secretary and it's right that the government has too privatised
:47:17. > :47:20.British citizens living in the EU but there are 800,000 Polish people
:47:21. > :47:24.here, hard-working and dedicated people and they need to have the
:47:25. > :47:33.reassurance they will be allowed to stay in the UK as soon as is of
:47:34. > :47:37.thank you to all of you. A senior Labour MP said the move against
:47:38. > :47:41.Jeremy Corbyn is finished according to reports. After a lengthy
:47:42. > :47:42.discussions between Tom Watson and union officials failed to solve the
:47:43. > :47:46.impasse. Now, the Government was defeated
:47:47. > :47:49.last night after an Opposition debate in the Commons calling
:47:50. > :47:51.for them to commit to giving EU nationals currently living
:47:52. > :47:54.in the UK the right to remain Conservative MPs were whipped
:47:55. > :48:04.to abstain on the vote. But the Government tried to make
:48:05. > :48:07.clear that they had no intention to some of the exchanges
:48:08. > :48:12.during that debate. Let me start by inviting the House
:48:13. > :48:16.to join me in sending a very clear message to the EU nationals
:48:17. > :48:21.living in the UK that You are truly valued
:48:22. > :48:26.members of our society, I think it is absolutely right
:48:27. > :48:36.to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals in this
:48:37. > :48:41.country, not just for moral or humanitarian reasons, but for very
:48:42. > :48:45.sound economic reasons as well. They are welcome,
:48:46. > :48:47.they are necessary, they are a vital part of our society
:48:48. > :48:50.and I would be passionately We fully expect the legal
:48:51. > :48:56.status of EU nationals living in the UK and that of UK
:48:57. > :49:00.nationals of EU member states will Given that both the UK
:49:01. > :49:06.and the EU want to maintain a close relationship,
:49:07. > :49:09.we are confident that we will work together and that the EU and British
:49:10. > :49:28.citizens will be protected through Joined by Nick Ross and, and
:49:29. > :49:31.emigration lawyer, welcome to the programme -- an immigration lawyer.
:49:32. > :49:35.If Parliament votes to give everybody the right to remain here
:49:36. > :49:42.who is already here and in EU national isn't that it, it is done?
:49:43. > :49:44.It should be, there will be more complicated issues about
:49:45. > :49:50.transitional arrangements once the UK leads the EU, about people who
:49:51. > :49:54.are here or just arriving. There will be complexities around that. If
:49:55. > :49:58.there is a decision to allow all those EU nationals already here from
:49:59. > :50:03.a certain date to stay then that's the end of the story because when we
:50:04. > :50:10.leave the EU, EU rights cease and it's just a matter of national law.
:50:11. > :50:16.Do we have any idea what the rates of EU nationals would be as
:50:17. > :50:19.currently constituted if we were leaving? We know what the rates are
:50:20. > :50:25.if we are in the EU, they have the same rights as we have effectively,
:50:26. > :50:29.to be here, what happens if we leave? It depends on what the
:50:30. > :50:35.statisticians now under EU law and how that's recognised in British
:50:36. > :50:39.law. Typically, as James Brokenshire said yesterday, in EU national who
:50:40. > :50:42.has been here for five years can in principle apply for Premarin
:50:43. > :50:47.residence and get confirmation, that is in EU law status but it's very
:50:48. > :50:50.similar to the UK status of indefinite leave to remain which you
:50:51. > :50:55.would get here if you are living here for five years. It also has
:50:56. > :50:59.legal implications that are very similar to indefinite leave to
:51:00. > :51:03.remain in terms of access to British nationality, access to benefits and
:51:04. > :51:10.other things. If individuals have acquired that status and can show
:51:11. > :51:14.that they have obtained it over five years, they would carry that status
:51:15. > :51:20.board and I am sure it would be respected beyond the UK leaving the
:51:21. > :51:24.EU. Certain protections, no one is ever quite sure how strong they are,
:51:25. > :51:29.the Vienna Convention has been called into this argument but also
:51:30. > :51:35.the EC HR and the UN are clear on being opposed to collective
:51:36. > :51:43.expulsion so you can just kick a whole category of people out?
:51:44. > :51:48.Absolutely, I think it's unthinkable to think we would get to that stage,
:51:49. > :51:53.it just wouldn't happen. But Joe Reitz, it is not allowed under
:51:54. > :51:55.international law, if there was collective expulsion or even
:51:56. > :51:59.individual expulsion, based on whether you meant certain
:52:00. > :52:02.requirements it would be so complicated to try and unravel what
:52:03. > :52:09.are the right people have, they may own property, they may have allsorts
:52:10. > :52:13.of rights to property under international law and the dreaded
:52:14. > :52:17.word, human rights that you would accrue over a period of time would
:52:18. > :52:21.complicate any sort of attempt to try and send you home. I think it's
:52:22. > :52:27.unthinkable we would get to this stage where there would be any sort
:52:28. > :52:32.of individual deprecation or mass deportation. It would seem to me
:52:33. > :52:35.there is an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons to give those
:52:36. > :52:40.already here continuing rights to be here on the same basis. Yes and to
:52:41. > :52:46.that extent this is a little bit of a storm in a teacup. I can't imagine
:52:47. > :52:50.Parliament ever voting to expel EU nationals who are here but there is
:52:51. > :52:54.a lot to discuss, Theresa May is right about that. The axis of 1
:52:55. > :53:00.million or so British people in Spain to the Spanish health system,
:53:01. > :53:01.these things have to be negotiated. We will leave it there, thank you
:53:02. > :53:05.for being with us. Now, international events,
:53:06. > :53:07.political ideology, personal animosity,
:53:08. > :53:08.all these can change I never touch the stuff, of course,
:53:09. > :53:17.but I'm told plenty of alcohol is consumed here at Westminster
:53:18. > :53:20.and it's a help to some politicians # Hey, bartender,
:53:21. > :53:40.give that man a drink! I was enjoying a drink in the Red
:53:41. > :53:55.Lion when Tony Blair phoned me Obviously, I couldn't speak
:53:56. > :53:59.to the Prime Minister in a pub. Even now, I can't say
:54:00. > :54:12.what he said to me. That is the sweet taste of remaining
:54:13. > :54:20.in the European Union. Mr Joyce had been drinking,
:54:21. > :54:22.and look possessed and completely out of it,
:54:23. > :54:25.according to one witness. After shouting, there are too
:54:26. > :54:28.many Tories in this bar. The former Labour MP told police
:54:29. > :54:30.officers that he nutted a guy. Not everyone who drinks
:54:31. > :54:32.get involved in fights. I don't gossip about
:54:33. > :54:48.people over lunch. I don't go drinking
:54:49. > :55:06.in Parliament's bars. And we're joined now
:55:07. > :55:09.by the political correspondent Ben Wright who has just written
:55:10. > :55:12.a book about politics and drink for which, I am told,
:55:13. > :55:23.he conducted extensive research! He has only just got out of
:55:24. > :55:28.hospital! Are lots of this you see politicians drinking pints of beer,
:55:29. > :55:32.it's a photo opportunity, to show I am a man or woman of the people,
:55:33. > :55:37.Harold Wilson used to do it in public and he had a pipe, the minute
:55:38. > :55:45.he got into his private quarters out came the cognac and the cigar. Yes,
:55:46. > :55:49.politicians love being pictured with pints because it sends a signal that
:55:50. > :55:54.they are like them, they share their vices. They have been doing it for
:55:55. > :55:57.as long as we have had politicians, go back to Hallgarth in Georgian
:55:58. > :56:03.England, he will be depicting elections awash with booze. You
:56:04. > :56:07.couldn't bribe voters by buying the drinks back then, now they just go
:56:08. > :56:12.behind the bar, pull pint and hold it to the camera. Nigel Farage is
:56:13. > :56:19.not putting it on. He is also seen drinking wine at times which the
:56:20. > :56:24.other politicians would rather not. It is said the drinking culture, and
:56:25. > :56:30.still is one in parliament, but it's not as bad as it was is that right?
:56:31. > :56:36.The book I have written is largely a story of drinking decline certainly
:56:37. > :56:39.amongst senior ministers, Prime Minister's and the House of Commons
:56:40. > :56:44.and the bars are not as packed as you might remember. 20 or 30 years
:56:45. > :56:48.ago the smoking room, the strangers bar where a rant, and they are
:56:49. > :56:53.tribal as well, strangers rammed full of Labour MPs. Now it feels
:56:54. > :56:58.like that on a Thursday night because of the change in hours and
:56:59. > :57:02.an awareness of the damage that drink does and the fact that MPs are
:57:03. > :57:06.working much harder it means they are not renting might be used to. I
:57:07. > :57:13.was on the terrace for research purposes a couple of days ago one
:57:14. > :57:15.evening and it was rammed. Drink fuelled gossip, everyone talking
:57:16. > :57:23.about the labour and Tory leadership races. A conveyor belt of drinks
:57:24. > :57:29.coming from the bar. Does politics need it, does it need that in order
:57:30. > :57:34.for the wheels of political chat and debate and discussion to continue? I
:57:35. > :57:40.think it has always been and remains a very important ingredient in the
:57:41. > :57:43.way politics works. Among MPs on the bar of an evening but also for a
:57:44. > :57:49.Prime Minister relaxing at the end of the day. Margaret Thatcher having
:57:50. > :57:54.a glass of bells with his friends and advisers, it's the same for
:57:55. > :57:59.American presidents. FDR had Martini hour every evening for an hour on
:58:00. > :58:05.the oval office desk. It's important to them. It can go too far when I
:58:06. > :58:10.was in the House of Commons I took Sheila Faith, the MP for the
:58:11. > :58:14.adjoining constituency to mine, I took her into the Kremlin as we used
:58:15. > :58:18.to call it, she was teetotal and hadn't been in and and want to go in
:58:19. > :58:22.on her own. So we went in and she had a lemonade and a Labour MP whose
:58:23. > :58:28.name I will not die vulture got down onto the floor and pretended to be a
:58:29. > :58:34.dog -- whose name I will not die vulture. He started barking and
:58:35. > :58:42.biting her ankles until she beat a hasty... I'm not surprised! Don't
:58:43. > :58:46.miss out on that book. The 1pm news about to start on BBC One, and have
:58:47. > :58:51.now because we are off a little earlier. I will be back.
:58:52. > :58:54.And I will be back tonight for This Week with Michael Portillo.
:58:55. > :58:56.David Lammy, Isabel Hardman, Omid Djalili, Douglas Murray,
:58:57. > :59:00.Depending on the football timings, we should be on around