:00:24. > :00:24.Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
:00:25. > :00:27.This week, the woes of David Cameron and the winning
:00:28. > :00:30.My guests this week are Annalisa Piras,
:00:31. > :00:32.who is an Italian journalist and film maker.
:00:33. > :00:36.John Fisher Burns of the New York Times and Rachel Shabi
:00:37. > :00:38.who's a writer on Middle East affairs.
:00:39. > :00:44.David Cameron, enjoying the sun in Lanzarote,
:00:45. > :00:47.had to break off his Easter break to take charge of the Government's
:00:48. > :00:50.response to what could be the end of large scale steel
:00:51. > :00:55.It comes amid a litany of woes including doubts over Britain's
:00:56. > :00:57.nuclear power future, if there is one, the European Union
:00:58. > :00:59.referendum and the simmering rebellion against his leadership
:01:00. > :01:04.How much trouble is Cameron in and can he save steel
:01:05. > :01:18.The Steelers story is quite extraordinary. It is and it works on
:01:19. > :01:23.so many different levels. It is a massive challenge because for all
:01:24. > :01:27.the talk of him being this great, expedient pragmatist, he is quite
:01:28. > :01:32.ideological when it comes to intervening, active government in
:01:33. > :01:38.that he is against that. When Gordon Brown reluctantly nationalised a
:01:39. > :01:41.couple of the banks during the 2007 and 2008 crisis. He was in
:01:42. > :01:46.opposition then and he rushed out and said this is a return to the
:01:47. > :01:51.1970s, government shouldn't intervene. That is when a lot of
:01:52. > :01:55.people on the right were calling for nationalisation of the banks. Now he
:01:56. > :01:59.has a dilemma. He hasn't got an industrial strategy. His Business
:02:00. > :02:05.Secretary is against an industrial strategy. At the same time, you have
:02:06. > :02:10.got China offering the add these vastly reduced prices. The instinct
:02:11. > :02:15.of this government is that you cannot buck the market but the
:02:16. > :02:20.market is wrecked. America is protectionist. It puts up tariffs
:02:21. > :02:25.without hesitation. China is doing the same and will continue to do the
:02:26. > :02:30.same with speed if it is produced here. So they have got to reconsider
:02:31. > :02:35.their approach that you cannot buck the market and they have to work out
:02:36. > :02:40.if they need an industrial strategy or not and they do need one and they
:02:41. > :02:44.have to work of the relationship with China. George Osborne spends
:02:45. > :02:49.half his life in China. He did a deal with nuclear power. He was
:02:50. > :02:55.there recently doing various trade deals with great pride. It is not
:02:56. > :03:00.reciprocated. China have said in the context of this crisis that they
:03:01. > :03:06.will put up tariffs against EU Steve being imported. They are in a sort
:03:07. > :03:10.of political crisis because this is a drama being played out every day
:03:11. > :03:15.on the front pages of the newspapers. It is also an
:03:16. > :03:19.ideological crisis. They have got to think about what their attitude
:03:20. > :03:23.toward the state is in the context of intervening in industries. They
:03:24. > :03:28.haven't really had to think about it since the banking crisis when they
:03:29. > :03:31.were very much on the sort of you cannot buck the market, do not
:03:32. > :03:38.intervene when they were in opposition. I am fascinated by this
:03:39. > :03:41.idea because we have heard it for 35 years. The Washington consensus,
:03:42. > :03:47.have you run an economy says the same thing. You do find that the
:03:48. > :03:54.greatest capitalist power is doing precisely that by 266% tariffs on
:03:55. > :03:58.steel imports into the United States. Where does Britain fit in
:03:59. > :04:04.given that nationalisation is not an option. This is an interesting point
:04:05. > :04:07.about not being able to buck the market because that only applies to
:04:08. > :04:14.certain industries and certain markets. The new liberal argument is
:04:15. > :04:18.very much about supporting and into raging certain kinds of markets
:04:19. > :04:22.while allowing others to weather and there are two things going on. With
:04:23. > :04:30.Cameron and his government, on one level, there is the self-inflicted
:04:31. > :04:35.party eating itself because of the EU, the debate between people who
:04:36. > :04:38.want to stay and people who want to leave and that is interesting to the
:04:39. > :04:43.Westminster circuit but not big on that. There is a more important than
:04:44. > :04:49.play out and the steam crisis has highlighted that which is
:04:50. > :04:54.increasingly this government has an ideology and it is dedicated to an
:04:55. > :04:58.ideology and it is seen as cruel and out of touch. You could say it came
:04:59. > :05:04.to a head with George Osborne's budget where there was this
:05:05. > :05:09.disproportionate and inexplicable and slightly creepy obsession with
:05:10. > :05:13.punishing disabled people and it was quite clear that that was at the
:05:14. > :05:22.expense of giving tax breaks to keep more wealthy in society. Then there
:05:23. > :05:26.is his adherence to this obsession with the deficit, the target he
:05:27. > :05:31.keeps missing. Every sensible economist says what would you do
:05:32. > :05:35.that? Nobody needs to do that. It is completely ideological that he is
:05:36. > :05:40.fixated on it and unnecessary. On top of that, this issue with an
:05:41. > :05:47.industry that will affect 40,000 people directly. Hundreds of
:05:48. > :05:52.thousands more entire communities. This complete disregard for that, as
:05:53. > :05:55.though those people matter less, as though we do not need to pay
:05:56. > :05:59.attention to that, that is starting to come to before and people are
:06:00. > :06:07.thinking, this government doesn't care. The part about not bucking the
:06:08. > :06:11.market that is obvious is that there is word overproduction of steam,
:06:12. > :06:16.there is a recession and you could spend a tonne of money propping up
:06:17. > :06:20.an industry which might in the end of field because, to put it at its
:06:21. > :06:24.most brutal, steep production in Britain is not the way the British
:06:25. > :06:28.economy is built and that is terrible for anybody in Port Talbot
:06:29. > :06:36.listening but that is one argument. Absolutely and that is sad on the
:06:37. > :06:42.human side. Some that exposes the cruel nature of this government
:06:43. > :06:47.because, let's face it, this is not happening overnight, the trade war
:06:48. > :06:54.between Europe and China has been going on for months and months and
:06:55. > :06:57.we know we have evidence that the government, this Conservative
:06:58. > :07:01.government, has voted against some form of protection that the EU was
:07:02. > :07:06.trying to put in place on the mantle of America. Britain voted against it
:07:07. > :07:11.and was leading the countries that voted against it. We have a number
:07:12. > :07:17.of things here. We have the increasing evident nature of not
:07:18. > :07:21.caring for part of the economy by the British government which is
:07:22. > :07:27.getting more exposed. I feel we are going back to the idea of the Tory
:07:28. > :07:30.party as the nasty party and they worked hard to get rid of that but
:07:31. > :07:34.it is coming through again because it is what they are doing and the
:07:35. > :07:42.contradictions and short termism of the David Cameron government. Do you
:07:43. > :07:47.think the government has any action available? I am uncomfortable with
:07:48. > :07:51.blaming the Tory party for lack of government action to forestall this
:07:52. > :07:56.or mitigated because the lack of an industrial policy, as you describe
:07:57. > :08:01.it, can be traced back at least to the Blair administration and really
:08:02. > :08:07.do governments of the last 35 or 40 years of both parties. I reflect on
:08:08. > :08:14.the ironies. When I was growing up in this country in the 1950s, the
:08:15. > :08:18.declining years of the Empire, it would have been unthinkable for our
:08:19. > :08:25.leaders to go cap in hand, petitioning to Bombay, Mumbai or
:08:26. > :08:31.China. Now, we have so far run down our national industries that we go
:08:32. > :08:35.as petitioners to the leaders of China and the leaders of India and
:08:36. > :08:44.we look at an industrial landscape which has been blasted by the lack
:08:45. > :08:47.of support and imaginative government policy and we have lost
:08:48. > :09:00.almost all of our major industries. Which other major Western power can
:09:01. > :09:08.that be said to be true? It is a dilemma. It is not that this
:09:09. > :09:14.government is cruel or uncaring. That is a symptom. It might be a
:09:15. > :09:18.consequence but it would be absurd to say that is part of their
:09:19. > :09:22.thinking, we do not care about it. They are in agony is this weekend
:09:23. > :09:27.about what to do and it is a dilemma in the sense that for the short
:09:28. > :09:32.term, anyway, this plant, if it remains open, will be producing
:09:33. > :09:37.speed no one can afford to buy because it is cheaply available via
:09:38. > :09:41.the overproduction, deliberate overproduction, in China. Let's be
:09:42. > :09:46.frank, it is common in the short term at least, a dilemma. As you
:09:47. > :09:52.suggest, there has been no long-term thinking about British industrial
:09:53. > :09:59.policy since 1979, or before that. That is partly in reaction to the
:10:00. > :10:10.70s. Government shouldn't pick winners, markets should, that is the
:10:11. > :10:13.thinking. In the United States, the Bush administration, you talked
:10:14. > :10:18.about ideology, the Bush administration build out the car
:10:19. > :10:22.industry. Not just the banks. Other governments which have a professed
:10:23. > :10:27.ideology are quite happy to be more pragmatic when lots and lots of jobs
:10:28. > :10:30.in Michigan and elsewhere are up for grabs. That is the real question,
:10:31. > :10:36.whether this government will do the same for this industry. That is what
:10:37. > :10:40.is interesting about this debate. It is not just this government, it is a
:10:41. > :10:44.whole liberal doctrine that was back to Thatcher and passes through
:10:45. > :10:49.player until they get to Cameron. It is not just this government but what
:10:50. > :10:53.is interesting is that we might see a parrot and chip doing that a lot
:10:54. > :10:57.of people are sent, hang on, this doctrine of yours that we cannot
:10:58. > :11:02.interfere, but the market is best, it needs to do something, is going
:11:03. > :11:07.to devastate and ravaged communities unnecessarily, affordably. Are there
:11:08. > :11:11.alternatives to this mantra, this paradigms that you have been shoving
:11:12. > :11:17.down our throats for 30 years? The conversation has shifted. We are
:11:18. > :11:20.talking about alternatives. It cannot have escaped the notice of Mr
:11:21. > :11:27.Cameron and Mr Osborne and the Business Secretary that all of the
:11:28. > :11:31.sudden Jeremy Corbyn has seemed to be loony on economic matters but he
:11:32. > :11:37.was able to sound credible on the need to rescue communities, on the
:11:38. > :11:45.need to look at various options, including proportional or short-term
:11:46. > :11:49.nationalisation. The fact is that, even as an instinctive free
:11:50. > :11:53.marketeer, that there are tools available to this government and to
:11:54. > :11:56.the Blair and Brown governments to use to help save our state industry
:11:57. > :12:03.and other industries that they didn't use. There has been a massive
:12:04. > :12:06.overreaction in the UK to what happened in the 1970s where
:12:07. > :12:10.governments did subsidise some industries who produced things no
:12:11. > :12:16.one wanted and as a result they have been scared to do anything. They
:12:17. > :12:23.would intervene in any way at all. There was one brief exception, an
:12:24. > :12:26.interesting one, when Peter Mandelson, and culture, ultra-new
:12:27. > :12:31.Labour Blairite became president of the portrait as it was known then,
:12:32. > :12:36.the Business Secretary, toward the end of the Labour government, he had
:12:37. > :12:40.been in Europe for a long time and seen how other European countries
:12:41. > :12:44.that have industrial policies, did pick winners, in inverted commas,
:12:45. > :12:51.and briefly tried to do the same but he was only around for about ten
:12:52. > :12:58.minutes before losing the job. He recognised them. Then Business
:12:59. > :13:02.Secretary was Vince Cable. He was a social democratic Liberal Democrat.
:13:03. > :13:06.He tried to do it as well but faced resistance. The current government
:13:07. > :13:11.has downgraded any of that because they don't believe in it. This is
:13:12. > :13:16.challenging that instinct, I think, in a way that will be interesting to
:13:17. > :13:20.see how it plays out. It plays into the European debate in plenty of
:13:21. > :13:24.ways but one issue raised about the EU debate and British membership is
:13:25. > :13:28.the idea of sovereignty and when faced with massive world economic
:13:29. > :13:32.factors, globalised trade, would trade organisation, I wonder what
:13:33. > :13:40.degree of sovereignty and ignition actually has. That is a very
:13:41. > :13:44.important point. If you want to rise above the British debate, this
:13:45. > :13:50.proves that a country of 60 million like Britain cannot take on China.
:13:51. > :13:56.But neither can the EU... The EU is the richest market in the world. 500
:13:57. > :14:00.billion with an organised, central way of negotiating and making deals
:14:01. > :14:06.with China. It has leverage. But they have 2 degrees and they don't.
:14:07. > :14:11.This case is interesting because Europe was trying to do something
:14:12. > :14:15.and was blocked by Britain. It was trying to protect British workers
:14:16. > :14:20.and it was blocked by an ideological reticence. Now, which is even more
:14:21. > :14:27.paradoxical, with Britain would like to do would make Brussels seem
:14:28. > :14:31.socialist because it couldn't help the steelworkers ought the plant
:14:32. > :14:39.because it would violate the free trade agreement to end the ban on
:14:40. > :14:43.state aid. Italy is currently under investigation from the commission
:14:44. > :14:47.and Italy is a model for Jeremy Corbyn because the Italian
:14:48. > :14:53.government tried to help its own industry, it's Stephen makers, the
:14:54. > :14:56.biggest in Europe, and they are being blocked by the European
:14:57. > :15:01.Commission because it would be illegal. There are other things that
:15:02. > :15:06.show how we are all interconnected and the idea of Brexit really
:15:07. > :15:09.doesn't make much sense. We will not do Brexit this week.
:15:10. > :15:12.Donald Trump goes from strength to strength, opining on everything
:15:13. > :15:14.from criminalising women who have abortions to a future US foreign
:15:15. > :15:16.policy which, shall we say, sounds somewhat robust.
:15:17. > :15:20.Why has he come so far and could he end up in the White
:15:21. > :15:32.Why did you think he has come so far? I think for those of us and I
:15:33. > :15:39.can't speak for all of this, I think, you find him brute and rather
:15:40. > :15:42.frightening in his pronouncements during the election campaign. It is
:15:43. > :15:47.important to look beyond that to the constituencies to which he is
:15:48. > :15:53.appealing. Anybody who has travelled to America can understand why there
:15:54. > :15:58.are large sections of what we would call their working class and their
:15:59. > :16:03.middle-class, at least they're lower middle class, who feared alienating
:16:04. > :16:07.and angry. I do not think there are numerous enough to put him in the
:16:08. > :16:11.White House. The numerous enough to sustain him through to the
:16:12. > :16:16.Republican nomination, but to me the interesting question is, what would
:16:17. > :16:20.a Democratic president, Hillary Clinton in all likelihood, or any
:16:21. > :16:24.successor President do that will relieve that widespread sense of
:16:25. > :16:29.alienation and anger that you find in the United States and you find it
:16:30. > :16:35.almost everywhere but particularly in the increasingly impoverished
:16:36. > :16:41.working-class and lower middle-class who have seen for 40 years or more
:16:42. > :16:47.almost no advance, in fact quite the opposite, in their standard of
:16:48. > :16:52.living. There are some people who say the American middle class, this
:16:53. > :16:56.great engine of growth from the 1950s onwards that the American
:16:57. > :17:01.modernity is finished. The idea that if you work hard, do the right
:17:02. > :17:06.thing, you can make it in America, the land of opportunity. For tens of
:17:07. > :17:10.millions of people, that is over. Yes and I think the elites who have
:17:11. > :17:15.held the levers of power for the last 40 or 50 years have something
:17:16. > :17:21.to answer for in this respect. How much do they care or think about
:17:22. > :17:26.from their privileged theories in the upper east side and west side of
:17:27. > :17:32.Manhattan where Bel air or where ever they are about what is
:17:33. > :17:37.happening in Indiana? You haven't been there and I am sure we could
:17:38. > :17:43.add 40 or 50 cities where the degree of devastation, of
:17:44. > :17:46.deindustrialisation and sheer poverty and despair is frightening
:17:47. > :17:52.when you consider that this is measured to be the richest country
:17:53. > :17:55.on earth. This hollowing out of the middle class, the feeling that we
:17:56. > :18:01.are all in this together is what we are told, but actually some people
:18:02. > :18:05.are more in it than others. That is worldwide, at least in developed
:18:06. > :18:12.countries, isn't it? The rage against the elites which is a
:18:13. > :18:16.natural consequence of the decline in living standards and the economic
:18:17. > :18:23.decline of the West is a common problem. In America, Italy, Europe
:18:24. > :18:28.we have not really started to address what that means for our
:18:29. > :18:35.democracies, for our politics, because what we are seeing now and
:18:36. > :18:38.Italy has been a pioneer in this, is the triumph of populism, the Triumph
:18:39. > :18:43.of the man who is anti-establishment. We have had
:18:44. > :18:50.Berlusconi in Italy. He looks very much like Trump. He embodied this
:18:51. > :18:54.rage against politicians, against the establishment and the
:18:55. > :18:58.possibility of dreaming the stub of dreaming you could become a
:18:59. > :19:06.billionaire. If you were only honest and pathetic and truthful, you will
:19:07. > :19:13.somehow change this trend of things that are making people increasingly
:19:14. > :19:18.angry and desperate. Does it work when people think the system itself
:19:19. > :19:21.is corrupt? If people think the politics of Italy is clap, but these
:19:22. > :19:28.dreadful parties, some are in cahoots with the Mafia, you need a
:19:29. > :19:31.strong man, and it is always a man, above politics, something different
:19:32. > :19:37.and I cannot keep bothered because I have a lot of money, that is the
:19:38. > :19:40.theme. That is the reason why it happened before. It was a complete
:19:41. > :19:50.disillusionment and mistrust of the political class. The root causes are
:19:51. > :19:55.the decline of the standard of living and the decline of western
:19:56. > :20:01.economies. That brings us back again to China. What is happening in the
:20:02. > :20:04.world? It is an entire change of paradigms and we need to address
:20:05. > :20:12.what this creates in terms of politics and how it is changing our
:20:13. > :20:18.politics. What worries me about whether Trump can become resident is
:20:19. > :20:22.the idea that it turns out that even though his chances of being
:20:23. > :20:26.nominated by the Republican party have taken a dip in the last week
:20:27. > :20:33.because of all the stuff he said in the last week, some of which he has
:20:34. > :20:37.reversed because it seems too outlandish even for him, but the
:20:38. > :20:43.party said about women who have abortions needing to be punished,
:20:44. > :20:49.what he said about the relationship with Nato, the fact that he was
:20:50. > :20:54.Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear capacity, the fact
:20:55. > :20:58.is prepared to drop nuclear weapons on Europe and the Middle East has
:20:59. > :21:02.caused a drop in the likelihood of them being nominated by his party.
:21:03. > :21:08.What worries me is that we might be in some kind of dystopian reality
:21:09. > :21:12.where the light of Trump never ends because he gave an interview to Fox
:21:13. > :21:16.News to be released tomorrow in which he said that even if they
:21:17. > :21:20.didn't nominate him he might still stand. He might stand as a
:21:21. > :21:26.third-party candidate, in which case he is not going away. As the editor
:21:27. > :21:29.of Private eye said, as a citizen I am appalled that as the editor of
:21:30. > :21:39.Acer to recoup magazine, I am delighted. -- the editor of a
:21:40. > :21:47.satirical magazine. It taps into something genuine which you can
:21:48. > :21:52.Robin, Golden Dawn, it is anger about politics as usual because it
:21:53. > :21:56.has gone wrong for many others. People feel detached and
:21:57. > :22:01.disconnected and frightened. I think we have all underestimated the
:22:02. > :22:08.effect of the 2008 crash. That is part of the context. Not of a lot of
:22:09. > :22:11.editors write leaders saying it was a fleeting moment of great
:22:12. > :22:16.significance. Look at what has happened politically since then. We
:22:17. > :22:21.have experienced Trump here in the sense that two years ago Ukip won a
:22:22. > :22:25.national election here. They came top of the poll in the European
:22:26. > :22:32.elections saying the same kind of thing. We can protect our borders
:22:33. > :22:36.against immigrants in the same way he is going to build a wall
:22:37. > :22:41.splitting Mexico off. Offering the same kind of theoretical security in
:22:42. > :22:46.this insecure world. The reason why I don't think he will become
:22:47. > :22:51.president, even if he stands as an independent is, in the end, the
:22:52. > :22:56.level of scrutiny you get in that situation makes it very difficult.
:22:57. > :23:01.The important thing this week was abortion. He changed his mind within
:23:02. > :23:06.24 hours, panicking at the reaction. Having changed his mind from being
:23:07. > :23:14.pro-choice in the past. Yes, three changes of mind. When that happens,
:23:15. > :23:18.this apparently personification of total security and authority starts
:23:19. > :23:22.to fall apart when you start making these statements of the roof and
:23:23. > :23:29.changing your mind. The spell he casts over a frightened, insecure
:23:30. > :23:36.part of that American Electric start to go as well. We need to look
:23:37. > :23:42.beyond. We can all indulge ourselves with fury and this may at the weight
:23:43. > :23:46.Trump is behaving and speaking but we need to look beyond Trump because
:23:47. > :23:50.I think we will come in November, be looking beyond Trump. There will be
:23:51. > :23:57.a new president. It is overwhelmingly likely to be Hillary
:23:58. > :24:02.Clinton. But we, in the West, led by the United States need to readdress
:24:03. > :24:09.some of the basics of our economic and social policy and inevitably we
:24:10. > :24:16.are going to have to look to some of the old gods of community, tribe,
:24:17. > :24:21.nation, the discredited gods because the gods of globalisation and
:24:22. > :24:26.secularisation seem to be feeling. When we look at the debate over
:24:27. > :24:29.Europe in this country or at the Trump phenomena in the United
:24:30. > :24:33.States. People are looking for greater security and they are
:24:34. > :24:38.looking toward the old certainties and somehow or other we had to take
:24:39. > :24:44.care of that and one of the aspects will be economic policies which are
:24:45. > :24:47.more protective of our communities, particularly in this country, the
:24:48. > :24:55.industrial community. I just wondered if you felt that this is
:24:56. > :25:00.the Republican party bringing this up on themselves. They have been
:25:01. > :25:03.very negative throughout the Obama presidency, posing issues is fine,
:25:04. > :25:08.but because of the paralysis, the system doesn't seem to work and
:25:09. > :25:15.Trump is an extension of that kind of situation. There is a case to be
:25:16. > :25:19.made for that but it is too narrow to blame the Republican Party and
:25:20. > :25:22.you could equally make a case against the Democrats who have held
:25:23. > :25:27.power in the White House and in Congress for long periods of time.
:25:28. > :25:32.They both represent the elites and that is what the anger is against.
:25:33. > :25:38.That is the Bernie Sanders thing as well. They have cost more inequality
:25:39. > :25:45.than has ever been in the Western world in these rich countries and
:25:46. > :25:50.that is part of the anger. It seems to meet the media has something to
:25:51. > :25:53.answer for. Absolutely. The fact that you are not taking Bernie
:25:54. > :25:59.Sanders seriously is symptomatic of that. We have at there. That is good
:26:00. > :26:01.for this week. We are back next week.
:26:02. > :26:04.You can of course comment on the programme on