:00:23. > :00:23.Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
:00:24. > :00:26.The report into Britain's road
:00:27. > :00:31.Did Chilcot's two million words tell us much we did not know?
:00:32. > :00:34.And Britain's next prime minister will be a woman -
:00:35. > :00:38.but should she call a General Election to secure a mandate?
:00:39. > :00:42.My guests today are Rachel Shabi of The Guardian, Eunice Goes
:00:43. > :00:45.who is a Portuguese writer, Michael Goldfarb of Politico Europe,
:00:46. > :00:49.and Adam Raphael who is a political commentator.
:00:50. > :00:53.Tony Blair told George W Bush that he would stick with him
:00:54. > :00:55."whatever", on the road to war in Iraq.
:00:56. > :00:57.Weapons of mass destruction were not discovered.
:00:58. > :01:00.And the occupation of Iraq was a catastrophe which has
:01:01. > :01:07.Was the Chilcot report of more than two million words
:01:08. > :01:22." Kevin, bad blood he do anything we didn't really know, except give us
:01:23. > :01:27.greater detail? I am very critical it took seven
:01:28. > :01:34.years. It was virtually completed after three years, and the last four
:01:35. > :01:41.years were tied up in a legal process. That is an absurd length of
:01:42. > :01:45.time. I have a son who is a lawyer, my father was a lawyer. They need to
:01:46. > :01:50.be very carefully controlled. I would think a maximum of one years
:01:51. > :01:55.should be a timetable for these sorts of enquiries. But it was a
:01:56. > :02:00.valuable report; frankly, historians will be mining it for years to come.
:02:01. > :02:06.And I think there are some very cogent judgments that have been made
:02:07. > :02:10.about the inadequacy of the preparations for war, the faulty
:02:11. > :02:16.intelligence, the total lack of military planning, post war. There
:02:17. > :02:22.are some very useful lessons. So the idea you would write it off and say
:02:23. > :02:29.it is not worth it, not so. It should not have taken seven years
:02:30. > :02:33.though. Maybe we should crowd like buildings, you can take this long,
:02:34. > :02:41.but you will only take this amount of money. -- quote like builders.
:02:42. > :02:47.Builders always get away with getting more pay and working the
:02:48. > :02:53.length they want. I think it was a worthy exercise, and I think what
:02:54. > :02:58.was interesting is that it was in such an understated tone, and the
:02:59. > :03:01.conclusion of the report was fairly devastating for the Blair
:03:02. > :03:06.Government. It showed how dysfunctional Government was in 2003
:03:07. > :03:11.and perhaps very few things have changed, not only in the way that
:03:12. > :03:17.intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence and so on work, but also
:03:18. > :03:20.the way that Number Ten runs its own operations, the lack of
:03:21. > :03:29.transparency, communication, between the departments. The world that this
:03:30. > :03:34.Prime Minister behaved, like he was Julius Caesar, that he could take
:03:35. > :03:39.decisions for the country based on his gut feeling. This is profoundly
:03:40. > :03:44.anti-democratic, and I hope that the Chilcot inquiry made us think about
:03:45. > :03:48.how unaccountable British Prime Minister can be, and how little
:03:49. > :03:54.checks and balances there are other level of parliament, in both houses,
:03:55. > :04:00.at the level of court, and even at Cabinet level, of have a Prime
:04:01. > :04:04.Minister can act. I think there's a couple of things, obviously for Iraq
:04:05. > :04:10.we will never be able to undo the damage that has been done to them,
:04:11. > :04:14.we will never be able to reverse the thousands of lives that were lost,
:04:15. > :04:19.the misery, the devastation that continues to this day and is as a
:04:20. > :04:24.direct consequence to those mistakes. But I don't think there is
:04:25. > :04:29.something in the Chilcot report showing that an establishment can
:04:30. > :04:34.critique itself and believe that critical of its failures, that is
:04:35. > :04:37.significant, it is not a given. The question then becomes, what are you
:04:38. > :04:42.going to do with that critique, when you have realised so many mistakes
:04:43. > :04:46.have been made and at such great cost? What's the accountability
:04:47. > :04:51.then, what's the process ) because what it did not address is the sort
:04:52. > :04:56.of institutional and cultural mechanisms that allow these was to
:04:57. > :05:02.happen, the kind of drumbeat for war, the seductive law -- lure into
:05:03. > :05:06.war. Also groupthink in a way, if you have decided on a policy, your
:05:07. > :05:15.intelligence agencies are probably going to try and look for solutions
:05:16. > :05:19.that back up the route you have already taken. Although to be fair,
:05:20. > :05:21.some of the security establishment at the time was warning Tony Blair
:05:22. > :05:26.about the consequences. But I think the society we live in, is seduced
:05:27. > :05:31.by that, and continues to be seduced by that. We saw that happening with
:05:32. > :05:35.the liberal intervention as well, and historically we have seen that
:05:36. > :05:42.happen with interventions and wars. So I don't -- systemically I don't
:05:43. > :05:51.know what the Chilcot report has provided in terms of how to -- how
:05:52. > :05:56.we can address that. Intervention is a whole different programme, and
:05:57. > :06:00.some of us think intervention, going back to the early 90s and the
:06:01. > :06:05.Balkans, is something that still needs to be considered. And of
:06:06. > :06:10.course Chilcot ends with the notion that what he has laid out here, and
:06:11. > :06:15.always terrible errors, affect us to that date, -- to this day, and we
:06:16. > :06:20.need to learn the lessons. Because there will be needed to intervene
:06:21. > :06:26.and for that to be otherwise in which people are relieved of the
:06:27. > :06:30.pressures of totalitarian dictatorship, which were also
:06:31. > :06:37.destabilising to us as well. But I just want to come back to what
:06:38. > :06:43.Eunice was saying. You are right, elective dictatorship is not a
:06:44. > :06:48.phrase of the left, it was invented by a Tory, Quentin Hogg, who
:06:49. > :06:52.described British Government, and it is in a sense elective dictatorship.
:06:53. > :07:00.What I found interesting in Chilcot was the aftermath, it is there,
:07:01. > :07:06.online, you can look and nine at yourself. The testimony of Sir
:07:07. > :07:11.Jeremy Greenstock who served at the UN in the months running up to the
:07:12. > :07:14.war and then was seconded by Tony Blair to get to Iraq as soon as
:07:15. > :07:21.possible with the conclusion that the whole thing was going to hell in
:07:22. > :07:27.a handcart very quickly. And Tony Blair said, I'm going to stand by
:07:28. > :07:30.you, whatever. But the next word is "Butt." There are a whole list of
:07:31. > :07:33.things that need to be dealt with that clearly were not dealt with. He
:07:34. > :07:53.had one car to play. We could have said, we are out of
:07:54. > :07:57.--, you improve your act. The idea that Tony Blair was unaccountable,
:07:58. > :08:04.he is accountable to his Cabinet, Robin Cook resigned... This we would
:08:05. > :08:09.have been there without us. The United States would have gone to
:08:10. > :08:17.wear better than whether or not. And he was re-elected by a landslide. It
:08:18. > :08:23.is not a question of just election, accountability relies also on your
:08:24. > :08:26.actions. He hid information, he misled, who did not share
:08:27. > :08:31.information that he should have had, and this is what Chilcot said. This
:08:32. > :08:34.is accountability, you make yourself accountable for your acts. You
:08:35. > :08:38.explain the rationale for your actions, and he didn't do that.
:08:39. > :08:41.Let's move onto the next person who may have to take such decisions.
:08:42. > :08:43.Britain's next prime minister will be selected by Conservative
:08:44. > :08:46.party members, and will either be Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom.
:08:47. > :08:48.Whoever wins, should she call an election - since 60 million
:08:49. > :08:51.British people will not have been consulted about our new leader?
:08:52. > :08:54.Are we right to see this as another sign of more
:08:55. > :09:08.And on that note, Andrea Leadsom is in a row with the Times newspaper,
:09:09. > :09:11.saying that they have quoted her as saying she is a better candidate
:09:12. > :09:18.because effectively she has children. What do you make of this?
:09:19. > :09:23.I think to speak to that question about a giant step for feminism that
:09:24. > :09:29.has been betrayed, and the fact that the Tories have two candidates who
:09:30. > :09:34.are women, I think we are putting all sorts of things in the same bad
:09:35. > :09:38.-- basket there. One thing is visibility, of course it is
:09:39. > :09:42.important if there is a black leader or a female leader, is the fact that
:09:43. > :09:48.that exists. That other people can see that is important. But that is
:09:49. > :09:55.not the same as representation. The Conservative Party is manifestly bad
:09:56. > :10:00.at representation; 20% of its MPs are women, compare that to the
:10:01. > :10:05.Labour Party which has 45% and is inspiring -- is by over 50%. It has
:10:06. > :10:10.always been just because it believes in gender equality as policy. So
:10:11. > :10:16.visibility is not the same as the quality or representation, and then
:10:17. > :10:21.there is the matter of being female or being a feminist. And for a lot
:10:22. > :10:25.of people, having a female leader is less important than having a
:10:26. > :10:30.feminist leader, that is to say, somebody who will pursue policies
:10:31. > :10:35.that enhance gender equality, equal pay, sexual and gender equality, not
:10:36. > :10:44.pursuing austerity measures when you know that they disproportionately
:10:45. > :10:49.affect women. Well let well, -- well, being a mother. I don't think,
:10:50. > :10:54.maybe it's happen, but I don't think being a father would come -- was
:10:55. > :11:01.quite such a role between somebody who had children and somebody who
:11:02. > :11:06.hadn't. But this is a different form of dog whistling, it is not about
:11:07. > :11:12.race, but very regressive politics, that speak to this sort of golden
:11:13. > :11:17.age where women were in their place, and we didn't have same-sex
:11:18. > :11:23.marriage, and we didn't have, you know, sexual and reproductive
:11:24. > :11:27.rights. It speaks to a particular age that I think a lot of people
:11:28. > :11:33.find very appealing and I think the Brexit result shows this, and I
:11:34. > :11:36.think we underestimate the power of these incredibly damaging things
:11:37. > :11:45.that she says, that they actually do resonate with a lot of people. I'm
:11:46. > :11:51.not sure about the answer to that question... I find it hard to
:11:52. > :11:55.imagine it not coming up if an out gay man without children was running
:11:56. > :12:05.for the highest office. I do think people would ask questions about...
:12:06. > :12:11.But it is with a man being... I am just picking up Gavin's question,
:12:12. > :12:16.who said, fathers, I have children so I could be Prime Minister. I have
:12:17. > :12:22.taken citizenship, I could tell you all the bad things I have done, I
:12:23. > :12:25.would hide them... And I don't embellish my CV. But what I found
:12:26. > :12:30.extraordinary is your question about, this will be the third time I
:12:31. > :12:38.think in the 30 years I have lived there were has been a change in
:12:39. > :12:42.Prime Minister, without the people getting a chance to ratify that
:12:43. > :12:55.change. Gordon Brown didn't do it, for example. You don't elect
:12:56. > :13:02.leaders, you elect parliaments. Should you have an election or
:13:03. > :13:05.not... 0.3%, that is the Conservative electorate in the
:13:06. > :13:10.Conservative associations who will be deciding our future Prime
:13:11. > :13:14.Minister. And the idea that that is representative of a country is
:13:15. > :13:18.absurd, of course there should be an election. And I think Michael's
:13:19. > :13:22.right, this is the key issue, and what is so strange at the moment,
:13:23. > :13:26.there doesn't appear to be any popular demand for an election, in
:13:27. > :13:31.fact most people are thinking this is the last thing we want. But
:13:32. > :13:35.whoever is elected, whichever of these women, neither will have a
:13:36. > :13:38.proper mandate from the people. And it is crucial to have a mandate,
:13:39. > :13:42.because they are going to be entering the most sensitive
:13:43. > :13:48.negotiation on Britain's future in Europe. That the speak to what you
:13:49. > :13:54.have been talking about. It does, but we elect a parliament, we do not
:13:55. > :13:58.elect a Government. Government is formed out of the Parliamentary
:13:59. > :14:04.majority. So there is not a necessity, not even legal, for an
:14:05. > :14:11.election. I think people are feeling that because it is such a momentous
:14:12. > :14:13.decision, coming out of the referendum, that a lot of people are
:14:14. > :14:21.unhappy with the result, a lot of people would like to have another
:14:22. > :14:25.referendum on Brexit. So this would be a second opportunity, and you
:14:26. > :14:29.would want the person who is going to be in charge of these
:14:30. > :14:35.negotiations to have a democratic vote behind them. But love it or
:14:36. > :14:40.hate it, this is how representative democracy works. If, going back to
:14:41. > :14:46.the question of gender, I am totally in agreement with Rachel, if Andrea
:14:47. > :14:52.Leadsom will be the next by Minister, and it is a possibility,
:14:53. > :14:58.she will not represent any advance in gender equality, in fact she has
:14:59. > :15:02.been on record as saying things like maternity leave, equal pay, pension
:15:03. > :15:07.rights for part-time workers, all of those things or red tape that are an
:15:08. > :15:12.obstacle to business. And she would get rid of this. These are
:15:13. > :15:16.cornerstones of an equality agenda. So she would be in a sense like Mrs
:15:17. > :15:21.Thatcher, yes, she was the first female Prime Minister, but what did
:15:22. > :15:24.she do for women in particular? Very little if anything. So it is
:15:25. > :15:29.important to move away from these questions of representation having a
:15:30. > :15:34.female leader and having somebody who actually defends an agenda that
:15:35. > :15:37.promotes women. Well, with the Conservatives providing both the
:15:38. > :15:43.Government and the opposition at the moment, I want to turn to the Labour
:15:44. > :15:47.Party. Well, it's true! In terms of the Labour Party, what is, if
:15:48. > :15:52.anybody can tell me, Jeremy Corbyn's game here? What does he hope, what
:15:53. > :15:56.would be the best outcome he can hope for, given the Parliamentary
:15:57. > :16:02.Party Committee largely has rejected him? I obviously think it is
:16:03. > :16:06.something much bigger or deeper than Jeremy Corbyn, I think it is much
:16:07. > :16:13.more about the kind of politics he represents and the kind of politics
:16:14. > :16:17.he clearly has a mandate to represent, and the politics people
:16:18. > :16:21.have been surging to the party to support. And these politics have
:16:22. > :16:26.become even more important at a time when we look at the two alternatives
:16:27. > :16:31.for leadership in the Conservative Party are basically rubbing their
:16:32. > :16:36.hands with glee at a bonfire of regulations, this bonanza for the
:16:37. > :16:39.free market, for unfettered capitalism, for free-market
:16:40. > :16:43.fundamentalism. That is what is coming... But if one of the
:16:44. > :16:47.candidates said, we will have an election this autumn, the Labour
:16:48. > :16:52.Party is in such a shambles, the Conservatives would presumably be
:16:53. > :16:57.easily return? And the problems the Labour Party have very little to do
:16:58. > :17:01.with Jeremy Corbyn. They go back to being a kind of middle ground,
:17:02. > :17:08.austerity light party that didn't really appeal to anyone because it
:17:09. > :17:11.is like, why would you vote for that when you can vote for the full fat
:17:12. > :17:20.Tory... I don't recognise any of this at all. And they lost Scotland,
:17:21. > :17:25.they lost most of the loss of the Labour heartland vote for us -- was
:17:26. > :17:29.under Labour -- new Labour, they haemorrhaged 5 million voters during
:17:30. > :17:34.that period. It doesn't matter who the Labour is, those problems will
:17:35. > :17:38.remain. I was talking to somebody who shall remain nameless, but a
:17:39. > :17:43.leading member of the Labour Party, who said, no, this is basically
:17:44. > :17:47.Trotskyite activity because they do not trust parliamentary democracy
:17:48. > :17:51.and they want a social uprising in the country. Now, that is entirely
:17:52. > :18:00.opposite argument that Rachel was putting. What do you think is going
:18:01. > :18:03.on in the Labour Party? I think it is a civil war between the MPs and
:18:04. > :18:06.the constituency activists. If you are forced up with a totally
:18:07. > :18:09.impossible constitution, as the Labour Party is, it is hard to see
:18:10. > :18:13.how it will get out. You cannot lose the support of two thirds of your
:18:14. > :18:17.MPs in Parliament and hope to be sustained as the leader. I've always
:18:18. > :18:21.thought that Jeremy Corbyn is actually the centre of this, and he
:18:22. > :18:25.may well be replaced by somebody harder left than him, who actually
:18:26. > :18:30.would represent a much more serious threat to Labour than he does.
:18:31. > :18:35.Corbyn is a perfectly decent guy, not capable of actually doing the
:18:36. > :18:38.job was elected to do. Now, the difficulty is that the constituency
:18:39. > :18:43.activists, and clearly the recruitment that is going on,
:18:44. > :18:47.because of part of the civil war accelerated recruitment, it could
:18:48. > :18:55.lead to a split in the Labour Party, and the emergence of a centre-left
:18:56. > :18:59.party. But the fact is, that any Corbyn party or a harder left party
:19:00. > :19:04.is not going to be elected. I would have thought the point of democratic
:19:05. > :19:10.politics is to be elected, not to storm the barricades. You are
:19:11. > :19:15.describing centrist politics as "Hard left". Are you saying he is
:19:16. > :19:20.centrist or hard left? I am saying he is centrist. The political
:19:21. > :19:26.spectrum has moved so far to the right that the definition has
:19:27. > :19:32.shifted. But the politics have moved 1000 miles away. Let's hear from
:19:33. > :19:37.Eunice. Corbyn clearly represents a need within Labour Party supporters,
:19:38. > :19:40.and left-wing supporters on the whole, for the need for change and
:19:41. > :19:44.in particular to challenge austerity. I don't think he is the
:19:45. > :19:52.party leader that Labour needs, he doesn't have the leadership skills.
:19:53. > :20:00.Politics -- his interest in politics is very narrow,. But the idea that
:20:01. > :20:03.the Labour Party has a messiah that is going to transform overnight the
:20:04. > :20:10.electoral chances of this party, is a complete lie. It is an illusion.
:20:11. > :20:14.Labour is facing an existential crisis, at the moment, very similar
:20:15. > :20:19.to other social Democratic parties in Europe, and what we have our
:20:20. > :20:26.think at the moment, the major split is the split of the so-called -- the
:20:27. > :20:31.left behind voters, those 150 seats that are in danger, a large number
:20:32. > :20:34.of people voted to leave the European Union because they feel
:20:35. > :20:39.abandoned by the Labour Party, since the 1990s. Left behind by new
:20:40. > :20:46.Labour. And on the other hand, you have a party of the young, who are
:20:47. > :20:50.educated, they believe in cosmopolitan values, and they want
:20:51. > :20:55.to take the party somewhere. And there is no solution for how you are
:20:56. > :20:59.going to jail these two different constituencies. Michael, Tom Watson
:21:00. > :21:04.has called off talks with union chiefs because he says there is no
:21:05. > :21:10.prospect of reaching a copper mines on this. The party could split over
:21:11. > :21:13.the next few months. I think they could, although those who forget
:21:14. > :21:22.history are condemned to repeat it. And I do think the trauma of 1981
:21:23. > :21:25.and 1982 weighs heavily on people, most people in the Parliamentary
:21:26. > :21:32.Party Committee in Parliament when the party split last time. And I
:21:33. > :21:36.think that that hold of history will keep it from splitting. But I always
:21:37. > :21:41.say those who remember history to well are condemned to repeat it. And
:21:42. > :21:44.in this case, Labour could find themselves out of power, even
:21:45. > :21:47.against a Conservative Party which in itself is in some sort of
:21:48. > :21:52.low-grade civil war and meltdown, because it has chosen to go hard
:21:53. > :21:59.left at a time when, Eunice is right, the left itself is splitting.
:22:00. > :22:04.But also because they simply have attached themselves to Jeremy
:22:05. > :22:10.Corbyn, who prima facie doesn't have the presentational skills to lead a
:22:11. > :22:13.party. You can disagree with him, he obviously cannot work with his
:22:14. > :22:17.parliamentary colleagues, and when he comes before the party -- country
:22:18. > :22:22.on television, you can tell people will not look at him and see a
:22:23. > :22:29.potential Prime Minister. And there is clearly a hunger for a different
:22:30. > :22:33.type of politics, more democratic, but what I think Jeremy Corbyn and
:22:34. > :22:36.his supporters are ignoring is, before you change the system you
:22:37. > :22:41.have to work within it. And I think this is where you have the great
:22:42. > :22:45.clash. You have momentum and supporters who are trying to subvert
:22:46. > :22:48.the way that representative democracy works with grassroots
:22:49. > :22:52.organisations and so on, that leads to a whole -- huge mistrust in the
:22:53. > :22:59.Parliamentary Labour Party. So political parties are in huge
:23:00. > :23:03.crisis. We are all talking about deepening democracy, but before we
:23:04. > :23:09.get there, you need to work, or that change has to happen from within,
:23:10. > :23:13.working within those representative institutions. That's exactly what
:23:14. > :23:18.they are trying to do within the democratic process of the Labour
:23:19. > :23:22.Party, I agree, I think politics has changed so dramatically, I think
:23:23. > :23:29.that, you know, our parties which are very locked into a -- voting
:23:30. > :23:35.system that we have, they are not able to move with that change, but
:23:36. > :23:38.certainly the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have realised that. And he is
:23:39. > :23:42.very much about the democratic process. That is why he keeps
:23:43. > :23:46.talking about his democratic mandate to lead, because that is what he
:23:47. > :23:50.believes in, he sees change coming through movements, he sees politics
:23:51. > :23:56.as being connected to communities and movements because otherwise it
:23:57. > :24:00.is meaningless. If you are talking about recruiting 200,000 new
:24:01. > :24:05.members, that is not a democratic process. This is a very tiny
:24:06. > :24:09.percentage of the people who are going to potentially vote Labour. So
:24:10. > :24:14.the idea... This is the same trouble with the Conservatives, they are not
:24:15. > :24:20.with -- representative of their votes. But the SNP put on a huge
:24:21. > :24:29.number of members after 2014... If you make membership available at
:24:30. > :24:34.5p... ?3, actually. I was just trying to reduce the argument to
:24:35. > :24:39.absurdity. It depends what you mean by being a member of a party. If you
:24:40. > :24:43.are recruited on a basis, we are going to cause trouble and get rid
:24:44. > :24:49.of these MPs, these centrist whatever they are called... Many of
:24:50. > :24:53.these Labour MPs are very decent, representing the true heart of the
:24:54. > :25:00.Labour Party, the idea that they are being sold -- sort of excoriated and
:25:01. > :25:05.criticised and condemned and is -- as some sort of catalyst in roaders,
:25:06. > :25:13.we are back to Chairman Mao. It reminds me of the Little red book!
:25:14. > :25:20.It sounds like you had -- have a problem with democracy. I do not!
:25:21. > :25:26.Let me shout at everybody. Rachel, go ahead. People are joining the
:25:27. > :25:35.Labour Party because they believe in something, because they have been
:25:36. > :25:39.reenergised by politics. My membership has been suspended until
:25:40. > :25:43.there is a leadership contest. My wife wants to get rid of Jeremy
:25:44. > :25:51.Corbyn. Meanwhile, the Labour Party can give rise to all of its
:25:52. > :25:54.researchers. But the point, I was shouting, Rachel, I'm sorry. I have
:25:55. > :25:57.been trying to make this point on social media for weeks, and this is
:25:58. > :26:04.the only democracy that really counts. The honest truth is, when
:26:05. > :26:09.they go to the polls, whether Theresa May, who will be the next by
:26:10. > :26:13.Minister, calls up or before the end of the year or not, that is where
:26:14. > :26:17.democracy takes place, and if Labour loses another 50 seats, that is
:26:18. > :26:21.where the democratic decision will be. I don't care about the Labour
:26:22. > :26:27.Party membership, and I want the Labour Party to go into that with a
:26:28. > :26:30.leader who could potentially be a Prime Minister. Thank you all very
:26:31. > :26:34.much. That's it for Dateline
:26:35. > :26:36.London for this week. You can comment on the programme
:26:37. > :26:38.on Twitter @gavinesler and also We're back next week
:26:39. > :27:13.at the same time. For those of you that enjoyed a liar
:27:14. > :27:18.in for the start of the weekend, you missed a glorious sunrise. This was
:27:19. > :27:20.the scene in