09/07/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

The report into Britain's road

Did Chilcot's two million words tell us much we did not know?

And Britain's next prime minister will be a woman -

but should she call a General Election to secure a mandate?

My guests today are Rachel Shabi of The Guardian, Eunice Goes

who is a Portuguese writer, Michael Goldfarb of Politico Europe,

and Adam Raphael who is a political commentator.

Tony Blair told George W Bush that he would stick with him

"whatever", on the road to war in Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction were not discovered.

And the occupation of Iraq was a catastrophe which has

Was the Chilcot report of more than two million words

" Kevin, bad blood he do anything we didn't really know, except give us

greater detail? I am very critical it took seven

years. It was virtually completed after three years, and the last four

years were tied up in a legal process. That is an absurd length of

time. I have a son who is a lawyer, my father was a lawyer. They need to

be very carefully controlled. I would think a maximum of one years

should be a timetable for these sorts of enquiries. But it was a

valuable report; frankly, historians will be mining it for years to come.

And I think there are some very cogent judgments that have been made

about the inadequacy of the preparations for war, the faulty

intelligence, the total lack of military planning, post war. There

are some very useful lessons. So the idea you would write it off and say

it is not worth it, not so. It should not have taken seven years

though. Maybe we should crowd like buildings, you can take this long,

but you will only take this amount of money. -- quote like builders.

Builders always get away with getting more pay and working the

length they want. I think it was a worthy exercise, and I think what

was interesting is that it was in such an understated tone, and the

conclusion of the report was fairly devastating for the Blair

Government. It showed how dysfunctional Government was in 2003

and perhaps very few things have changed, not only in the way that

intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence and so on work, but also

the way that Number Ten runs its own operations, the lack of

transparency, communication, between the departments. The world that this

Prime Minister behaved, like he was Julius Caesar, that he could take

decisions for the country based on his gut feeling. This is profoundly

anti-democratic, and I hope that the Chilcot inquiry made us think about

how unaccountable British Prime Minister can be, and how little

checks and balances there are other level of parliament, in both houses,

at the level of court, and even at Cabinet level, of have a Prime

Minister can act. I think there's a couple of things, obviously for Iraq

we will never be able to undo the damage that has been done to them,

we will never be able to reverse the thousands of lives that were lost,

the misery, the devastation that continues to this day and is as a

direct consequence to those mistakes. But I don't think there is

something in the Chilcot report showing that an establishment can

critique itself and believe that critical of its failures, that is

significant, it is not a given. The question then becomes, what are you

going to do with that critique, when you have realised so many mistakes

have been made and at such great cost? What's the accountability

then, what's the process ) because what it did not address is the sort

of institutional and cultural mechanisms that allow these was to

happen, the kind of drumbeat for war, the seductive law -- lure into

war. Also groupthink in a way, if you have decided on a policy, your

intelligence agencies are probably going to try and look for solutions

that back up the route you have already taken. Although to be fair,

some of the security establishment at the time was warning Tony Blair

about the consequences. But I think the society we live in, is seduced

by that, and continues to be seduced by that. We saw that happening with

the liberal intervention as well, and historically we have seen that

happen with interventions and wars. So I don't -- systemically I don't

know what the Chilcot report has provided in terms of how to -- how

we can address that. Intervention is a whole different programme, and

some of us think intervention, going back to the early 90s and the

Balkans, is something that still needs to be considered. And of

course Chilcot ends with the notion that what he has laid out here, and

always terrible errors, affect us to that date, -- to this day, and we

need to learn the lessons. Because there will be needed to intervene

and for that to be otherwise in which people are relieved of the

pressures of totalitarian dictatorship, which were also

destabilising to us as well. But I just want to come back to what

Eunice was saying. You are right, elective dictatorship is not a

phrase of the left, it was invented by a Tory, Quentin Hogg, who

described British Government, and it is in a sense elective dictatorship.

What I found interesting in Chilcot was the aftermath, it is there,

online, you can look and nine at yourself. The testimony of Sir

Jeremy Greenstock who served at the UN in the months running up to the

war and then was seconded by Tony Blair to get to Iraq as soon as

possible with the conclusion that the whole thing was going to hell in

a handcart very quickly. And Tony Blair said, I'm going to stand by

you, whatever. But the next word is "Butt." There are a whole list of

things that need to be dealt with that clearly were not dealt with. He

had one car to play. We could have said, we are out of

--, you improve your act. The idea that Tony Blair was unaccountable,

he is accountable to his Cabinet, Robin Cook resigned... This we would

have been there without us. The United States would have gone to

wear better than whether or not. And he was re-elected by a landslide. It

is not a question of just election, accountability relies also on your

actions. He hid information, he misled, who did not share

information that he should have had, and this is what Chilcot said. This

is accountability, you make yourself accountable for your acts. You

explain the rationale for your actions, and he didn't do that.

Let's move onto the next person who may have to take such decisions.

Britain's next prime minister will be selected by Conservative

party members, and will either be Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom.

Whoever wins, should she call an election - since 60 million

British people will not have been consulted about our new leader?

Are we right to see this as another sign of more

And on that note, Andrea Leadsom is in a row with the Times newspaper,

saying that they have quoted her as saying she is a better candidate

because effectively she has children. What do you make of this?

I think to speak to that question about a giant step for feminism that

has been betrayed, and the fact that the Tories have two candidates who

are women, I think we are putting all sorts of things in the same bad

-- basket there. One thing is visibility, of course it is

important if there is a black leader or a female leader, is the fact that

that exists. That other people can see that is important. But that is

not the same as representation. The Conservative Party is manifestly bad

at representation; 20% of its MPs are women, compare that to the

Labour Party which has 45% and is inspiring -- is by over 50%. It has

always been just because it believes in gender equality as policy. So

visibility is not the same as the quality or representation, and then

there is the matter of being female or being a feminist. And for a lot

of people, having a female leader is less important than having a

feminist leader, that is to say, somebody who will pursue policies

that enhance gender equality, equal pay, sexual and gender equality, not

pursuing austerity measures when you know that they disproportionately

affect women. Well let well, -- well, being a mother. I don't think,

maybe it's happen, but I don't think being a father would come -- was

quite such a role between somebody who had children and somebody who

hadn't. But this is a different form of dog whistling, it is not about

race, but very regressive politics, that speak to this sort of golden

age where women were in their place, and we didn't have same-sex

marriage, and we didn't have, you know, sexual and reproductive

rights. It speaks to a particular age that I think a lot of people

find very appealing and I think the Brexit result shows this, and I

think we underestimate the power of these incredibly damaging things

that she says, that they actually do resonate with a lot of people. I'm

not sure about the answer to that question... I find it hard to

imagine it not coming up if an out gay man without children was running

for the highest office. I do think people would ask questions about...

But it is with a man being... I am just picking up Gavin's question,

who said, fathers, I have children so I could be Prime Minister. I have

taken citizenship, I could tell you all the bad things I have done, I

would hide them... And I don't embellish my CV. But what I found

extraordinary is your question about, this will be the third time I

think in the 30 years I have lived there were has been a change in

Prime Minister, without the people getting a chance to ratify that

change. Gordon Brown didn't do it, for example. You don't elect

leaders, you elect parliaments. Should you have an election or

not... 0.3%, that is the Conservative electorate in the

Conservative associations who will be deciding our future Prime

Minister. And the idea that that is representative of a country is

absurd, of course there should be an election. And I think Michael's

right, this is the key issue, and what is so strange at the moment,

there doesn't appear to be any popular demand for an election, in

fact most people are thinking this is the last thing we want. But

whoever is elected, whichever of these women, neither will have a

proper mandate from the people. And it is crucial to have a mandate,

because they are going to be entering the most sensitive

negotiation on Britain's future in Europe. That the speak to what you

have been talking about. It does, but we elect a parliament, we do not

elect a Government. Government is formed out of the Parliamentary

majority. So there is not a necessity, not even legal, for an

election. I think people are feeling that because it is such a momentous

decision, coming out of the referendum, that a lot of people are

unhappy with the result, a lot of people would like to have another

referendum on Brexit. So this would be a second opportunity, and you

would want the person who is going to be in charge of these

negotiations to have a democratic vote behind them. But love it or

hate it, this is how representative democracy works. If, going back to

the question of gender, I am totally in agreement with Rachel, if Andrea

Leadsom will be the next by Minister, and it is a possibility,

she will not represent any advance in gender equality, in fact she has

been on record as saying things like maternity leave, equal pay, pension

rights for part-time workers, all of those things or red tape that are an

obstacle to business. And she would get rid of this. These are

cornerstones of an equality agenda. So she would be in a sense like Mrs

Thatcher, yes, she was the first female Prime Minister, but what did

she do for women in particular? Very little if anything. So it is

important to move away from these questions of representation having a

female leader and having somebody who actually defends an agenda that

promotes women. Well, with the Conservatives providing both the

Government and the opposition at the moment, I want to turn to the Labour

Party. Well, it's true! In terms of the Labour Party, what is, if

anybody can tell me, Jeremy Corbyn's game here? What does he hope, what

would be the best outcome he can hope for, given the Parliamentary

Party Committee largely has rejected him? I obviously think it is

something much bigger or deeper than Jeremy Corbyn, I think it is much

more about the kind of politics he represents and the kind of politics

he clearly has a mandate to represent, and the politics people

have been surging to the party to support. And these politics have

become even more important at a time when we look at the two alternatives

for leadership in the Conservative Party are basically rubbing their

hands with glee at a bonfire of regulations, this bonanza for the

free market, for unfettered capitalism, for free-market

fundamentalism. That is what is coming... But if one of the

candidates said, we will have an election this autumn, the Labour

Party is in such a shambles, the Conservatives would presumably be

easily return? And the problems the Labour Party have very little to do

with Jeremy Corbyn. They go back to being a kind of middle ground,

austerity light party that didn't really appeal to anyone because it

is like, why would you vote for that when you can vote for the full fat

Tory... I don't recognise any of this at all. And they lost Scotland,

they lost most of the loss of the Labour heartland vote for us -- was

under Labour -- new Labour, they haemorrhaged 5 million voters during

that period. It doesn't matter who the Labour is, those problems will

remain. I was talking to somebody who shall remain nameless, but a

leading member of the Labour Party, who said, no, this is basically

Trotskyite activity because they do not trust parliamentary democracy

and they want a social uprising in the country. Now, that is entirely

opposite argument that Rachel was putting. What do you think is going

on in the Labour Party? I think it is a civil war between the MPs and

the constituency activists. If you are forced up with a totally

impossible constitution, as the Labour Party is, it is hard to see

how it will get out. You cannot lose the support of two thirds of your

MPs in Parliament and hope to be sustained as the leader. I've always

thought that Jeremy Corbyn is actually the centre of this, and he

may well be replaced by somebody harder left than him, who actually

would represent a much more serious threat to Labour than he does.

Corbyn is a perfectly decent guy, not capable of actually doing the

job was elected to do. Now, the difficulty is that the constituency

activists, and clearly the recruitment that is going on,

because of part of the civil war accelerated recruitment, it could

lead to a split in the Labour Party, and the emergence of a centre-left

party. But the fact is, that any Corbyn party or a harder left party

is not going to be elected. I would have thought the point of democratic

politics is to be elected, not to storm the barricades. You are

describing centrist politics as "Hard left". Are you saying he is

centrist or hard left? I am saying he is centrist. The political

spectrum has moved so far to the right that the definition has

shifted. But the politics have moved 1000 miles away. Let's hear from

Eunice. Corbyn clearly represents a need within Labour Party supporters,

and left-wing supporters on the whole, for the need for change and

in particular to challenge austerity. I don't think he is the

party leader that Labour needs, he doesn't have the leadership skills.

Politics -- his interest in politics is very narrow,. But the idea that

the Labour Party has a messiah that is going to transform overnight the

electoral chances of this party, is a complete lie. It is an illusion.

Labour is facing an existential crisis, at the moment, very similar

to other social Democratic parties in Europe, and what we have our

think at the moment, the major split is the split of the so-called -- the

left behind voters, those 150 seats that are in danger, a large number

of people voted to leave the European Union because they feel

abandoned by the Labour Party, since the 1990s. Left behind by new

Labour. And on the other hand, you have a party of the young, who are

educated, they believe in cosmopolitan values, and they want

to take the party somewhere. And there is no solution for how you are

going to jail these two different constituencies. Michael, Tom Watson

has called off talks with union chiefs because he says there is no

prospect of reaching a copper mines on this. The party could split over

the next few months. I think they could, although those who forget

history are condemned to repeat it. And I do think the trauma of 1981

and 1982 weighs heavily on people, most people in the Parliamentary

Party Committee in Parliament when the party split last time. And I

think that that hold of history will keep it from splitting. But I always

say those who remember history to well are condemned to repeat it. And

in this case, Labour could find themselves out of power, even

against a Conservative Party which in itself is in some sort of

low-grade civil war and meltdown, because it has chosen to go hard

left at a time when, Eunice is right, the left itself is splitting.

But also because they simply have attached themselves to Jeremy

Corbyn, who prima facie doesn't have the presentational skills to lead a

party. You can disagree with him, he obviously cannot work with his

parliamentary colleagues, and when he comes before the party -- country

on television, you can tell people will not look at him and see a

potential Prime Minister. And there is clearly a hunger for a different

type of politics, more democratic, but what I think Jeremy Corbyn and

his supporters are ignoring is, before you change the system you

have to work within it. And I think this is where you have the great

clash. You have momentum and supporters who are trying to subvert

the way that representative democracy works with grassroots

organisations and so on, that leads to a whole -- huge mistrust in the

Parliamentary Labour Party. So political parties are in huge

crisis. We are all talking about deepening democracy, but before we

get there, you need to work, or that change has to happen from within,

working within those representative institutions. That's exactly what

they are trying to do within the democratic process of the Labour

Party, I agree, I think politics has changed so dramatically, I think

that, you know, our parties which are very locked into a -- voting

system that we have, they are not able to move with that change, but

certainly the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have realised that. And he is

very much about the democratic process. That is why he keeps

talking about his democratic mandate to lead, because that is what he

believes in, he sees change coming through movements, he sees politics

as being connected to communities and movements because otherwise it

is meaningless. If you are talking about recruiting 200,000 new

members, that is not a democratic process. This is a very tiny

percentage of the people who are going to potentially vote Labour. So

the idea... This is the same trouble with the Conservatives, they are not

with -- representative of their votes. But the SNP put on a huge

number of members after 2014... If you make membership available at

5p... ?3, actually. I was just trying to reduce the argument to

absurdity. It depends what you mean by being a member of a party. If you

are recruited on a basis, we are going to cause trouble and get rid

of these MPs, these centrist whatever they are called... Many of

these Labour MPs are very decent, representing the true heart of the

Labour Party, the idea that they are being sold -- sort of excoriated and

criticised and condemned and is -- as some sort of catalyst in roaders,

we are back to Chairman Mao. It reminds me of the Little red book!

It sounds like you had -- have a problem with democracy. I do not!

Let me shout at everybody. Rachel, go ahead. People are joining the

Labour Party because they believe in something, because they have been

reenergised by politics. My membership has been suspended until

there is a leadership contest. My wife wants to get rid of Jeremy

Corbyn. Meanwhile, the Labour Party can give rise to all of its

researchers. But the point, I was shouting, Rachel, I'm sorry. I have

been trying to make this point on social media for weeks, and this is

the only democracy that really counts. The honest truth is, when

they go to the polls, whether Theresa May, who will be the next by

Minister, calls up or before the end of the year or not, that is where

democracy takes place, and if Labour loses another 50 seats, that is

where the democratic decision will be. I don't care about the Labour

Party membership, and I want the Labour Party to go into that with a

leader who could potentially be a Prime Minister. Thank you all very

much. That's it for Dateline

London for this week. You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler and also We're back next week

at the same time. For those of you that enjoyed a liar

in for the start of the weekend, you missed a glorious sunrise. This was

the scene in