:00:26. > :00:27.Hello and welcome to Dateline London.
:00:28. > :00:31.Could the US presidential election get any less inspiring?
:00:32. > :00:33.Syria, and outside intervention in the Middle East.
:00:34. > :00:36.Jeremy Corbyn is a week away from possibly being confirmed
:00:37. > :00:39.as leader of the Labour Party - but with what consequences?
:00:40. > :00:41.My guests today are: Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt,
:00:42. > :00:44.Owen Jones of the Guardian, Mina al Oraibi, who is a writer
:00:45. > :00:49.and broadcaster on Arab affairs, and Henry Chu of Variety.
:00:50. > :00:52.Hillary Clinton is Sick Hillary, according to Trump supporters -
:00:53. > :00:56.too ill to be President of the United States.
:00:57. > :00:58.Donald Trump, Dodgy Donald to Clinton supporters,
:00:59. > :01:00.is the Pinocchio of American politics, telling lies so often
:01:01. > :01:04.that his nose is as long as the Mexican border.
:01:05. > :01:07.Add to the mix leaked emails, allegedly hacked by Russians,
:01:08. > :01:09.and this year's US presidential election at times is like
:01:10. > :01:15.In the country of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan, why
:01:16. > :01:18.are there so few truly inspiring ideals in this campaign -
:01:19. > :01:30.How do you view it as someone outside the United States, but an
:01:31. > :01:33.American? It is a big morass, no doubt, and part of that is the tone
:01:34. > :01:38.that the campaigns have set, particularly the Trump campaign. In
:01:39. > :01:41.the primaries, his MoD has been to disparage, coming up with belittling
:01:42. > :01:47.nicknames and that kind of thing. We'll is a need to be careful when
:01:48. > :01:52.we talk about inspiring, because whether we like it or not, Trump has
:01:53. > :01:57.inspired a particular segment of society, those who have felt
:01:58. > :02:01.themselves left behind, let down by previous administrations. He's doing
:02:02. > :02:05.it with perhaps very inarticulate ideals and the easy slogan of making
:02:06. > :02:10.America great again. But there is inspiration happening. On the other
:02:11. > :02:14.hand, you have Hillary, someone who I think does have ideals when it
:02:15. > :02:19.comes to the welfare of children and health care, but who fails to
:02:20. > :02:23.inspire. So putting those two things together, inspiring and ideals, is
:02:24. > :02:31.where we have fallen short in this campaign. Also, one of the problem
:02:32. > :02:35.is that Europeans have, if you look at Reagan, he was treated like an
:02:36. > :02:40.idiot cowboy, which he was not. He had a simple message - get big
:02:41. > :02:47.government of your back, and it connected. Reagan and George W Bush
:02:48. > :02:51.were in a completely different ballpark to Donald Trump. His
:02:52. > :02:58.election would be one of the biggest disasters for the Western world
:02:59. > :03:01.since World War II. You have the ultra-right movement, who are just
:03:02. > :03:05.white supremacists. Then you have working class Americans whose wages
:03:06. > :03:09.have fallen or stagnated for decades, and they have been
:03:10. > :03:12.neglected by both the Democratic and Republican administrations and feel
:03:13. > :03:16.aggrieved by free trade agreements which have not benefited their
:03:17. > :03:25.communities and caused massive deindustrialisation. With Clinton,
:03:26. > :03:30.you are loathed to be critical, not that I will tilt the US presidential
:03:31. > :03:34.election either way! But Donald Trump should be a walkover, and he
:03:35. > :03:40.clearly is not, and that is because Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate.
:03:41. > :03:45.There is a reason a self-described Jewish senator, a set joined as
:03:46. > :03:51.dairy man ran her so close. -- septuagenarian. That is the problem,
:03:52. > :03:56.she doesn't inspire, because she is seen as very establishment and very
:03:57. > :03:59.close to corporate America. Her opponent fails to inspire
:04:00. > :04:04.African-Americans, so she does inspire a certain constituency. But
:04:05. > :04:08.nonetheless, the fact that she is failing to galvanise younger voters
:04:09. > :04:12.in particular, if Donald Trump wins, it could be because of her failure
:04:13. > :04:19.to turn out Democratic voters while Donald Trump infuses his own base.
:04:20. > :04:22.Also, people have no Hillary Clinton for so long. It is hard to be
:04:23. > :04:31.inspiring when you have been around for decades. Donald Trump was known
:04:32. > :04:36.in certain circles, but he was not a well-known figure in politics. But
:04:37. > :04:42.those close to Hillary Clinton or who find her appealing do find her
:04:43. > :04:52.inspiring. Not to say that she is a character is like that, but when she
:04:53. > :04:56.does more interaction with ordinary people, they like. The problem is
:04:57. > :05:00.that she has been around for so long and secondly, she has been staged
:05:01. > :05:04.for so long. She has been in the public eye for so long. Shell is the
:05:05. > :05:08.wrong word, but she almost has this image that she cannot connect with
:05:09. > :05:14.ordinary people. These elections are not inspiring. And nobody is
:05:15. > :05:24.presenting proper policies that people can rally around. Build a
:05:25. > :05:27.wall? Exactly! Actually, Hillary's campaign does have detailed
:05:28. > :05:31.policies, but they seem wonky shine they don't seem to have an inspiring
:05:32. > :05:39.message at the core. They can sound very incremental. Polls have shown
:05:40. > :05:41.that when Hillary was Secretary of State, she was an inspiring figure.
:05:42. > :05:47.People thought she was striking a blow for women and she performed
:05:48. > :05:51.well in that role. I think this comes down to sexism in some ways.
:05:52. > :05:57.When she is a candidate, it is another thing. She is a staged
:05:58. > :06:01.managed person, partly because she has been around for so long and
:06:02. > :06:05.secondly because in American policy-making, unless you are
:06:06. > :06:10.stage-managed the way she is, you cannot project yourself into
:06:11. > :06:15.mainstream America. That gives rise to the profile of Trump. It is the
:06:16. > :06:24.same with Jeremy Corbyn. He speaks to the ordinary. So you have this
:06:25. > :06:28.strange idea of Trump, who is in many ways bizarre, but he seems to
:06:29. > :06:32.be talking the regular language of the regular guy. And you have this
:06:33. > :06:37.stage-managed woman who has been around for decades and is
:06:38. > :06:40.overexposed. One of the things we heard in our Brexit campaign,
:06:41. > :06:44.Michael Gove seven the British people are fed up of experts. One of
:06:45. > :06:47.the adjusting things about Hillary Clinton is that her expertise is
:06:48. > :06:51.being used as a club to beat her with. And Donald Trump's lack of
:06:52. > :06:55.expertise is one of his big selling points. If you think of any other
:06:56. > :06:59.field of human endeavour, you wouldn't go to a dentist without
:07:00. > :07:03.dentistry experience. You wouldn't get in a plane with someone who had
:07:04. > :07:07.never flown a plane before. But you would vote for a president somebody
:07:08. > :07:10.who is untainted by politics, which suggests a bigger malaise than
:07:11. > :07:14.anything we have touched on. There is a form of populism sweeping the
:07:15. > :07:19.western world, going in different directions, left and right. With
:07:20. > :07:23.Donald Trump and similar right-wing demagogues, it is a case of opposing
:07:24. > :07:29.immigration, but also the aloof liberal elite. It is the oldest
:07:30. > :07:32.trick in the book, the plutocrat who claims to be antiestablishment, that
:07:33. > :07:34.America has been driven into the ground by these liberal
:07:35. > :07:42.intellectuals who don't understand real people. What is astonishing is
:07:43. > :07:48.that there has been a lot of sexism thrown at Hillary Clinton, but she
:07:49. > :07:57.is dishonest. She said she got shot at by sniper fire in Bosnia, and the
:07:58. > :08:08.e-mails as well. Then again, Donald Trump, different standards apply.
:08:09. > :08:12.Yesterday, you could just set his tweets! Is a different standards
:08:13. > :08:15.apply, but if you want to expose the dishonesty of a candidate, having
:08:16. > :08:20.someone like Hillary Clinton is not ideal. It was a major mistake to
:08:21. > :08:24.call the people on the other side a basket of deplorables, even if they
:08:25. > :08:28.are racist and homophobes. Talking about ordinary people like that
:08:29. > :08:33.suggests the disconnection that Trump can put his finger on.
:08:34. > :08:37.Exactly, disconnection and the idea that there is a lack of respect for
:08:38. > :08:43.the other side's opinion, lumping them all together. Anybody who gets
:08:44. > :08:47.voted in has a different group of coalitions behind them. So the idea
:08:48. > :08:51.that Hillary would throw them all together is deplorable, it shows
:08:52. > :08:55.firstly arrogance and secondly a real disconnect from why people
:08:56. > :08:59.would even think of voting for Trump. I agree with one, it baffles
:09:00. > :09:02.me that somebody with inherited wealth who has used the system in
:09:03. > :09:08.the worst ways possible can be seen as standing up for the people who
:09:09. > :09:17.have been abused by the system. On the other hand, you have Clinton's
:09:18. > :09:22.disregard for these people, or apparent disregard, and also the
:09:23. > :09:26.image of, if you can't fix the system, it and start from scratch.
:09:27. > :09:30.That is almost what Trump is saying he will do. There is an interesting
:09:31. > :09:38.thing about the deplorables comment. Although it might sound like a
:09:39. > :09:42.mistake to us, it was also a way to focus ire on those who are
:09:43. > :09:49.supporting Trump and spouting deplorable things. And bringing up
:09:50. > :09:56.to the forefront. The problem is, it is not clear... Anyone who supports
:09:57. > :10:02.Donald Trump could be a deplorable. It is like what Mitt Romney did. He
:10:03. > :10:06.said 46% of Americans will never win over, because there are dependent on
:10:07. > :10:13.the state. Even if she says only one section deplorables, any Trump voter
:10:14. > :10:17.might think, she's thinking me. That's the worst aspect of the
:10:18. > :10:23.election campaign. It applies to Britain too. The Brexit people think
:10:24. > :10:28.the Remainders were deplorable, and vice versa. We have a deep cleavage
:10:29. > :10:31.in modern society. And how the American republic will heal itself
:10:32. > :10:36.after the abuse which one side hurled at the other will be
:10:37. > :10:37.something to watch. If it can. Let's move on.
:10:38. > :10:40.British MPs reported this week that David Cameron's military
:10:41. > :10:42.intervention in Libya created a failed state hovering
:10:43. > :10:46.The Chilcot report analysed how intervention in Iraq was a disaster
:10:47. > :10:51.But does Syria make the opposite case?
:10:52. > :10:53.Is indecisive dithering in inter-Arab conflicts just
:10:54. > :11:01.as likely to lead to bloodshed as botched military adventures?
:11:02. > :11:07.My suggestion here is that Western governments are damned if they do
:11:08. > :11:11.and damned if they don't. What are you doing about Bosnia, Syria? Then
:11:12. > :11:15.if you do something, what are you doing about Libya? We remember what
:11:16. > :11:18.people said about Benghazi. Intervention doesn't work. What is
:11:19. > :11:25.the right thing for Western governments to do, to ignore these
:11:26. > :11:29.things? Firstly, each country is completely different from the other.
:11:30. > :11:32.If only it were so easy to say that there is one cookie cutter model of
:11:33. > :11:41.how to deal with the Arab world or the Middle East, which there clearly
:11:42. > :11:44.is not. People forget that Iraq was a completely different game to what
:11:45. > :11:50.happened in Libya and Syria. To say that intervention in Syria was
:11:51. > :11:53.wrong, yes, but what happened after intervention, it was like people
:11:54. > :11:59.forgot that Libya had happened and we see where it is today. The same
:12:00. > :12:04.with Iraq. Each is a different scenario. Secondly, it sounds like
:12:05. > :12:08.stating the obvious, but these are complex problems that need complex
:12:09. > :12:13.strategies. It isn't a matter of sending in boots on the ground or
:12:14. > :12:17.not. There is Western intervention in Syria today. There are troops on
:12:18. > :12:21.the ground, whether they are British or American special forces. There
:12:22. > :12:25.are weapons from different countries, so there is outside
:12:26. > :12:30.intervention. Worse than that, there is Russian and Iranian support that
:12:31. > :12:36.has allowed Assad's regime to slaughter his own people. In 2005,
:12:37. > :12:41.the world signed up to the responsibility to protect people
:12:42. > :12:46.when they are being slaughtered by their own leader. If the world wants
:12:47. > :12:56.to say there is no responsibility, that is one thing. But to give
:12:57. > :13:04.expectation, speeches have been made to the Syrian opposition saying, we
:13:05. > :13:10.will support you. The most infamous issue was this issue of the red line
:13:11. > :13:14.and leading people -- leaving people to their own fate. Intervention
:13:15. > :13:17.continues because there is a strategic interest for Western
:13:18. > :13:24.countries intervening, and we can't deny that it is not out of
:13:25. > :13:27.humanitarianism. If Western countries are getting involved, they
:13:28. > :13:30.have the responsibility to remain committed, and that is not what we
:13:31. > :13:37.saw in Syria or Iraq. In Iraq, things changed. In 2009, it was
:13:38. > :13:42.beginning to steady. There was a change of attitude towards Iraq
:13:43. > :13:46.that, we can leave it as it is, and a political disengagement which in
:13:47. > :13:52.some ways is more dangerous and disengagement. I suspect people will
:13:53. > :13:55.agree generally with the point that they are all different. If you are
:13:56. > :14:01.going to get engaged, you have to do it with a proper plan beyond just
:14:02. > :14:04.bombing people. You have to stay committed. But the degree of
:14:05. > :14:10.commitment we see by Western powers in Syria is not sufficient to end
:14:11. > :14:13.the conflict. So you have to have a commitment which is diplomatic,
:14:14. > :14:17.whether big powers get together and finally resolve not to let it
:14:18. > :14:21.fester. You have no unifying force on the ground, like you had in the
:14:22. > :14:30.old days of camp David, where there was manic MPEG in and said that who
:14:31. > :14:35.were willing to make peace. Nothing like that at the moment. So you have
:14:36. > :14:39.a lack of leaders on the ground. You have a lack of ultimate resolution
:14:40. > :14:45.of the big powers. So the commitment, while it is there, is
:14:46. > :14:49.half-hearted. On Libya, it is easy to stick the boot into David
:14:50. > :14:53.Cameron. Here is another example of his disastrous legacy. But almost
:14:54. > :14:59.every member of Parliament voted for that war. The entire British media
:15:00. > :15:03.supported it, and if you opposed it, you were portrayed as an appeaser of
:15:04. > :15:07.a regime that the Western powers had recently been cosying up to. The
:15:08. > :15:12.reality of that war is firstly, there was the talk of an attack
:15:13. > :15:16.imminently on Benghazi. The House of Commons stated that that was
:15:17. > :15:20.overstated. Secondly, that was within 24 hours of the air strikes.
:15:21. > :15:23.The whole mandate for the air strikes evolved into a regime
:15:24. > :15:28.change. And the consequences of that were attacks on black Africans,
:15:29. > :15:35.which are not spoken about enough, the destabilisation of neighbouring
:15:36. > :15:39.Mali, the rise of Isis, the disintegration of a state with the
:15:40. > :15:43.biggest oil reserves in Africa, with only 6 million people, which should
:15:44. > :15:47.be a prosperous and healthy society, and the West is utterly complicit in
:15:48. > :15:52.that. Not just David Cameron, but in terms of what happened. It is a
:15:53. > :15:55.lesson to be learned. Of course you can't compare all of these
:15:56. > :15:58.situations, but we do have interventions and I find it
:15:59. > :16:04.alarming, the Orwellian approach we have had to Syria, where we bomb one
:16:05. > :16:07.side one year and another side the other year. Now we are going to
:16:08. > :16:14.coordinate strikes with Russia, who have killed more Syrians than Isis.
:16:15. > :16:18.Indeed, what you said about Benghazi was contained within the report. But
:16:19. > :16:21.you can't do history in two separate ways and said, this is what happens
:16:22. > :16:25.if we intervene and this is what happens if we don't. If we didn't
:16:26. > :16:29.intervene in Benghazi and people had been slaughtered, there would be
:16:30. > :16:33.another Commons inquiry to say, why did we let Bosnia happen again on
:16:34. > :16:37.the doorstep of Europe? What is important is what happens
:16:38. > :16:42.afterwards. So we did intervene. There was the no-fly zone and the
:16:43. > :16:46.rest of it. As Mina pointed out, we then left it to its own devices and
:16:47. > :16:54.left a power vacuum which collapsed. With Syria, it is a proxy war. It is
:16:55. > :16:59.no longer about interests that are purely on the ground in that
:17:00. > :17:02.country. And if you think that is bad, wait until relations with Saudi
:17:03. > :17:04.Arabia and Iran get even worse, which is something we will have to
:17:05. > :17:07.discuss later. Let's move on. Jeremy Corbyn, we are told, is very
:17:08. > :17:10.likely to be re-elected leader If that happens, what
:17:11. > :17:13.are the consequences? And given the shambles
:17:14. > :17:15.within the party, is it very unlikely that Labour could win
:17:16. > :17:26.the next general election, You are a strong supporter of the
:17:27. > :17:29.party, but if you look at Owen Smith and Jeremy Corbyn, you would have to
:17:30. > :17:33.say the chances of either of them becoming Prime Minister are slim. If
:17:34. > :17:40.members had felt Owen Smith was more likely to become Prime Minister,
:17:41. > :17:42.they would have voted for him. I am presuming they haven't by an
:17:43. > :17:46.overwhelming margin. I like Owen Smith. He has come in for a lot of
:17:47. > :17:50.attack during this campaign. There is a bitter divide within the Labour
:17:51. > :17:55.Party which has manifested itself in ugly ways. But with Owen Smith, he
:17:56. > :18:00.has proposed to overturn the EU referendum to stay within the
:18:01. > :18:03.European Union. He ruled out joining Europe on the Schengen agreement. If
:18:04. > :18:08.you go around marginal constituencies and start selling
:18:09. > :18:10.that, that is probably more electorally toxic than anything
:18:11. > :18:17.Jeremy Corbyn could be accused of doing. Now, what has to happen is
:18:18. > :18:20.that there has to be give and take. The MPs have to accept the
:18:21. > :18:25.democratic verdict of the membership. They have to accept more
:18:26. > :18:29.say in terms of policies from the membership. But the leadership has
:18:30. > :18:33.to give. That means may be allowing a portion of the Shadow Cabinet to
:18:34. > :18:36.be elected, so the Parliamentary Labour Party can have some of their
:18:37. > :18:40.own people in who they have confidence in. No talk of mandatory
:18:41. > :18:47.deselections, because that would cause chaos. If you get boundaries
:18:48. > :18:55.redrawn, you would have to do that anyway. At the moment, existing MPs
:18:56. > :18:58.would have a claim if the new constituency is mostly the old one.
:18:59. > :19:01.But the leadership has to have a strategy that reaches out to the
:19:02. > :19:06.electorate. That means older voters who have been turning away from
:19:07. > :19:13.Labour, self-employed people, middle-income voters. And people who
:19:14. > :19:18.voted Tory. Indeed, and people who voted for the Green Party or SNP or
:19:19. > :19:21.Ukip. The centre-left is crumbling everywhere in different directions,
:19:22. > :19:26.so there is no easy solution, but they can come up with a coherent
:19:27. > :19:29.strategy. I wonder if the Republican party is in a worse situation than
:19:30. > :19:38.the Labour Party or if you can't decide. If the election were held
:19:39. > :19:42.tomorrow, I do feel we would not see Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, but
:19:43. > :19:51.the election is not until 2020, according to the system. Let's not
:19:52. > :19:54.forget that between now and then, supposedly the Brexit negotiations
:19:55. > :19:59.should be completed and who knows where the country will be in 2019?
:20:00. > :20:03.If bad things start happening, I don't think it will come down just
:20:04. > :20:07.two who is occupying that bench on the other side. It may be that the
:20:08. > :20:11.country has gone to pot economically. The Conservative Party
:20:12. > :20:16.has internal difficulties as well, so who knows? In terms of Corbyn and
:20:17. > :20:23.Smith connecting with people outside the Labour Party after a very
:20:24. > :20:33.internal struggle, it is if many people just don't care. Owen's
:20:34. > :20:36.question about a strategy, the problem with Corbyn is that he has
:20:37. > :20:43.the Momentum movement behind him, which puts him on a pedestal like a
:20:44. > :20:54.charismatic leader. And I think he replaces his personality image with
:20:55. > :20:59.the strategy. He doesn't seem to be concerned about what happens with
:21:00. > :21:05.the rest of society. I don't think that is fair. Momentum has been
:21:06. > :21:14.maligned as a new militant. I know Militant because my father was in
:21:15. > :21:17.it. The reality is that Momentum is a grassroots Democratic
:21:18. > :21:21.organisation. You might think they are naive, but the way they are
:21:22. > :21:26.portrayed as being these kind of aggressive revolutionaries who want
:21:27. > :21:30.to nationalise your mother... Sun for non-UK viewers who are not
:21:31. > :21:39.attuned to what is going on in British politics, one thing is that
:21:40. > :21:45.you have political parties that are breaking apart, where leadership is
:21:46. > :21:51.almost the popular strand. Do we like this person? But actually,
:21:52. > :21:55.where our political parties going and how can elections be won at a
:21:56. > :21:59.time when the 2-party system is so fragmented and it isn't a two party
:22:00. > :22:03.system any more in the UK? It will be interesting to see who can win
:22:04. > :22:07.elections. We saw the last election. We were all guessing what a hung
:22:08. > :22:10.parliament would look like, and the Tories got a majority. So it is much
:22:11. > :22:20.deeper than the Labour Party leadership contest. Owen, if some of
:22:21. > :22:24.these differences are fundamentally irreconcilable, we know all parties
:22:25. > :22:30.are coalitions, but it has been so bitter and personal and in terms of
:22:31. > :22:34.summons of the Parliamentary Labour Party, some have said, I can't work
:22:35. > :22:40.with you, Jeremy Corbyn, because I don't think you have got a hope.
:22:41. > :22:43.That is difficult to solve. But it has to be solved, because they can't
:22:44. > :22:47.split. The electoral system of Britain doesn't allow that. I have
:22:48. > :22:51.heard it said that Labour like a couple where all the love has gone,
:22:52. > :22:56.but they can't afford a separate flat, so they are stuck together.
:22:57. > :22:59.The truth is, across the western world, the old social Democratic
:23:00. > :23:04.parties are crumbling, leaving a vacuum which is being filled by new
:23:05. > :23:07.movements on the left like Syriza in Greece, the Austrian Greens, or new
:23:08. > :23:12.movements on the right like the National Front in France. And in
:23:13. > :23:17.Sweden, there are new movements of the xenophobic right. In Britain,
:23:18. > :23:27.because of our electoral system, we have the rise of the new left which
:23:28. > :23:31.has not happened. That is what makes it unique. In Spain, the labour
:23:32. > :23:34.equivalent collapsed in support. Part of that support has gone to pot
:23:35. > :23:42.the mosque, but in Britain it happens within one party -- Podemos.
:23:43. > :23:46.Part of it is that the Momentum people, I bring them up again
:23:47. > :23:50.because they are a populist movement, they are fighting a war
:23:51. > :23:56.against their own parliamentary representatives. I don't think that
:23:57. > :23:59.is true. There is a sense that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't sufficiently
:24:00. > :24:04.recognise the legitimacy of the members of Parliament of his own
:24:05. > :24:06.party. He always plays of the support he has the grassroots
:24:07. > :24:13.against his own party members in parliament. Unless he gets to accept
:24:14. > :24:18.the legitimacy those accepted to Parliament, he has a problem uniting
:24:19. > :24:21.the party. What would you do if you were him if you knew your members of
:24:22. > :24:28.Parliament were hostile to you and you had a massive democratic
:24:29. > :24:35.mandate? Talk to them. I agree, and he needs to reach out. Reach out and
:24:36. > :24:40.ask the party to select the frontbenchers. They could not do all
:24:41. > :24:42.of them because they would be surrounded by a hostile Shadow
:24:43. > :24:46.Cabinet. He has to show the olive branch to his members of Parliament,
:24:47. > :24:56.because there is a civil war going on in the party which he is largely
:24:57. > :25:01.responsible for. There is a talk of a coup, it was not a clue, it was a
:25:02. > :25:05.legitimate party rebellion. There are lots of problems with the Labour
:25:06. > :25:08.leadership and I have happily gone into them over the last few weeks
:25:09. > :25:13.and been criticised for doing so. But that was a time of national
:25:14. > :25:19.crisis when the focus should have been on the Conservatives. And it
:25:20. > :25:22.has not produced any results above from further acrimony. We have a
:25:23. > :25:25.week to wait for the results of that. And we have the presidential
:25:26. > :25:27.election coming up. Thank you all very much.
:25:28. > :25:29.That's it for Dateline London for this week.
:25:30. > :25:31.You can comment on the programme on Twitter @gavinesler
:25:32. > :25:35.We're back next week - please make a date with
:25:36. > :26:08.The atmosphere through its tantrums yesterday. We have cleared the
:26:09. > :26:09.thunderstorms, cleared the air and pitched