03/06/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline, I'm Jane Hill.

This week, we discuss the closing stages

of the general election here in the UK,

and America's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

My guests this week are Steve Richards,

John Fisher Burns of the New York Times,

A warm welcome to all of you. Let's start with the fact that in just a

few days from now voters in Britain go to the polls in an election

called unexpectedly by Theresa May after she had been on a walking

holiday with her husband over the Easter break.

In the first couple of weeks of campaigning,

the word "landslide" was heard repeatedly

in relation to her Conservative Party - less so now.

Let's assess the state of the parties and

because whoever ends up in 10 Downing Street

has to navigate Britain's departure from the EU.

Steve, a few weeks ago on this programme,

we were calling this election boring - not now.

It has been the most interesting election in recent decades, I think,

because it has been so unpredictable in so many ways, and I think there

is something Shakespearean in politics, which is that when a Prime

Minister calls an early election, they kind of break or challenge the

natural order of things. And then, having been in control, they find

that they have lost control and have unleashed forces out of their

control, like Macbeth, kingly and people like that. So when Ted Heath

did it in 1974, when he had quite a big majority, the election went

wholly against what everyone assumed would happen, and the same in terms

of the campaign has happened now. I am not saying the result will be the

same, when Ted Heath lost, but all the assumptions that your panel had

four weeks ago have been turned on their head, and that is fascinating,

and there are deep currents that explain why. Maria Eagle have

written that this is the strangest election you have followed, British

election. Yes, for some of the same reasons that Steve is talking about,

a few weeks ago everyone was saying Corbyn was hopeless, of course

Theresa May will win a landslide, and we have seen the polls narrowing

dramatically. Just watching the television debates and the way the

two leaders are performing on the stump, we are seeing Theresa May

increasingly anxious, Nevis, ill at ease, and Jeremy Corbyn really

seeming to relish it, partly because he is being allowed to say what he

actually thinks, that this is one of the few elections recently where we

have a party leader not endlessly triangulating, predicting what they

want the electorate to hear, but saying what he believes. What is it

that has changed so dramatically? I know that is a big question, but to

Maria's point about authenticity, is that what is playing in here? As

someone got something right or another party got something wrong?

Two things have changed, we must be careful about the opinion polls,

they changed, they showed a 25 point lead for the Tories, and they now

suggest a significant narrowing. With all the caveats. I think they

should be banned during elections, because all we end up doing is

talking about polls, and they may be completely wrong. The other thing

that has changed is that Theresa May, before calling the election,

was seen as a figure of great solidarity, the strong and stable

leadership praise was not marked, the ubiquity of the phrase was

marked, but not the message. Now she doesn't their use it, so that is the

other significant change that has happened over the campaign, she is a

rather shy public figure, unusual in British politics. As shown in a lot

of public appearances. I think she finds it awkward. Most relish the

public stage, many were actors. Jeremy Corbyn is not an actor, like

her and he cannot dissemble in a way that is attractive but politically

risky. But he is a campaigner, he has campaigned all his life, so he

is utterly at ease with a public platform, being challenged - he can

do as well. Whereas she clearly hates that side of politics, and so,

in a way, I think, as with Ted Heath in 1974, the decision to call an

early election, even if she wins by a huge majority, which is still

possible, was a mistake, because I think it has altered perceptions of

hope. John, how have you been writing about it? Well, I have

actually been busy doing other things, but the first caution I

would enter here is have we not learned from elections on both sides

of the Atlantic, and referendums, not to trust political

correspondence and not to trust polls? We have shown again and again

a tremendous capacity to misread things. It seems to me that this

election was fundamentally impacted by something we have not mentioned,

which was the Manchester bombing. George Bush the elder used to say

that momentum was everything in politics, and I think it is broadly

speaking truth to say that, in this election, all the momentum was with

Theresa May until the Manchester bombing. Difficult to work out how

much of an impact it might have had, but I think, amongst other things,

it's so shook national confidence, it caused people to look again at

Mrs May, who as we were reminded again and again during the coverage,

was Home Secretary with principal responsibility for dealing with

counterterrorism. And you think that will factor into how people...?

Well, the whole landscape of the election was different afterwards.

Before we came on air, Steve was saying, in 2015, the polls shifted

away from Labour in the last week, and I right? No, no, even at the

very end, the polls suggested a parliament with Labour the biggest

parliament, it was the exit poll. It seems such an improbable thing that

Mr Corbyn, rejected by very large numbers of his own Parliamentary

party, who know him certainly better than we do, could somehow triumph

and bring this country back to the socialism of the 1970s. It just

seems to me, on the whole, improbable. Yes, Mrs May has not run

a particularly good campaign, she has made some mistakes, she has

changed her mind about things, seemed uncertain, and as you say,

strong and stable has disappeared from the Conservative vocabulary,

but it seems to me that we are still more likely to see a Conservative

majority, and probably a larger one than she had entered the election

with. Marc? That is one of the problems, she has been at the Home

Office, and she has not been a Leader of the Opposition, unlike all

the predecessors. The election is so social economic issues, may be

international, but not only an immigration, and I think that was

her mistake. Also, I was particularly interested in the

Brexit thing, who will be the best to get a good deal? That is how it

was framed, an election about Brexit. She had to get that out of

the way. I think, on the whole, that is what I wrote, that it is May or

Corbyn, the Europeans don't care, because at the end of the day, the

Europeans have been united about this jingoistic, nationalistic,

narrow-minded attitude of the British pre-negotiation, and when

Angela Merkel said, and it was a direct message to Mrs May, we will

take our destiny in our hands, I say, yes, it is our turn after the

referendum. Interesting, I will come to you in a moment, Maria, but

you'll thought is that, in terms of a lot of major European countries

looking at this, they really don't mind who ends up in Number Ten? They

don't mind. Because the British ship has sailed. Yes, because Mrs May has

shown that she is not a very good candidate, Corbyn has been a better

candidate, and it doesn't matter, they will both face the European

Union completely united in making Britain pay - and a hard for

quitting the European Union. As an example to others, partly that. It

is even not the question, because today Europe is united, Macron in

France, Merkel in Germany, to make Europe work without Britain. It is

finished, practically. I was just going to ask you whether you don't

think that maybe Corbyn's Mork and silly and tree approach to Europe,

which he has been talking about in the last few weeks, may be more

effective in that case. -- more conciliatory. I am sure that the

Europeans preferred to deal with a conciliatory, but if it is Mrs May,

who is very hard, no deal is better than a bad deal, they will go with

it, but they are united. And that is the thought of Theresa May, she

tried to divide, but her attitude is all over the campaign has made the

Europeans say, we are united. Marc your confidence in the European

Union is admirable, and is as consistent as your disparagement of

this jingoistic, as you call it, country that I call home. It seems

to me that you are somewhat Pollyanna-ish, if I can use that

American phrase, warning about George Soros and the vociferous

pressures there will be in the European Union over unresolved

questions... All these and resolve questions will be put aside, because

the British has made us united. As Merkel said, take our destiny into

our hands. My experience travelling in Europe is that Britain enjoy is

an enormous amount of goodwill in France, Germany, Italy and

elsewhere... Not when it comes to money! They will pay what they owe

the European Union. To return to the parochial matter of this British

general election, it is interesting, the role that Brexit played, because

I think the beginning, it was going to work for Theresa May in that I

think people in this country do want, in a very ill-defined way,

change, and it looked as if Brexit was going to be the chosen vehicle

for that change. And so I was picking up from Labour MPs in the

North of England who were saying, this is a disaster, some of our

Brexit people are going to vote Tory. But what has happened during

the election is some space has opened up for an alternative change,

the Corbyn change. Now, I thought that would be blocked... Completely

because Brexit would be the chosen vehicle of change, this ill-defined

idyll. When it became clear that Theresa May, as well as delivering

this ill-defined idyll, would also be putting up taxes, would work out

ways of paying for elderly care, all of these things in the real world,

and she was brave to say some of these things, some of that sort of

fantasy of Brexit being a painless route of change changed in the minds

of some voters. And then they look at the Corbyn version. I am not

saying he is going to win or anything, but that was one of the

other changes, so Brexit has played a part in this campaign, but a very

ambiguous and confused one, I think. Maria? What happened with the Brexit

vote is that we saw how badly we had been reading the landscape of

British politics, have chopped up and churned up and unrepresented by

the parties as they were it was. And I think that, instead of, as you

said, instead of this being a straightforward Brexit election, it

has actually begun to be a conversation about all the things

that are wrong, which are, in large part, to do with the state of public

services, NHS, schools, et cetera, that conversation has opened up,

which is great, but it is a very short time until the election from

the beginning of that conversation to the election, which is why it

feels so turbulent, I think. I and most surprised how the Liberal

Democrats are doing badly, because they represent 48%, and they are not

doing well because the British public wants to get out of the EU,

and we accepted, there is no doubt about it, and it is much clearer, I

respect Theresa May for saying, we need a hard Brexit, let's move onto

other things, and the Lib Dems have got it completely wrong by asking

for a second referendum. They have miss read that in your opinion,

Stephen, what most victory like for Theresa May? If we, let's say, wake

up on the 9th of June and the Conservatives are back in power,

that is not necessarily enough, it depends on the majority. She has got

to increase their majority. Some Tories tell me that even if she gets

a majority of 60, that because they began with these epic expectations

of a landslide, well over 100, that in itself will become problematic

for her, that she will be seen to have failed on one level, however

bizarre that is, given that it will be an increased majority. Clearly,

if she wins a landslide, the campaign will be forgotten about

within ten seconds, and she will become again this omnipotent figure,

but only even then briefly, because he then has to climb the mountain

called Brexit, and there is trouble for her Florence as she ascends that

mountain, however big that majority. Anything and 60 and she is in

trouble. That is interesting, that is the benchmark we should be

looking out for. Before we talk about climate change, each of you,

quickly, what do you think we will be waking up to? I wouldn't dream of

making a prediction! Go on! I think we will probably have, I hate

predictions, but I think we will almost Italy have a Tory government,

but I think possibly Labour and the smaller parties will do better than

predicted, and that is an important sign that, you know, in a way, that

the consensus that austerity is the only way to go is crumbling, and

that something different is happening in politics. Marc? Theresa

May will have a large majority, Ireland and 2015 the same thing

happened, and I think it would be a good thing for Europe that Theresa

May, if she has a huge majority, then we can start the negotiations.

John? I think too much perspective of journalists has been formed by

the studio politics, the television studio politics of the last week.

The debates and so on. To my mind, it may have played into Theresa

May's hands because of the shouty and somewhat adolescent

finger-pointing performances we saw. Yes, she has been nervous, but she

does, to my mind, she has shown some authenticity, including putting that

nervousness on public display, so I would say she will get a comfortable

majority. I assume that, because that is what the polls suggest, most

of them anyway, and that is all we have got to rely on. The factors

that were in place, like the collapse of the Ukip vote going to

the Tories, the fact that Labour won't make progress of any

significance in Scotland, they are still in place, so even though the

campaign has been fascinating, we have to work on that assumption. But

I say that without really having a clue, none of us can really have a

clue. And that is what is making it interesting, we will although in a

matter of days. Let's turn now to Donald Trump.

from the Paris climate accord, fulfilling an election pledge,

but to the consternation of many world leaders,

and some political and business leaders in his own country.

The Paris Agreement commits nations to keeping the overall increase

in global temperatures below two degrees Celsius.

The US has joined Syria and Nicaragua

as the only countries not party to it.

John, this was an election pledge, pure and simple, and he has done it,

committed to something and stuck to it. We started with a Shakespearean

reference, so I will try one of my own. My schoolboy recollection,

Henry IV Part II, the first bringer of unwelcome news hath but a losing

office. In this case, I am going to assume that losing office by saying

something in mitigation of Mr Trump which, amongst other things, will

put my marriage at risk, because my wife said, if you say anything nice

about Mr Trump, I will come after you with a baseball bat! OK! So the

more vulgar, occasionally at times mischievous, malevolent, brutish

figure has not occupied the White House for a very long time, but he

did get 63 million votes, and it wasn't because 63 million people

were stupid. They wanted the United States Government to turn its

attentions to the rust belt, to unemployment, to the concerns of an

unattended white working and lower middle-class. Trump did, in this

campaign, whilst winning this election, made a very clear

declaration that he would withdraw from the Paris climate change

agreement. Because it was a strangle an American jobs, you said. That is

the first point, the second point that he chose not to engage very

much with is that there is legitimate, even if it is minority,

science which suggests that man-made climate change may not be quite as

convincing a story as we have been led to believe. Another point. The

Paris Accord sets targets which many people, including many people who

are themselves believers in man-made climate change, think are

financially unachievable, financially as well scientifically

unachievable, and therefore it is possible that there might be a

better accord available through renegotiation. So I do not think it

is all bad news. And the last thing I would say about the Paris accord

is that if you look closely at the details of it, it is constructed in

accordance with the narrative of international affairs, where we in

the first world owe a debt to the poorer world, and that has led to,

for example is, at arrangements under which India and China will be

largely free to continue to pollute, notwithstanding their pledges, large

transfers, huge, billion-dollar transfers, particularly from the

United States to the third world. And I think we just have to get used

to the fact that we are dealing with a new America, a wounded America, an

America that wants to attend to its own problems, and we have grown up,

since the Second World War, comfortable in the belief that

America will always played the good guy in international affairs. Lots

of international leaders and businesses have not agreed with

this, Emmanuel Macron has done extremely well in some circles by

being among those to criticise President Trump quite roundly. Make

our planet great again he said on Twitter in English, and it went

viral in the US. It is a terrible blow to American leadership, it

emphasises the isolation of the new America. In a way, it is great news

again for us in Europe, because we have carved a new alliance with

China, India and all the emerging countries - the same day as Trump

announced that, and there is a new world order going in Europe without

Britain, because Britain again has, and Steve will explain why the hell

Mrs May did not join the Europeans to criticise that. So I think, on

the whole, it is a terrible thing, as everyone agrees, but, you know,

the Paris Agreement, it is three years to get out of it, it is a

fantastic agreement, it will survive Trump, because he is out in four

years - and maybe before. Why do think Theresa May didn't sign that?

People have been asking her. Her line is that she expressed publicly

and privately her opposition to what he did, but I think there is

politics in this, including Brexit politics, a electoral politics. She

doesn't want to be seen as part of a European alliance against him in any

dynamic, and she needs him after this election, because of Brexit,

and that puts in a rather unique position, because she has to watch

what she says in terms of that relationship every second of every

day. It will be a difficult one to keep going. But it is, I think it is

a moment of significance. Climate change can only be dealt with, in

the end, by global political coordination and political

leadership, and when one of the biggest leaders walks away, that is

a moment of some significance. I heard today that the markets can do

it, fossil fuels, all kinds of things. You need leadership in this,

and it is interesting that you talk about this new dynamic with China

and Europe - without Britain, but also now without America, and that

will be interesting. I think it will be more important symbolically than

practically, because the battle against man-made climate change will

continue, I think that the movement towards renewables is economically a

strong force. At this point, only 76,000 people are working in coal

mining in the United States. And a lot of jobs in renewables. A lot of

jobs, but it is part of Trump's very aggressive and divisive style of

politics, dividing America yet further by doing this, so already we

have 90 mayors and ten governors in the United States saying, we will

stick by the Paris Agreement. He is dividing America yet further from

the rest of the world. Somebody said America first is becoming America

alone, and that kind of isolationism is unsettling, but I think the rest

of the world might discover it can get along better than it thought

without America. Something underestimated in all of this is, in

fact, technological change, for example, the emergence of shale gas,

a huge development on the American energy scene, which we will be

seeing worldwide in time, and that many of these changes, including the

poor performance of renewables in terms of the contribution they are

making overall to our energy needs, are changing the picture, and that

Paris may, in any event, be overtaken by all of this, and we

will need a new agreement, and certainly there is a need for an

agreement, I agree with that, but possibly a better one. We will

either there, I am afraid. Renewables are doing well, nuclear

is the most expensive form of energy. And that is why...! Your

wife will be getting the baseball bat ready! We will form a ring of

steel around you! Thanks very much, a topic for weeks and months to

come, join us again, same time, same place next week if you can. By then,

we will know who is in Ten Downing Street, and there will be plenty

more to discuss besides. John Shaun Ley if you can next week for

Dateline London. For now, bye-bye.