:00:00. > :00:22.research. Now it's time for HARDTalk. Welcome.
:00:23. > :00:26.British politics is in an interesting state with a general
:00:27. > :00:28.election less than a year away and the recent noise was made by the UK
:00:29. > :00:31.Independence Party. Anti` European Union and anti` immigration.
:00:32. > :00:34.Traditionally, UKIP has been seen as a problem for David Cameron's
:00:35. > :00:37.Conservative Party but it is clear that the Labour opposition is
:00:38. > :00:44.targeted as well. My guest today is Jack Straw, a politician from the
:00:45. > :00:47.days of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Does today's Labour leadership know
:00:48. > :01:07.how to navigate the changing political lands cape `` landscape?
:01:08. > :01:10.Jack Straw, welcome to HARDtalk. It is clear from the recent election
:01:11. > :01:13.results that Labour is not performing as it needs to to win a
:01:14. > :01:19.majority in the coming general election. Why is that? First of all,
:01:20. > :01:24.I don't accept that. We won more than 300 seats which was more than
:01:25. > :01:27.many were predicting. What we saw from these election results is that
:01:28. > :01:29.they were patchy. They were extremely good in London with
:01:30. > :01:31.flagship local victories in Hammersmith and Fulham, which
:01:32. > :01:42.Conservatives had said was impregnable. We took seats in other
:01:43. > :01:50.urban areas but There were areas where we didn't do as well. In my
:01:51. > :01:53.native County of Essex, we didn't pick them up and you are quite right
:01:54. > :01:58.to say that there is a serious threat from UKIP which has to be
:01:59. > :02:07.addressed within the party. We must do better was the simple message
:02:08. > :02:12.from the leader. Yes, we have to do better. Where is it going wrong? If
:02:13. > :02:15.you have to do better, you have to assume that the leadership is doing
:02:16. > :02:21.things that aren't working. What are they? Not that things are doing
:02:22. > :02:29.wrong but you have to do more of some things. First of all, when a
:02:30. > :02:32.party has lost an election as we did in 2010, it is often difficult to
:02:33. > :02:40.pick up the pieces and traditionally in British politics, it takes a long
:02:41. > :02:43.time. I think it is usually to the credit of Ed Miliband that he has
:02:44. > :02:56.managed to preserve party unity and gradually build the party back up.
:02:57. > :02:59.But it doesn't win an election. He hasn't focused on issues like
:03:00. > :03:03.migration but has said that we got some aspects of our policy wrong in
:03:04. > :03:09.the past. I can explain why we made those decisions but they were not
:03:10. > :03:12.his. But there is no question that we are moving into a new era, post`
:03:13. > :03:19.financial crisis where people are much more worried about immigration
:03:20. > :03:23.than they were. One thing you have to recognise, and I think he does,
:03:24. > :03:27.is that people are not racist when they express concerns about
:03:28. > :03:34.migration. Those two used to be mixed up. I don't think UKIP is a
:03:35. > :03:45.racist party. There used to be some racists there, but I don't think the
:03:46. > :03:48.leadership is. We do have to get into the detail of the migration
:03:49. > :03:51.issue and as you were saying, you were crucial in that field for
:03:52. > :03:57.years. I would challenge your contention that Labour has taken
:03:58. > :04:00.seriously the UKIP challenge. If you look at the way they have campaigned
:04:01. > :04:03.in recent months, it has barely mentioned UKIP or frankly, the
:04:04. > :04:14.European Union or migration and I wonder when they are going to get
:04:15. > :04:18.real about the threat. Ed Miliband has talked incessantly about the
:04:19. > :04:24.issue of immigration. Did you look at your own advertising campaign?
:04:25. > :04:29.Hang on. They have talked about it. There was a decision to deal with
:04:30. > :04:33.UKIP by not talking about it. Was that right or wrong? In retrospect,
:04:34. > :04:40.it might have been better if we had talked about it. It is a
:04:41. > :04:47.misunderstanding of what is happening in the British Parliament
:04:48. > :04:50.right now. No, I think both parties have to make a judgement when they
:04:51. > :04:55.are facing attack from a third or fourth party that has not been in
:04:56. > :04:59.power as to how to handle it. We used to have this party with the Lib
:05:00. > :05:02.Dems. Did you take on what they were doing or make a conscious decision
:05:03. > :05:06.to ignore them? Anyway, what has happened in the past has happened
:05:07. > :05:14.and I'm not in any doubt myself that, given the level of support
:05:15. > :05:17.that was clocked up by UKIP... It is significant to note that some of
:05:18. > :05:26.UKIP's biggest gains were in heartland Labour areas coming in the
:05:27. > :05:33.North of England. Towns that one would never have associated with a
:05:34. > :05:37.party like UKIP. Some people in your own party have said that this is a
:05:38. > :05:39.clear signal that many white working`class communities feel a
:05:40. > :05:41.sense of dispossession and abandonment that Labour,
:05:42. > :05:57.traditionally their party, is simply not addressing. I think that is
:05:58. > :06:00.overemphasizing it. In areas where there are very few migrants,
:06:01. > :06:02.significant part of South Yorkshire and the Southeast, you did get
:06:03. > :06:15.alienated and often male working`class voters that we have to
:06:16. > :06:18.deal with. However, I was emphasizing what we are doing for
:06:19. > :06:21.those people and the policies the party is pursuing, for instance,
:06:22. > :06:29.improvements to the minimum wage and security at work. Improvements in
:06:30. > :06:33.terms of training. You haven't used the word migration in that answer at
:06:34. > :06:43.all. It doesn't address any new polities on immigration? Of course
:06:44. > :06:46.it involves policies. We are not getting involved with UKIP tomorrow
:06:47. > :06:51.because we're not going stop the European Union from caring about
:06:52. > :06:54.migration. You are saying that as members of the European Union, you
:06:55. > :07:01.can bluster all you like about immigration but you can't do
:07:02. > :07:04.anything about it? I would like to do something about it but in terms
:07:05. > :07:08.of any future rules, there may be much more restrictive views at a
:07:09. > :07:16.later time but what we can do in the meantime is assure accessibility to
:07:17. > :07:22.benefits is much more restricted. There is scope to do this. The
:07:23. > :07:25.German government has cut down benefits on migrant workers and that
:07:26. > :07:36.went before the European Court of Justice and the German government
:07:37. > :07:39.won. I am in favour of people getting benefits if they live and
:07:40. > :07:43.work in a country, regardless of nationality, but they have to have a
:07:44. > :07:48.stake in the country. It is not acceptable for people to come here
:07:49. > :07:52.and get benefits for nothing. Be specific. This is a very active
:07:53. > :07:55.debate in British politics. You are saying that you support a bar on
:07:56. > :08:03.benefits for EU immigrants for a matter of six months or longer? Some
:08:04. > :08:06.are now arguing for two years. It depends on the benefits but I
:08:07. > :08:15.certainly wouldn't rule out going beyond six months. You're not a
:08:16. > :08:23.minister so you can be very forward. Would you support two years? I am
:08:24. > :08:29.not a minister but I do have to make judgements. I'm not sure whether to
:08:30. > :08:35.say whether it could be one or two years. We have to create an
:08:36. > :08:38.environment where we encourage people whose skills we really need
:08:39. > :08:41.and cannot be filled by people in this country to come in but we want
:08:42. > :08:46.to discourage people from coming in at the bottom. There is a big issue
:08:47. > :08:49.here as well about ensuring that the employers of people who are on low
:08:50. > :08:52.wages, who quite often have been encouraging people from Eastern
:08:53. > :08:55.Europe to come in rather than taking on Brits as it is easier to exploit
:08:56. > :09:06.them, how we prevent that exploitation as well. Ed Miliband
:09:07. > :09:09.has talked about that but what he hasn't talked about and you haven't
:09:10. > :09:17.either is perhaps the most fundamental challenge of all, one
:09:18. > :09:20.which UKIP poses. That is to say that we need to reassess our
:09:21. > :09:22.commitment to the European Union's fundamental principle of freedom of
:09:23. > :09:29.movement of people within the European Union. Nigel Farage says it
:09:30. > :09:33.is no longer acceptable to say that workers from poor nations can come,
:09:34. > :09:42.as a matter of right, to the UK to seek work. The practice of that does
:09:43. > :09:49.need to be reassessed and I am offering a way in which we can do
:09:50. > :09:55.that. It does not require a treaty change. Do I regard the full
:09:56. > :09:59.freedoms as not up for debate, no I don't. I think the European Union
:10:00. > :10:13.makes a profound mistake if it regards these as inviolable. For
:10:14. > :10:20.example, on a single`market, there are all kinds of exceptions to a
:10:21. > :10:23.single market. For example, in France, the difficulty of getting
:10:24. > :10:31.any kind of free market and free movement in respect to services...
:10:32. > :10:34.Let's not rove too widely. Seven MPs recently signed an article in a
:10:35. > :10:37.newspaper asking Ed Miliband to take on this issue and to constrain the
:10:38. > :10:40.free movement of labour from European countries of much lower
:10:41. > :10:47.incomes because that is the only way to protect welfare housing, and
:10:48. > :10:56.public services in this country. Are you with them? I have just said
:10:57. > :11:01.that. They are going one further than you. They have said that Ed
:11:02. > :11:10.Miliband needs to no longer accept freedom of movement. I think he's
:11:11. > :11:14.doing that. He is not. There is an issue of how you affect this trend
:11:15. > :11:23.and it takes a long time because you have to get 27 other countries to
:11:24. > :11:26.agree. I think you need to raise the debate and it has been raised
:11:27. > :11:29.elsewhere as well. On the mainland of Europe, significant politicians
:11:30. > :11:32.including Nicolas Sarkozy of France have said it needs to be looked at
:11:33. > :11:50.again so yes, these items need to be put on the agenda. I personally
:11:51. > :11:59.think that meanwhile, we should take steps like further restricting
:12:00. > :12:03.access to benefits. Final thoughts on this and it comes back to your
:12:04. > :12:05.role as a very senior minister in the Brown and Blair administrations,
:12:06. > :12:08.you now say that the Labour government made a spectacular
:12:09. > :12:11.mistake in putting no limits on the numbers of migrants who could come
:12:12. > :12:19.into the UK after the expansion of the European Union in 2004. I just
:12:20. > :12:24.wonder why it was a spectacular mistake because in economic terms it
:12:25. > :12:27.wasn't. Those workers in the period between 2004 and 20 contributed a
:12:28. > :12:30.lot to the UK economy and GDP grew partly because of a result of them
:12:31. > :12:40.coming in and contributing to the economy. Was it a spectacular
:12:41. > :12:44.mistake? You now say that social cohesion is fundamentally threatened
:12:45. > :12:51.by this. In economic terms, you are right and I have made that point.
:12:52. > :12:54.But looking back on it, we only made that decision on the back of
:12:55. > :12:58.research that said that the net migration from Eastern Europe would
:12:59. > :13:05.be around 13 to 15,000 a year. It was quite good research but it was
:13:06. > :13:08.fundamentally wrong. Had we been presented with evidence that
:13:09. > :13:11.migration would not be at that level but would be ten times that, we
:13:12. > :13:18.would not have come to that decision. That is a bit of a
:13:19. > :13:22.technical answer. This comes to UKIP's presentation of the problem.
:13:23. > :13:28.In your view today, has the cohesion of the United Kingdom been
:13:29. > :13:32.fundamentally threatened? Yes, they have contributed to the economy and
:13:33. > :13:35.have raised GDP but the downside is that the pace of change in many
:13:36. > :13:50.communities has been too fast and it has affected social cohesion and
:13:51. > :13:57.that is why... So UKIP are right to that extent? They are not the only
:13:58. > :14:03.people who have said it. I said it before UKIP rose. You have to make
:14:04. > :14:11.the judgement you can. If we had known, we would not have made that
:14:12. > :14:13.decision. We're at the very top of the British political agenda right
:14:14. > :14:17.now everything pertains to Britain in Europe. How can the Labour Party
:14:18. > :14:20.continue with this policy of saying that there will be no referendum
:14:21. > :14:22.with the British public to give them a basic in or out choice as to
:14:23. > :14:35.whether they want to stay in Europe? We and the Lib Dems have said that
:14:36. > :14:55.if there are any treaty changes there will be a referendum. But
:14:56. > :14:59.we're talking about treaty clauses, like the freedom of movement. There
:15:00. > :15:01.is no sign they will be fundamentally reviewed. Surely the
:15:02. > :15:05.time has come for British people to be given a choice. My view is there
:15:06. > :15:07.are plenty of changes which can be made inside the EU, including the
:15:08. > :15:19.practice of free movement, crucially, on the level of
:15:20. > :15:21.regulation by Brussels. They do not require treaty changes, and the
:15:22. > :15:24.Labour Party's view is that of practical Europeans. No`one more
:15:25. > :15:34.than me wants to reassert the power of national governments and national
:15:35. > :15:37.parliaments within the EU. But do I believe that this could be achieved
:15:38. > :15:40.by further treaty changes? Probably not in the next parliament, it takes
:15:41. > :15:43.such a long time. But there are other things you can do more
:15:44. > :15:46.rapidly. You are a very experienced politician with a long track record.
:15:47. > :15:50.Do you not see that the time has come in Britain where the only way
:15:51. > :15:54.to really sort out our relationship with the EU is to give the people a
:15:55. > :15:57.fundamental choice? The best way for you to achieve what you want, which
:15:58. > :16:03.is a strong Britain in a strong European Union, is to win the
:16:04. > :16:06.argument and win that referendum. I understand the case you are making.
:16:07. > :16:09.I also strongly support the position that Ed Miliband and Douglas
:16:10. > :16:12.Alexander have taken, which is that would be frankly a huge diversion
:16:13. > :16:20.for the United Kingdom government, and moreover, would not deal with
:16:21. > :16:23.the problems. I believe that despite its failings, it is still in
:16:24. > :16:29.Britain's interest now to stay in the EU rather than leave. I also
:16:30. > :16:32.believe, and if you read the continental press, you can see this,
:16:33. > :16:35.that there is now a mood of change across Europe, to shift the balance
:16:36. > :16:40.of power between Brussels and independent nation states. That is
:16:41. > :16:51.happening in Germany, let's make this clear, one of the most
:16:52. > :16:55.Europhile states in the EU. They also want to see this shift. One of
:16:56. > :16:58.the key issues is whether we end up with a federalist like Jean`Claude
:16:59. > :17:01.Juncker as president of the European Commission. I don't believe he would
:17:02. > :17:04.be a satisfactory candidate. Luxembourg is frankly... You are
:17:05. > :17:07.with David Cameron on that. I am, and I believe we have to find a
:17:08. > :17:08.candidate who gets it. Luxembourg is basically...
:17:09. > :17:11.Luxembourg is frankly... You are with David Cameron on that. I You
:17:12. > :17:15.are not, are you, trying to suggest to me that there is one man in the
:17:16. > :17:19.UK who could fit the bill, Tony Blair. It has been mooted by some,
:17:20. > :17:24.not one million miles from Labour colleagues of yours. Tony's a
:17:25. > :17:27.friend, but his candidacy would be inappropriate, and he knows that. Do
:17:28. > :17:30.you think you think he would want it? I don't think he does. Let's
:17:31. > :17:38.think about Blair, and what he offered as a leader of the Labour
:17:39. > :17:52.Party. Let's reflect on today's leader Ed Miliband. You say that you
:17:53. > :17:55.didn't vote for him. We all know that. Again, as an experienced
:17:56. > :17:59.politician, what does Ed Miliband do to get out of the very deep
:18:00. > :18:02.political hole he is in. His approval rating with the British
:18:03. > :18:04.public is at a stunning `41. David Cameron, who actually takes
:18:05. > :18:08.decisions and may get some opprobrium for that, is at `9. A
:18:09. > :18:10.recent poll said many regard him as somewhat weird. How do you change
:18:11. > :18:20.that? Look, of course I understand that perception. It is not reality.
:18:21. > :18:23.Ed Miliband is very bright, intelligent, witty individual, who
:18:24. > :18:26.really listens to people. So he is fundamentally failing to get that
:18:27. > :18:28.across. Well, it's a lens of... I'll tell you this, Stephen. I'm old
:18:29. > :18:39.enough to remember the election where Callaghan's approval ratings
:18:40. > :18:42.were far above Margaret Thatcher's. She had not had her makeover, she
:18:43. > :18:46.had not had her voice training. She trailed in the polls, and often did
:18:47. > :18:51.quite disastrously in the House of Commons. There was a real focus on
:18:52. > :18:56.Commons debate. And yet she won the general election in 1979. She had a
:18:57. > :18:59.lot of coaching. She became a better leader over time. She had the
:19:00. > :19:04.coaching after she became Prime Minister, not before. She was
:19:05. > :19:07.dreadful in the 1979 elections. Nonetheless, her message came
:19:08. > :19:11.through. So it is about ensuring that our message comes through. And
:19:12. > :19:15.if I want to give... A colleague of yours in the party says that the
:19:16. > :19:22.leadership right now is trying to be too clever. It's not clear enough in
:19:23. > :19:26.its message. He and others have pointed to words that Ed Miliband
:19:27. > :19:28.has used in the past to explain his policies, like predistribution,
:19:29. > :19:31.which nobody seems understand. You have a platform here, how would you
:19:32. > :19:37.very briefly change Ed Miliband's message and style to help it cut
:19:38. > :19:42.through? Well, more of what he is doing, but also... What he is doing
:19:43. > :19:47.is not working. One of the crucial things we have to do is to get on
:19:48. > :19:51.top of the economic argument. How would I get on top of it? I would
:19:52. > :19:57.get this by saying that all the parties were broadly supporting the
:19:58. > :20:00.same economic policies up to 2008. I completely reject this idea that the
:20:01. > :20:03.recession that this country has suffered in recent years was a
:20:04. > :20:13.creation of Labour incompetence, which is what the Tories are trying
:20:14. > :20:19.to do. It wasn't. No cute mea culpas from you. Labour reforms were
:20:20. > :20:28.supported by the Conservatives in 2008. David Cameron and George
:20:29. > :20:30.Osborne weren't going around saying don't spend money in my
:20:31. > :20:33.constituency. Quite the reverse. What we want to say is there was an
:20:34. > :20:35.economic crisis, and the circumstances have changed. That is
:20:36. > :20:39.why we accept the need for much greater restraint now. But we will
:20:40. > :20:47.not accept that this was a catastrophe, in the Tories' terms,
:20:48. > :20:50.brought by Labour. It wasn't. We have to advance that argument. We
:20:51. > :20:53.also have to explain why fairness will be a battleground in the
:20:54. > :21:00.general election. Before we end, I want to change tack. We have you
:21:01. > :21:03.sitting here, you were for many years the British Foreign Secretary.
:21:04. > :21:06.In some ways in recent months of your political life one of the
:21:07. > :21:10.biggest issues that you have insisted upon talking about is Iran,
:21:11. > :21:15.a country you have had a lot of dealings with over the years. It
:21:16. > :21:18.seems to me that you have a very clear message. You say that we have
:21:19. > :21:22.to take the changes in Iran seriously, we have to make sure that
:21:23. > :21:27.this deal on the nuclear issue is turned into a long`lasting deal. And
:21:28. > :21:34.it seems that you put the onus on the Americans, to use a crude
:21:35. > :21:40.phrase, not to screw up. Am I right? I do. And the Americans screwed up
:21:41. > :21:46.grievously between 2002 and 2006. You told them in those terms? I did.
:21:47. > :21:50.Went down well. John Bolton, the Went down well. John Bolton, the
:21:51. > :21:56.undersecretary of the State Department, briefed that I was
:21:57. > :22:03.Tehran Jack. But it was vulgar abuse of the regime, when they were
:22:04. > :22:08.wanting to help, and were helping in Afghanistan. It undermined
:22:09. > :22:13.previous regime and Ahmadinejad. We are almost out of
:22:14. > :22:13.say that there is a danger that the Israelis will wield too much
:22:14. > :22:29.influence in the Netanyahu, and works for the
:22:30. > :22:33.neocons. It's not a fiction. The deal does allow Iran to continue
:22:34. > :22:35.enriching uranium. It allows them to continue to work on ballistic
:22:36. > :22:39.missiles. On those two key points Israel is right. Israel has nuclear
:22:40. > :22:49.weapons. They refuse to accept any international supervision. So you
:22:50. > :22:52.say the Israelis have no right to be involved in this debate. They have
:22:53. > :22:56.Iran's weapons if they ever exist, Iran's weapons if they ever exist,
:22:57. > :23:05.will be targeting Jerusalem. I don't believe for a start that Iran wants
:23:06. > :23:07.to create a working nuclear weapon system. OK? The second thing is that
:23:08. > :23:12.we need to recognise that Rouhani is the best opportunity we have of
:23:13. > :23:14.helping to create a much greater stability in the Middle East. And we
:23:15. > :23:31.need to cut him some slack. naive about the Iranians. Not at
:23:32. > :23:42.all. And the ultimate authority isn't
:23:43. > :23:42.issuing orders. It is not a natural democracy either, but there is
:23:43. > :23:49.political space can determine whether Rouhani is empowered or
:23:50. > :23:52.completely undermined, and then the hardliners would take over. So my
:23:53. > :23:54.message to the Americans and to the Israelis is be very careful what you
:23:55. > :24:03.wish for. Jack Straw, we have to end there.
:24:04. > :24:35.Thank you for Hello. Many of us had a dry and
:24:36. > :24:43.pretty warm start to the week. Some of us had a wet one. In one or two
:24:44. > :24:44.places, torrential thunderstorms brought some flooding. We will