:00:13. > :00:22.Tonight, on the eve of the by- election in Eastleigh, our -- are
:00:22. > :00:25.Liberal Democrats speeding towards With the near full moon. Lib Dems
:00:25. > :00:30.are quietly confident they will retain the seat. UKIP could
:00:30. > :00:33.listened up being the big story tomorrow.
:00:33. > :00:37.Also tonight, thought the eurocrisis was dead and buried,
:00:37. > :00:40.well with no clear winner in Italy's election, it is back on its
:00:40. > :00:45.feet. Paul Mason will have graphs and zombies.
:00:45. > :00:50.The second part of our interview with Tony Blair, ten years after
:00:50. > :00:53.the Iraq invasion. He pushes for intervention in Syria, and gives
:00:53. > :00:58.the UN Security Council short shrift. There are things we could
:00:58. > :01:02.be doing to help change the balance of power in the struggle. My
:01:02. > :01:06.anxiety is we are about to learn again the lessons of the
:01:06. > :01:12.consequences of non-intervention. You may have thought you already
:01:12. > :01:21.knew this, new research suggests there is a direct link between
:01:21. > :01:27.sugar and diabetes. We hope you like your science sweet. Good
:01:27. > :01:34.evening, the trigger for the Eastleigh by-election may have been
:01:34. > :01:39.the unedifying scenes of Chris Huhne pleading guilty and his wife
:01:39. > :01:43.taking his speeding points. But the allegations made against former
:01:43. > :01:47.chief executive, Lord Rennard, allegations he vehemently denies
:01:47. > :01:52.and dominating the headlines in the last few days. Can the party hold
:01:52. > :01:57.the seat despite it all. Our political he had has been chasing
:01:57. > :02:04.around in Eastleigh on a frenetic day of last-day campaigning.
:02:04. > :02:10.# War what is it good for # Absolutely nothing
:02:10. > :02:13.Not the Wild West, but wild Eastleigh. How are you doing gents.
:02:13. > :02:17.The hoopla unfurling down the length of this high street is for
:02:17. > :02:21.the election of a new MP all right. But it is a yardstick too of how
:02:21. > :02:25.the three parties may fare in the big one. The 2015 general election.
:02:25. > :02:28.The Conservatives are on the hunt for votes. It is teatime in a truck
:02:28. > :02:32.depot. Since the allegations about Lord
:02:32. > :02:37.Rennard emerged, the race has got tighter and the Tories have got
:02:37. > :02:42.busier. Lib Dems sources report an inflation of Conservatives in this
:02:42. > :02:46.area, as they sense vulnerability in the Lib Dems. Behind both of
:02:46. > :02:50.them, UKIP is rising up fast. The Tories need to grab place like
:02:50. > :02:58.Eastleigh off the Lib Dems, but the votes of a few truckers wouldn't go
:02:58. > :03:01.amiss. Thatcher won the blue collar vote in 1979, Blair in 1997,
:03:01. > :03:06.Cameron has bent yet persuaded them. We are playing to win. We want to
:03:06. > :03:12.win this by-election, it is a very important by-election. I have
:03:12. > :03:17.learned, for a long time the BBC had lost a by-election, and the
:03:17. > :03:23.electorate said I had won it, not to take elections for granted.
:03:23. > :03:30.Labour came second here in the 1994 by-election, but it is fighting not
:03:30. > :03:34.to be pushed into fourth place by UKIP. Labour gambled on a celebrity
:03:34. > :03:40.candidate, but was he the right celebrity in Eastleigh.
:03:40. > :03:43.REPORTER: Do you know what John's day job is? A writer. There you are.
:03:43. > :03:47.The party came second in the 1994 by-election, but it is fighting not
:03:47. > :03:50.to be pushed into fourth by UKIP. We are the opposition and we want
:03:50. > :03:53.to become the Government. Part of that strategy is showing that we
:03:53. > :03:57.are determined to work not just in one part of the country, where we
:03:57. > :04:02.have been winning by-election, but in every part of the country.
:04:02. > :04:06.think they could do well, possibly come first, maybe beat the Tories
:04:06. > :04:08.to second. Nigel Farage looks like he's doing the crossword here, but
:04:09. > :04:13.he's analysing polling figure, they have put immigration front and
:04:13. > :04:17.centre. Right from the very start we have
:04:17. > :04:20.said we are the party that believes in a sensible, controlled approach
:04:20. > :04:26.to immigration. Like Australia. We want good migrants to come to
:04:26. > :04:30.Britain. We do not want foreign criminal gangs coming to Britain.
:04:30. > :04:34.I'm afraid, which ever way you look at it, Romania and Bulgaria are
:04:34. > :04:38.countries plaged with crime. And we do not want some of those people to
:04:38. > :04:43.have open access to this country. What have students made of this by-
:04:43. > :04:48.election, how might they vote? Tories? Why? Because I think they
:04:48. > :04:54.are going to get Van Outen of debt and put this country back in the
:04:54. > :04:58.economic climate. Definitely Lib Dem. Why? Because they have done a
:04:58. > :05:03.lot for eastly there is the stuff with Huhne and stuff, you can't
:05:03. > :05:13.deny they have improved the area vastly. Why does UKIP look like it
:05:13. > :05:13.
:05:13. > :05:16.is doing so well? I am' sur -- surprised -- I'm surprised. On
:05:16. > :05:19.their posters it is them saying we are different. Everyone wants
:05:19. > :05:24.somebody doing something, they don't care what they do. Over to
:05:24. > :05:29.the deferpbsd of this seat, the Liberal Democrats. -- defenders of
:05:29. > :05:32.this seat, the Liberal Democrats. You know very well that I'm in a
:05:32. > :05:39.decent, honourable team player, and I do what the thought police tell
:05:39. > :05:44.me to do. I will go round the corner. I will go round the corner
:05:44. > :05:46.and ondo some canvasing. You can only see ten activists now, but
:05:46. > :05:50.around the constituency there is hundreds. The Liberal Democrats
:05:50. > :05:53.think if they hold tight to Eastleigh they can hold tight to
:05:53. > :05:57.the general election strategy until 20 15. That is until the Rennard
:05:57. > :06:04.allegations. Does your party have a problem with women? My answer to
:06:04. > :06:06.that is straight forward, no. women are saying that they do?
:06:07. > :06:10.That's an issue for the inquiry. We have a national record, we have a
:06:10. > :06:15.local record to stand on. I think that stands us in very good stead
:06:15. > :06:21.for Thursday. We are not complacent or taking it for granted. We have
:06:22. > :06:24.an outstanding candidate what implications there are for the
:06:24. > :06:29.general election is interesting but a discussion for another time.
:06:29. > :06:38.These people are past their sell- by-date, they must not be voted
:06:38. > :06:42.into power to reek further havoc on the community. UKIP could do
:06:42. > :06:47.surprisingly well, leaving the two largest political parties, the
:06:47. > :06:50.Tories and Labour to do soul searching. If the Pope joins the
:06:50. > :06:54.region we will join you. He will join us, make it sooner rather than
:06:54. > :07:02.later. But the greatest prize may be to the people of Eastleigh,
:07:02. > :07:06.peace, at last. Here is the list of all the canned
:07:06. > :07:10.date -- candidates standing in the by-election tomorrow, all 14 of
:07:10. > :07:13.them. We go to Eastleigh now. How high stakes is this for all the
:07:13. > :07:17.parties. The Liberal Democrats must be desperate for it to be over?
:07:17. > :07:21.They wanted it to be a three-week by-election because they knew they
:07:21. > :07:24.could do a sprint, but they probably couldn't do a marathon.
:07:24. > :07:28.Tomorrow we think they probably will fall over the finishing line,
:07:28. > :07:33.keeping this seat. They have been pouring every resource they can
:07:33. > :07:37.into it, so much so that last week when it was half time they brought
:07:37. > :07:39.lots of students down. The allegations against Lord Rennard
:07:39. > :07:43.haven't really played with the voters. I would struggle to tell
:07:43. > :07:48.you one mentioned it to me today, and we have been around a lot. The
:07:48. > :07:52.way it has played is you have the other parties scenting blood, and
:07:52. > :07:54.sending more people down than they might otherwise have done, thinking
:07:54. > :08:00.there might possibly be vulnerability there. If it had gone
:08:00. > :08:04.on longer than it has done, they may have been right. One very
:08:04. > :08:08.senior Liberal Democrat let it be known today f it was one more week
:08:08. > :08:10.to this by-election, they think UKIP would pip it. By-elections are
:08:10. > :08:15.famously about local issues, on that basis the Tories and Labour
:08:15. > :08:19.must be kicking themselves for not having done a lot of the ground
:08:19. > :08:21.work earlier? You saw in our package, Nigel Farage just to
:08:21. > :08:26.theing up numbers. He believes the polling companies have
:08:26. > :08:30.underestimated them, and he showed us all his little biro numbers. He
:08:30. > :08:34.thinks they could come in at 27.5 points, that would give the Tories
:08:34. > :08:37.a massive headache. People I have spoken to in the Conservative Party
:08:37. > :08:43.today agree with him, that it is looking like it could be close
:08:43. > :08:48.between themselves and UKIP for that prized second position. The
:08:48. > :08:51.problem would then be, David Cameron, bet a lot on a huge speech
:08:51. > :08:55.about Europe, a Europe speech that was supposed to stem a lot of this
:08:55. > :08:59.anger, and it would become apparent this time tomorrow or two days,
:08:59. > :09:05.that hadn't worked. Equally for Labour, you saw in the package,
:09:06. > :09:12.Douglas Alexander saying, far from this being Labour's 258th target
:09:12. > :09:16.seat, very down low on the list, but this place matters to Ed
:09:16. > :09:21.Miliband's one-nation Labour Party. If they come fourth it isn't great
:09:21. > :09:26.for them. In a moment, the economic nightmare
:09:26. > :09:30.borne of Italy's political uncertainty. And part two of our
:09:30. > :09:34.interview with Tony Blair ten years after the invasion of Iraq. You get
:09:34. > :09:39.rid of dictators like Saddam, and confront Iran and hope there is
:09:39. > :09:43.change there too. Italy is in a parlour state, without a Government
:09:43. > :09:45.or the early prospect of one forming, following the country's
:09:45. > :09:50.inconclusive general election. As the horse trading gets under way in
:09:50. > :09:52.the attempt to form a working administration, the politicians are
:09:52. > :10:01.fiddling while the economy is burning. It is spreading like a
:10:01. > :10:11.bushfire through the eurozone. Here is our Economics Editor, Paul Mason.
:10:11. > :10:11.
:10:11. > :10:17.It was dead and buried, we thought. But now the eurocrisis is back,
:10:17. > :10:23.little a cheesey film dell'orrore, that is Italian for horror movie.
:10:23. > :10:26.It has people biting their knuckles all across Europe.
:10:26. > :10:30.As in most horror films, there is an old man who doesn't get it.
:10:30. > :10:35.Mario Monti, the unelected Prime Minister who ran the country as a
:10:35. > :10:40.technocrat. He polled just over 10% and is finished. Now, a massive
:10:40. > :10:44.plot inflection. This man, Beppe Grillo, the stand-up comedian,
:10:44. > :10:53.whose brand-new party scored more than 25%, and holds the balance of
:10:53. > :10:56.power. In -- TRANSLATION: From all this rage we created hope. There
:10:56. > :11:00.was no hope, it was anger without hope. It is anger without hope that
:11:00. > :11:04.creates violence. But anger with hope is a different kind of anger.
:11:04. > :11:11.We are containing the rage, so they should thank me. It is a democratic
:11:11. > :11:15.rage that is needed to go forward. With the rise of the Five Stars
:11:16. > :11:22.Party, there is political deadlock. Both traditional bloc, centre left
:11:22. > :11:26.and right, made noises against austerity. But Grillo's party made
:11:27. > :11:31.low noises against t and people expect him to force through change.
:11:31. > :11:34.We are looking at party movement that has huge support among young
:11:35. > :11:38.voters. There is clearly a generational confrontation going on.
:11:38. > :11:42.Young voters are clearly on Grillo's side. And now clearly that
:11:42. > :11:46.they have so huge support of so many MPs and senators, that
:11:46. > :11:50.expectations are running high. Because Grillo has promised to open
:11:50. > :11:53.up the Italian parliament like a tin of tuna, they want more
:11:53. > :11:58.transparency andless bureaucracy. They want more efficient
:11:58. > :12:03.politicians, less perks, lower salaries. They want a whole lot of
:12:03. > :12:06.things from Beppe Grillo and his movement. Mr Grillo himself can't
:12:06. > :12:11.enter parliament due to a manslaughter conviction after a
:12:11. > :12:16.fatal car crash. The Italian election has gone off script. Last
:12:16. > :12:20.summer the European Central Bank put the dampers on the crisis by
:12:20. > :12:25.offering to buy unlimited amounts of Italian and Spanish debt. We
:12:25. > :12:28.called it then the "virtual bail out", because they didn't need to
:12:28. > :12:33.do anything. But Italian voters seemed to have concluded that if
:12:33. > :12:37.the bookie jar is bottomless, better to vote for the people who
:12:37. > :12:42.say, dip into it some more. Here is the result. Italy's bond yield, its
:12:42. > :12:46.cost of Government borrowing, which had fallen sharply after the ECB's
:12:46. > :12:50.move, last summer, spiked up towards 5%, moving more in day than
:12:50. > :12:55.it normal low would in a year. If this goes further, and drags
:12:55. > :12:59.Spain up as well, the ECB may actually have to start buying the
:12:59. > :13:02.bonds. Italy accounts for about 17% of the
:13:02. > :13:06.eurozone's GDP. It is huge. It is a very big economy, it is one of the
:13:06. > :13:11.founding members of the eurozone. So it is one thing when Greece
:13:11. > :13:14.looks a little bit shaky, and has some political instability. The
:13:14. > :13:19.eurozone could probably have survived that, it cannot survive it
:13:19. > :13:22.if Italy is going to be locked out of the bond markets. And also to
:13:22. > :13:28.need a bail out if it doesn't have a Government to ask for one. We
:13:28. > :13:32.could be looking at an Italian default, that is worst case
:13:32. > :13:34.scenario and not the base case, but it is a risk now, where investors
:13:35. > :13:38.didn't think it was for the last couple of months. That is a really
:13:38. > :13:43.big deal. Europe does not need a rerun of the crisis, growth is set
:13:43. > :13:48.to be very low this year. Low in France, low in Germany, and the
:13:48. > :13:51.once-booming netherlands predicted to be in recession all year. Enter
:13:51. > :13:56.Bersani by-election the smart money is for this man, the centre left
:13:56. > :14:00.leader, to form a Government with Grillo's party offering support on
:14:00. > :14:04.a case-by-base basis. But that kind of Government moves slowly, and the
:14:04. > :14:08.markets can move fast. Tonight Silvio Berlusconi, who still is
:14:09. > :14:14.clinging on for a sequel, issued this video message to his
:14:14. > :14:17.supporters. TRANSLATION: I wish to hug everyone, one by one, to thank
:14:17. > :14:21.them for renewing their faith in me and our political mission. Backing
:14:21. > :14:30.our wish to defend the family businesses and our love for freedom
:14:30. > :14:36.and Italy. To some, being hugged by Berlusconi would itself be a
:14:36. > :14:45.horrifying thought. The problem with the great euro-horror movie is
:14:45. > :14:49.everyone can hear you scream. Just before we came on air, I spoke to
:14:49. > :14:53.the vice secretary of Pier Luigi Bersani's democratic party. I began
:14:53. > :14:59.by asking him whether he thought the democrats could make a
:14:59. > :15:07.coalition deal with Berlusconi, or the Five Star movement? We will do
:15:08. > :15:13.our best to avoid economic and economic problems in Italy. For
:15:13. > :15:18.that we need a Government, the only way to do that now is to form a
:15:18. > :15:26.minority Government. We ask the other Members of Parliament to
:15:26. > :15:31.allow our Government to start. We think it would be now impossible to
:15:31. > :15:35.form a coalition Government with Berlusconi, or a coalition
:15:36. > :15:40.Government with Grillo, for different reasons. With Berlusconi
:15:40. > :15:45.because Berlusconi is our main opponent. With Grillo, because
:15:45. > :15:53.Grillo is not a party, he's not a traditional party, he's a movement.
:15:53. > :15:56.With them, maybe, we can be able to reach agreement, issue by issue.
:15:56. > :16:03.The main problem is the beginning of the new Government. The birth of
:16:03. > :16:09.the new Government. But, Mr Grillo thinks that you will do a deal with
:16:09. > :16:18.Berlusconi. If Grillo won't do a deal with you, in order to get some
:16:18. > :16:22.stability, would you do a deal with Berlusconi? We know that today is
:16:22. > :16:30.impossible to form a coalition Government as the one you have in
:16:30. > :16:36.the UK, or the one they have in Germany. So we will try to form
:16:36. > :16:42.this minority Government, and to try to reach votes in parliament.
:16:42. > :16:49.Of course, it is weak and very difficult as a situation, but it is
:16:49. > :16:55.the only way to avoid, for Italy chaos. And we ask for everybody
:16:55. > :17:02.taking his responsibility for what concerns our responsibility. We
:17:02. > :17:07.think that on the economy, Europe and institutional changes, it is
:17:07. > :17:13.possible to have in the next months important reforms. We will try all
:17:13. > :17:19.our best to reach these reforms, in parliament, with the votes of our
:17:19. > :17:27.Members of Parliament. What if you fail? What if you can't do a deal?
:17:27. > :17:33.We are very worried about the risk of economic chaos. We very much
:17:33. > :17:39.worry about the risk of exporting the virus of instability in the
:17:39. > :17:47.rest of the eurozone. Of course the big risk is that without a
:17:47. > :17:52.Government the rising of interest rates will create a situation of
:17:52. > :17:57.instability and this instability can be exported into the rest of
:17:57. > :18:02.the eurozone. This is why we will do all our best to form a
:18:02. > :18:10.Government. How would you describe Silvio Berlusconi, then? Berlusconi
:18:10. > :18:18.is our main opponent. He's our main opponent. He did a lot of mistakes
:18:18. > :18:27.for the country. Of course we have to avoid having new elections
:18:27. > :18:30.immediately after these elections. Because the populistic majority
:18:30. > :18:36.with Berlusconi or Grillo will create a very negative situation
:18:36. > :18:46.for the country. This is why we need to avoid new elections. We
:18:46. > :18:52.need to have a Government today. Thank you very much for joining us.
:18:52. > :19:00.I'm joined now from Rome by a senator in Berlusconi's People of
:19:01. > :19:04.Freedom Party. First of all, you heard Mr Letta saying there that
:19:04. > :19:11.chaos is looming ahead. There will be no coalition, but would you
:19:11. > :19:14.support the democratic party in a minority Government? Well, I'm glad
:19:15. > :19:19.that Mr Letta changed his mind. He was the very first to say that we
:19:19. > :19:24.should go to new elections when he saw the first results. Then I'm
:19:24. > :19:28.glad that he changed his mind. Today Berlusconi made a very
:19:28. > :19:33.specific proposal there, the same that he made during the electoral
:19:33. > :19:37.campaign. Of course we know that we can't enforce all those reforms
:19:37. > :19:42.that we would like to have, but we would like to have some answers
:19:42. > :19:47.about issues. They cannot ask our support, attacking us all the time,
:19:47. > :19:52.and not telling us what they want us to support. What they are going
:19:53. > :19:58.to do for the Italian economy. We just hear them speaking lots of
:19:58. > :20:03.parties, laws that are in the interests of the politicians and
:20:03. > :20:10.they are not saying nothing to address the economic crisis. We
:20:10. > :20:16.have proposals about the tax rebate for those who are there. It is too
:20:16. > :20:19.late for you to do that. The only way to get stability. The only way
:20:19. > :20:23.to get stability is to get a Government on the table quickly. If
:20:23. > :20:27.it means supporting democratic parties and minority Government?
:20:27. > :20:31.You are saying it is too late. Thank you for interrupting me. But
:20:31. > :20:34.you are saying it is too late. Too late for what? We had the results
:20:34. > :20:38.yesterday. What, we should have done those proposals before the
:20:38. > :20:42.elections? We didn't know the results yet. I don't know why you
:20:42. > :20:46.are telling me that it is too late. It is not too late for Mr
:20:46. > :20:50.Berlusconi, given that it's, people would say it is the behaviour of Mr
:20:50. > :20:55.Berlusconi which has led to the uprising of people like Beppe
:20:55. > :20:59.Grillo, because the disaffection of the political system has grown so
:20:59. > :21:04.great? Well, by the way I can't hear you very well. I understand
:21:04. > :21:10.that you are saying that it is Berlusconi's fault that Grillo took
:21:10. > :21:15.all those votes. Actually Grillo has had the support of many medias,
:21:15. > :21:21.because they thought that Grillo would take away votes from
:21:21. > :21:29.Berlusconi. Instead Grillo is taking away votes also from the
:21:29. > :21:33.left party. This is as a result of a propaganda war against Berlusconi,
:21:33. > :21:37.with the judiciary and the populisim of Grillo and any
:21:37. > :21:43.organisations, the result is the democratic party is trying to court
:21:43. > :21:48.Mr Grillo, and Mr Grillo has refused, rejected that attempt.
:21:48. > :21:53.Just calling Bersani a zombie, and a walking dead man, and a failure.
:21:54. > :21:57.So I don't think that you can blame Berlusconi for all that what
:21:57. > :22:00.happened in Italy. What happens next? We have a situation in the
:22:00. > :22:04.economy where people are talking about the virus that actually
:22:04. > :22:11.Italy's problems are bad enough for the Italian people, economic
:22:11. > :22:15.problems, but they will become economic problems for the eurozone?
:22:15. > :22:20.Sure this is why Berlusconi, he already did that yesterday, not
:22:20. > :22:24.personally him, but through some aides. But today he personally
:22:24. > :22:29.offered to anyone who was, of course Bersani at first, of course,
:22:29. > :22:35.because he has the majority at the House. He offered the collaboration
:22:35. > :22:41.for all those who want to have a tax rebate spending cuts to revive
:22:41. > :22:43.the economy and institutional reforms. Now we want answers about
:22:43. > :22:49.issues, they can't ask just to have our support without telling
:22:49. > :22:54.anything about what they are going to do. And after they have attacked
:22:54. > :22:58.us, and just proposing something that it is absolutely indifferent
:22:58. > :23:02.to the economic crisis that won't create any jobs, and won't help the
:23:02. > :23:07.country. If they are changing their mind that's good, we are ready to
:23:07. > :23:13.take our responsibility. But which can't just say, yes, because they
:23:13. > :23:17.insult us and then they ask us for our support.
:23:17. > :23:20.In the run up to the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion,
:23:20. > :23:24.Newsnight has conducted a long interview with Tony Blair. Re-
:23:24. > :23:28.examining the decisions he made and the impact that has had on trust
:23:28. > :23:32.between politicians and the people. Part of that interview was included
:23:32. > :23:35.in our special debate on Iraq last night. Tonight, here's a second
:23:35. > :23:40.part. In which the former Prime Minister, who is a Special Envoy to
:23:40. > :23:43.the Middle East, talks about the dangers supposed by Syria and Iran.
:23:43. > :23:53.We began, however, by discussing the role of intelligence leading up
:23:53. > :23:54.
:23:54. > :23:59.to the Iraq War. When was the moment that you knew
:23:59. > :24:02.that there were no weapons of mass destruction? The moment that we
:24:02. > :24:04.knew that the intelligence was wrong was obviously when the Iraq
:24:04. > :24:09.Survey Group finally reported. It is very important that people
:24:09. > :24:14.understand what they did report and what they didn't. Their eventual
:24:14. > :24:18.findings were, yes he had put his programme into abeyance, but he
:24:18. > :24:21.retained the intent and expertise. I have no doubt at all, that had we
:24:22. > :24:27.backed off he would have been back to it again. You couldn't go to war
:24:27. > :24:30.on an intention. The only way you could invade Iraq was if you were
:24:30. > :24:34.absolutely certain. The only legal basis that he certainly had WMD,
:24:34. > :24:38.not an intention? Exactly, that is why I say to people. How many times
:24:38. > :24:41.have we been over this argument. If people want to see the intelligence
:24:41. > :24:45.we relied on, the simplest thing is they read the Joint Intelligence
:24:45. > :24:50.Committee reports that are now freely and public low available.
:24:50. > :24:56.Exactly a year -- Publicly available. Exactly a year before
:24:56. > :25:01.the invasion. You wrote to your Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell,
:25:01. > :25:06.you said, "We have to resword the story and the message, because it
:25:06. > :25:10.has to be about the nature of the regime". That came out at Chilcot.
:25:10. > :25:15.Can you see why people thought they were misled, a year beforehand you
:25:15. > :25:18.were thinking about the best way to make the case? You are obviously
:25:18. > :25:22.going to think of the best way to make the case if you believe it.
:25:22. > :25:27.that a case of making the case and trying to find the evidence to fit
:25:27. > :25:29.that? If you are in any doubt, if your problem is a "deceit" problem,
:25:29. > :25:33.look at the Joint Intelligence Committee reports. The point is
:25:33. > :25:40.this, however, the nature of the regime, this is why this
:25:40. > :25:44.distinction between the nature of the regime, and the use of WMD, is
:25:44. > :25:49.always well, not so much a forced one, but one lacking in common
:25:49. > :25:55.sense. The reason why we fear Iran with a nuclear weapon today, is in
:25:55. > :26:01.part because of the nature of the Iranian regime. If the Iranian
:26:01. > :26:04.regime were a democracy with a benign view towards the rest of the
:26:04. > :26:06.region, we still probably wouldn't want them to have a nuclear weapon,
:26:06. > :26:12.but it would be a completely different proposition. The thing
:26:12. > :26:18.was, even then, you have got Saddam then, but you also had Assad's
:26:18. > :26:25.father, WMD in Syria. Abuses of human rights then. The thing is, in
:26:25. > :26:32.a sense you either, you go in with WMD, it matters, surely, it matters
:26:32. > :26:35.then and it still matters about whether or not there were WMD
:26:35. > :26:40.because, it is a question of trust between politicians and the public,
:26:40. > :26:44.isn't it? It is a matter of trust. And when the allegation was first
:26:44. > :26:49.made that people are being deliberately misled, we had a six-
:26:49. > :26:52.month Government inquiry, it was the first time Government and the
:26:52. > :26:57.Intelligence Services, everybody gave evidence. It took six months.
:26:57. > :26:59.The judge that we put in charge was someone was absolute impeccable
:26:59. > :27:02.integrity, nothing to do with politics, that was the Hutton
:27:02. > :27:07.Inquiry. When he came out with the verdict that there was no deception,
:27:07. > :27:10.people didn't like it so they trashed the report and the judge. I
:27:10. > :27:14.agree with you, of course it is a serious issue about trust in
:27:14. > :27:17.politics. The fact is there have now been five different inquiries
:27:18. > :27:20.into the same issue. As I say, the simple thing is, if you are a
:27:20. > :27:24.member of the public and you don't know whether you were deliberately
:27:24. > :27:28.misled or not, go and read the Joint Intelligence Committee
:27:28. > :27:33.reports. Isn't it terrible that in this country now we can't go to war
:27:33. > :27:36.on the basis of intelligence again k we? I think, I don't think
:27:36. > :27:42.whether we go to war on the basis of intelligence or not is really
:27:42. > :27:47.the issue. I think what is the issue, frankly, after Iraq and
:27:47. > :27:52.Afghanistan, is whether we disregard the price of any such
:27:52. > :27:57.intervention as too high. Well, yes. I was wondering about that, after
:27:57. > :28:01.Iraq, do you think that you could ever make case for moral
:28:01. > :28:05.intervention? Yes, of course. talk about Iran. You talk about
:28:05. > :28:09.Syria? Yes. Look at what's happening in Syria today. Now,
:28:09. > :28:13.because we don't have troops there, it is not on our television screens
:28:13. > :28:17.every night in the same way. If this carries on much longer in
:28:17. > :28:24.Syria, there will be virtually as many people proportionately killed
:28:24. > :28:28.in Syria, as in the whole of the conflict since 2003 in Iraq, and
:28:28. > :28:34.we're at the beginning of this process now. You have a dictator
:28:34. > :28:36.there literally wiping out whole villages, using scud missiles and
:28:36. > :28:40.heavy artillery. We are not intervening.
:28:40. > :28:44.Do you think we should intervene? As I have said on many occasions,
:28:44. > :28:49.we don't have to put our own boots on the ground, I do think we should
:28:49. > :28:54.be taking a far stronger line on Siria. I think, in the end, if --
:28:54. > :29:00.Syria. I think in the end, if we don't intervene, and you carry on
:29:00. > :29:03.with this number of people dying, you carry on with the situation
:29:03. > :29:07.where increasingly I think you will find in the opposition forces it is
:29:07. > :29:14.the more extreme elements that take charge. We are going to end up with
:29:14. > :29:17.a very, very big problem further down the line. So my view is when
:29:17. > :29:20.you debate the wisdom of intervention versus non-
:29:20. > :29:25.intervention, non-intervention is also a decision, it is a policy and
:29:25. > :29:28.has consequences. Yes, but if it is not boots on the ground, it is
:29:28. > :29:31.bombs from the air, for example, you would have to have a legal
:29:31. > :29:34.basis for going into Syria. You will never get that through the UN?
:29:34. > :29:37.It is very difficult to get it through the UN. What would you do?
:29:37. > :29:44.Sometimes he look at the UN Security Council as if it was the
:29:44. > :29:49.Supreme Court of justice. It is a group of political leaders looking
:29:49. > :29:52.at their political interests. In my view, of course we should try to
:29:52. > :29:56.get a diplomatic solution. Even though we should be trying to work
:29:56. > :30:00.with the Russians and Chinese and others to get a way through. But
:30:00. > :30:04.there are things we could be doing to help change the balance of power
:30:04. > :30:09.in this struggle. And my anxiety is that we are about to learn again
:30:09. > :30:14.the lesson of the consequences of non-intervention. We went through
:30:14. > :30:18.this with Rwanda genocide and again in Bosnia, we didn't intervene,
:30:18. > :30:23.250,000 people died before we finally realised in the end these
:30:23. > :30:25.are struggles in which our own interests, quite apart from the
:30:26. > :30:30.humanitarian aspect, are dramatically engaged. I still think
:30:30. > :30:35.in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan, once those conflicts got beyond the
:30:35. > :30:41.ray genome change stage, Saddam was toppled, the Taliban driven out of
:30:41. > :30:44.Afghanistan, and they then changed into these deep-seated sectarian
:30:44. > :30:49.conflicts, we have an interest in ensuring that the sensible people
:30:49. > :30:52.win those conflicts. The problem is now, is that we are pretty sure
:30:52. > :30:56.that Iran has weapons of mass destruction at some level, or on
:30:56. > :30:59.its way to getting them. As a result of what happened in Iraq,
:30:59. > :31:03.Iran is an absolute powerhouse in the region. This is the number one
:31:03. > :31:07.enemy of the west, number one enemy of America, and as a result of the
:31:07. > :31:11.problems in Iraq, Iran is gaining power, and another foothold in
:31:11. > :31:15.Iraq? This is, in my view, the worst geopolitical argument I have
:31:15. > :31:19.come across. This parliament that some how we should have kept Saddam
:31:19. > :31:25.in power in order to act as a bulwark against Iran. That was the
:31:25. > :31:30.policy of the west, in the 1980s. We supported Saddam, in his
:31:30. > :31:34.struggle against Iran. The consequences were, a war in which
:31:34. > :31:38.there were one million casualties. Hundreds of thousands of people who
:31:38. > :31:42.were killed, largely by the use of chemical weapons and other
:31:42. > :31:46.artillery from Saddam. Without of that came two things, first of all,
:31:46. > :31:50.the absolute belief by Saddam that the existence of chemical weapons
:31:50. > :31:55.was essential for his regime. That is why he should he managed to push
:31:55. > :31:57.back the Iranians. And the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was borne
:31:57. > :32:01.out of their belief after that struggle that conventional weapons
:32:01. > :32:05.were not enough. When you look back in history, the idea it is a
:32:05. > :32:11.sensible policy to support people like Saddam to be a bulwark against
:32:11. > :32:14.Iran, it is not the right policy. The right policy is you get rid of
:32:14. > :32:17.dictators like Saddam, and you confront Iran and hope there is
:32:17. > :32:20.change there too. You have to confront these countries, I would
:32:20. > :32:25.suggest, without putting any British forces anywhere near them.
:32:25. > :32:30.Because, frankly, the British public has no appetite for that.
:32:30. > :32:33.And obviously you saw in Obama's address, he's not going on any
:32:33. > :32:37.foreign adventures either? I agree, there is a huge reaction. Of course
:32:37. > :32:41.there is going to be, minutes any form of intervention. All I'm
:32:41. > :32:44.saying to you is, that is the argument now. Let's wait and see
:32:44. > :32:48.how that argument is, particularly after what is happening in the
:32:48. > :32:51.Middle East. Look at the Middle East today. You have Syria, as I
:32:51. > :32:56.say, which is in a state of disintegration, with thousands of
:32:56. > :32:59.people dying every month. You have Iran trying to get nuclear weapons
:32:59. > :33:03.capability. Further awe field you have Pakistan, Afghanistan in state
:33:03. > :33:07.of great uncertainty. You have Yemen. You have Libya and Tunisia
:33:07. > :33:11.and Egypt, after their revolutions. Now with huge uncertainty as to
:33:11. > :33:16.what happens. You agree, you do agree with the revolutions in Egypt
:33:16. > :33:19.and so on. Although you did support Mubarak, you do agree with the
:33:19. > :33:23.revolutions? I do, I also say the revolutions aren't the end, they
:33:23. > :33:28.are the beginning. And what we are going to have to understand in the
:33:28. > :33:33.west is, it's OK to say we will disengage and let these countries
:33:33. > :33:36.get on with it. Of course we are trying 0 do what we can to help,
:33:36. > :33:40.those Governments in Libya and Tunisia and Egypt, but it is going
:33:40. > :33:45.to be a long, hard struggle. I would actually watch Egypt in
:33:45. > :33:49.particular. I hope that in the end that can be stablised. It may not.
:33:49. > :33:54.What is happening in Syria is, as I say, ghastly. All I'm saying to you
:33:54. > :34:01.is, in the end the essential judgment is this, is the world
:34:01. > :34:07.going to be safer if you leave these countries to their own fate,
:34:07. > :34:10.in answers is. So there is a dictator in power with an
:34:10. > :34:15.oppressive regime, we will leave them there. If the country rises up
:34:15. > :34:20.and throws them off, well that's their decision. Or is it better to
:34:20. > :34:27.see the forces that are trying to destablise the region and beyond,
:34:27. > :34:30.which in my view are forces linked by a common ideology, based on a
:34:30. > :34:34.perversion of religion, this Islamism, or is it better to see
:34:34. > :34:37.them as part of a whole picture. That is the essential picture. The
:34:37. > :34:41.judgment of history will be made about this, not now, because we are
:34:41. > :34:44.in the middle of it, it will be made later. That is the essential
:34:44. > :34:51.question. Are these separate struggles not linked really where
:34:51. > :34:55.you have got to take a case-by-case view, or is there something that
:34:55. > :34:59.fundamentally unites this process, and where we should see ourselves
:35:00. > :35:03.as having a profound strategic interest in engagment. I'm in the
:35:03. > :35:06.latter camp. But there are plenty of people who would say I'm wrong.
:35:06. > :35:10.There are plenty of people who would say you will never be
:35:10. > :35:15.supported by the country, because you squadered it during the war on
:35:15. > :35:21.Iraq? Look, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was difficult and
:35:21. > :35:25.long and bloody. Not because of getting rid of the regime, but
:35:25. > :35:29.because of what happened afterwards. And what happened afterwards was
:35:29. > :35:33.not something that occurred naturally, it occurred by the
:35:33. > :35:37.intervention of outside forces, linking up with internal forces.
:35:37. > :35:45.This is, as I say, precisely the problem you have everywhere in the
:35:45. > :35:49.region and beyond. In fact, as a result of the war in Iraq, Al-Qaeda
:35:49. > :35:54.is more on the rise than it was? think that is highly disputable. In
:35:54. > :35:59.Iraq British forces and others did immense damage to Al-Qaeda. But the
:35:59. > :36:02.fact is the ideology is still there, that is my point. It is a long
:36:02. > :36:05.generational struggle. And the question is, is it a struggle of
:36:05. > :36:10.which we should be interested and engaged, or is it one we say, look
:36:10. > :36:14.we have had enough of all that we will stay out of it. I totally
:36:14. > :36:18.understand why after long and arduous and difficult campaigns
:36:18. > :36:21.people in our country and America and elsewhere say let's stay out of
:36:21. > :36:26.it. You can just see what is happening to France and Mali, it is
:36:26. > :36:31.hard to stay out of it, in the end, I'm afraid, the problem is still
:36:31. > :36:35.there. In your memoirs you write about redeeming something from the
:36:35. > :36:41.tragedies of the deaths in Iraq. In a way is your role as a Middle East
:36:41. > :36:45.envoy some kind of attempt to atone? No. It is because I believe,
:36:45. > :36:49.look, I set out straight after September 11th, I set out at the
:36:49. > :36:57.party speech a couple of weeks later a global view, which is a
:36:57. > :37:02.view I still hold. Which is after 9/11, the callous of risk has --
:37:02. > :37:06.calculus of risk had changed, we had to take tougher lines against
:37:06. > :37:11.those proliferating chemical, nuclear or buy lopbl kal weapons.
:37:11. > :37:16.Secondly, I took the view that this ideology based on a perversion of
:37:16. > :37:22.the religion of Islam had to be confronted. And one part of
:37:22. > :37:28.confronting it is to deal with the long-running Israeli-Palestinian
:37:28. > :37:31.dispue. Not because it is a cause of that extremism, but because
:37:31. > :37:34.resolving it you put a huge boost in place for the modern-minded view
:37:34. > :37:40.of the world. Which is really what is going on within the Middle East
:37:40. > :37:45.and elsewhere. It is a struggle between the close-mind -- closed
:37:45. > :37:48.mind and the open mind. The closed mind believes in societies run by
:37:48. > :37:51.religion. The open mind says religion has a place in society,
:37:51. > :37:55.but we should live together irrespective of whatever faith we
:37:55. > :38:01.are, and we need an open-minded tolerant and democratic view of the
:38:01. > :38:10.way we govern ourselves. Do you think you will be redeemed?
:38:10. > :38:17.less interested in my personal position in this. That in at least
:38:17. > :38:21.keeping people's minds alert to the possibility, that what happened in
:38:21. > :38:25.Iraq was not some deceit or deception, it was actually a very
:38:25. > :38:30.difficult decision, but it was a decision that became even more
:38:30. > :38:36.difficult as a result of forces that are the same forces we are now
:38:36. > :38:39.facing in many different parts of the world. I truly believe i may be
:38:39. > :38:43.wrong, I tell you genuinely believe it. I think the only way we
:38:44. > :38:47.overcome the forces in the end, is to stand up to them, to stand
:38:47. > :38:52.alongside. Where I think the majority of people, even in Iraq
:38:52. > :38:56.today, which is on the side of tolerance and democracy S but the
:38:56. > :38:59.struggle is long and hard -- democracy. But the struggle is long
:38:59. > :39:01.and hard and will take an intense amount of determination and will to
:39:01. > :39:06.win. Thank you very much.
:39:06. > :39:09.You can catch up with our debate on Iraq, ten years on, on the BBC
:39:09. > :39:12.iPlayer. Before the end of the programme we will have the front
:39:12. > :39:16.pages. First, the idea that there is a link between sugar and
:39:16. > :39:24.diabetes is quite a common one. Chances are you put that down to
:39:24. > :39:27.sugar leading to obesity, and hence to diabetes. But a new expensive
:39:27. > :39:33.epidemiological study, published today, and looking right across
:39:34. > :39:37.populations. Reveals that our own sugar intake might be connected to
:39:37. > :39:46.diabetes, unconnected with obesity. We look at what the research can
:39:46. > :39:52.mean for all of us. It is not just the sugar we add to
:39:52. > :39:56.our food, ow the sugars hidden in our every-day diet that can affect
:39:56. > :39:59.our health. This latest research is attracting attention because it
:39:59. > :40:02.looks at data from 175 countries over the past decade. The
:40:02. > :40:06.scientists found a link between increased availability of sugar in
:40:06. > :40:13.a population's food supply, and the amount of diabetes in that
:40:13. > :40:19.population. The standard mantra was that a calorie is a calorie F you
:40:19. > :40:23.take in more calories than you burn, you will get obese and are at
:40:23. > :40:27.higher risk for diabetes. We are finding that may be oversimplified.
:40:28. > :40:33.That many people not yet obese are at high risk of diabetes, and many
:40:33. > :40:37.obese are not at high risk for diabetes. It is more complex,
:40:37. > :40:42.obesity is a problem, but the type of calories you eat may be
:40:42. > :40:46.pertinent to your risk, and sugar calories may be more pertinent than
:40:46. > :40:52.other sides of calories. He says he's not playing down the risk of
:40:52. > :40:58.diabetes from obesity, but his work, published in the peer journal, plus
:40:58. > :41:05.plus, suggests sugar is playing a role in its own right. The
:41:05. > :41:12.researchers found each 150 extra kilo calories per person per day,
:41:12. > :41:19.brought a rise in diabetes of 0.1%. If those 150 extra kilo calories
:41:19. > :41:24.were sugar, the pref veins of -- prevalence of diabetes was 1.1%,
:41:24. > :41:28.even including obesity, ageing, physical activity, other types of
:41:28. > :41:32.calories and eco and social variables. In other words, the more
:41:32. > :41:37.sugar there is in a population's diet, the higher the prevalence of
:41:37. > :41:40.diabetes in that population. This research did not track what was
:41:40. > :41:44.eaten person-by-person, it looked at the population as a whole. Nor
:41:44. > :41:48.did it attempt to distinguish between type I diabetes, which
:41:48. > :41:53.tends to appear in the young, and requires insulin injections, and
:41:53. > :41:56.type II, which people tend to develop over their lifetime.
:41:56. > :42:00.Delegates at a conference in Manchester today, were looking at
:42:00. > :42:05.the public health challenges of obesity, including diabetes.
:42:05. > :42:09.Professor Simon Capewell worked on a report on obesity published last
:42:09. > :42:15.week by the academy of royal colleges. It called for a ten-point
:42:15. > :42:20.action plan, including a 20% tax on sugary drinks. This is a very
:42:20. > :42:23.helpful paper, because it eases out the independent --tiess out the
:42:24. > :42:28.independent contribution of sugar in the diet. And diabetes numbers
:42:28. > :42:33.have been going up steeply around the world, over time, one of the
:42:33. > :42:37.big contributors has clearly been increasing body weight. Obesity.
:42:37. > :42:43.Until recently the assumption was sugar just makes a contribution
:42:43. > :42:46.because it increases body weight. This paper and other analysis now
:42:46. > :42:52.clearly shows that even after you allow for the increase in body
:42:52. > :43:00.weight and put that to one side, sugar by itself also independently
:43:00. > :43:04.increases diabetes. The charity Diabetes UK says the findings
:43:04. > :43:09.warrant further research. It is certainly is an interesting study.
:43:09. > :43:13.The researchers themselves were surprised at some of the findings,
:43:13. > :43:18.so Diabetes UK will be looking very carefully to future investigations.
:43:18. > :43:21.But what we must remember, with diabetes, it is not just about
:43:22. > :43:29.sugar. It is about high blood pressure, it is about high blood
:43:30. > :43:32.fat as well. There is a lot of things go into the problems
:43:32. > :43:37.creating diabetes. Would you advise anybody with diabetes to alter
:43:37. > :43:42.their diet at all as a result of this study? People with type I tie
:43:42. > :43:46.beauties is ignore it and -- diabetes can ignore it and carry on
:43:46. > :43:50.as before. People with type II diabetes might think that by
:43:50. > :43:54.cutting sugar out of their diet they can solve the whole problem.
:43:54. > :43:58.So we will continue to advise people to eat a healthy, balanced
:43:58. > :44:08.diet. The UK organisation funded by sugar manufacturers, to speak on
:44:08. > :44:24.
:44:24. > :44:28.their behalf, reacted coolly to The doctor agrees his findings
:44:28. > :44:31.cannot and do not prove that sugar causes diabetes, that would require
:44:32. > :44:36.controlled trials looking at individuals, and how much sugar
:44:36. > :44:41.they eat. We need to next do a clinical trial, where we try people
:44:41. > :44:47.out on low-sugar diets and see what their diabetes risk is in the
:44:47. > :44:50.future, compared with the average diet in the population. Other than
:44:50. > :44:55.feeding people sugar to see if they develop diabetes, which would
:44:55. > :44:58.clearly be unetle ka, that future work may -- ethical, that future
:44:58. > :45:01.work may be the best way to understand just how important this
:45:01. > :45:11.sugar signal really is. Tomorrow morning's front pages,
:45:11. > :45:11.
:45:11. > :45:57.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds
:45:57. > :46:01.We will be covering the Pope's final day in office tomorrow. Today
:46:01. > :46:05.he waved to the crowds of Vatican Square, toured in the Pope-mobile,