27/02/2013 Newsnight

Tonight, on the eve of the by- election in Eastleigh, our -- are

Liberal Democrats speeding towards With the near full moon. Lib Dems

are quietly confident they will retain the seat. UKIP could

listened up being the big story tomorrow.

Also tonight, thought the eurocrisis was dead and buried,

well with no clear winner in Italy's election, it is back on its

feet. Paul Mason will have graphs and zombies.

The second part of our interview with Tony Blair, ten years after

the Iraq invasion. He pushes for intervention in Syria, and gives

the UN Security Council short shrift. There are things we could

be doing to help change the balance of power in the struggle. My

anxiety is we are about to learn again the lessons of the

consequences of non-intervention. You may have thought you already

knew this, new research suggests there is a direct link between

sugar and diabetes. We hope you like your science sweet. Good

evening, the trigger for the Eastleigh by-election may have been

the unedifying scenes of Chris Huhne pleading guilty and his wife

taking his speeding points. But the allegations made against former

chief executive, Lord Rennard, allegations he vehemently denies

and dominating the headlines in the last few days. Can the party hold

the seat despite it all. Our political he had has been chasing

around in Eastleigh on a frenetic day of last-day campaigning.

# War what is it good for # Absolutely nothing

Not the Wild West, but wild Eastleigh. How are you doing gents.

The hoopla unfurling down the length of this high street is for

the election of a new MP all right. But it is a yardstick too of how

the three parties may fare in the big one. The 2015 general election.

The Conservatives are on the hunt for votes. It is teatime in a truck

depot. Since the allegations about Lord

Rennard emerged, the race has got tighter and the Tories have got

busier. Lib Dems sources report an inflation of Conservatives in this

area, as they sense vulnerability in the Lib Dems. Behind both of

them, UKIP is rising up fast. The Tories need to grab place like

Eastleigh off the Lib Dems, but the votes of a few truckers wouldn't go

amiss. Thatcher won the blue collar vote in 1979, Blair in 1997,

Cameron has bent yet persuaded them. We are playing to win. We want to

win this by-election, it is a very important by-election. I have

learned, for a long time the BBC had lost a by-election, and the

electorate said I had won it, not to take elections for granted.

Labour came second here in the 1994 by-election, but it is fighting not

to be pushed into fourth place by UKIP. Labour gambled on a celebrity

candidate, but was he the right celebrity in Eastleigh.

REPORTER: Do you know what John's day job is? A writer. There you are.

The party came second in the 1994 by-election, but it is fighting not

to be pushed into fourth by UKIP. We are the opposition and we want

to become the Government. Part of that strategy is showing that we

are determined to work not just in one part of the country, where we

have been winning by-election, but in every part of the country.

think they could do well, possibly come first, maybe beat the Tories

to second. Nigel Farage looks like he's doing the crossword here, but

he's analysing polling figure, they have put immigration front and

centre. Right from the very start we have

said we are the party that believes in a sensible, controlled approach

to immigration. Like Australia. We want good migrants to come to

Britain. We do not want foreign criminal gangs coming to Britain.

I'm afraid, which ever way you look at it, Romania and Bulgaria are

countries plaged with crime. And we do not want some of those people to

have open access to this country. What have students made of this by-

election, how might they vote? Tories? Why? Because I think they

are going to get Van Outen of debt and put this country back in the

economic climate. Definitely Lib Dem. Why? Because they have done a

lot for eastly there is the stuff with Huhne and stuff, you can't

deny they have improved the area vastly. Why does UKIP look like it

is doing so well? I am' sur -- surprised -- I'm surprised. On

their posters it is them saying we are different. Everyone wants

somebody doing something, they don't care what they do. Over to

the deferpbsd of this seat, the Liberal Democrats. -- defenders of

this seat, the Liberal Democrats. You know very well that I'm in a

decent, honourable team player, and I do what the thought police tell

me to do. I will go round the corner. I will go round the corner

and ondo some canvasing. You can only see ten activists now, but

around the constituency there is hundreds. The Liberal Democrats

think if they hold tight to Eastleigh they can hold tight to

the general election strategy until 20 15. That is until the Rennard

allegations. Does your party have a problem with women? My answer to

that is straight forward, no. women are saying that they do?

That's an issue for the inquiry. We have a national record, we have a

local record to stand on. I think that stands us in very good stead

for Thursday. We are not complacent or taking it for granted. We have

an outstanding candidate what implications there are for the

general election is interesting but a discussion for another time.

These people are past their sell- by-date, they must not be voted

into power to reek further havoc on the community. UKIP could do

surprisingly well, leaving the two largest political parties, the

Tories and Labour to do soul searching. If the Pope joins the

region we will join you. He will join us, make it sooner rather than

later. But the greatest prize may be to the people of Eastleigh,

peace, at last. Here is the list of all the canned

date -- candidates standing in the by-election tomorrow, all 14 of

them. We go to Eastleigh now. How high stakes is this for all the

parties. The Liberal Democrats must be desperate for it to be over?

They wanted it to be a three-week by-election because they knew they

could do a sprint, but they probably couldn't do a marathon.

Tomorrow we think they probably will fall over the finishing line,

keeping this seat. They have been pouring every resource they can

into it, so much so that last week when it was half time they brought

lots of students down. The allegations against Lord Rennard

haven't really played with the voters. I would struggle to tell

you one mentioned it to me today, and we have been around a lot. The

way it has played is you have the other parties scenting blood, and

sending more people down than they might otherwise have done, thinking

there might possibly be vulnerability there. If it had gone

on longer than it has done, they may have been right. One very

senior Liberal Democrat let it be known today f it was one more week

to this by-election, they think UKIP would pip it. By-elections are

famously about local issues, on that basis the Tories and Labour

must be kicking themselves for not having done a lot of the ground

work earlier? You saw in our package, Nigel Farage just to

theing up numbers. He believes the polling companies have

underestimated them, and he showed us all his little biro numbers. He

thinks they could come in at 27.5 points, that would give the Tories

a massive headache. People I have spoken to in the Conservative Party

today agree with him, that it is looking like it could be close

between themselves and UKIP for that prized second position. The

problem would then be, David Cameron, bet a lot on a huge speech

about Europe, a Europe speech that was supposed to stem a lot of this

anger, and it would become apparent this time tomorrow or two days,

that hadn't worked. Equally for Labour, you saw in the package,

Douglas Alexander saying, far from this being Labour's 258th target

seat, very down low on the list, but this place matters to Ed

Miliband's one-nation Labour Party. If they come fourth it isn't great

for them. In a moment, the economic nightmare

borne of Italy's political uncertainty. And part two of our

interview with Tony Blair ten years after the invasion of Iraq. You get

rid of dictators like Saddam, and confront Iran and hope there is

change there too. Italy is in a parlour state, without a Government

or the early prospect of one forming, following the country's

inconclusive general election. As the horse trading gets under way in

the attempt to form a working administration, the politicians are

fiddling while the economy is burning. It is spreading like a

bushfire through the eurozone. Here is our Economics Editor, Paul Mason.

It was dead and buried, we thought. But now the eurocrisis is back,

little a cheesey film dell'orrore, that is Italian for horror movie.

It has people biting their knuckles all across Europe.

As in most horror films, there is an old man who doesn't get it.

Mario Monti, the unelected Prime Minister who ran the country as a

technocrat. He polled just over 10% and is finished. Now, a massive

plot inflection. This man, Beppe Grillo, the stand-up comedian,

whose brand-new party scored more than 25%, and holds the balance of

power. In -- TRANSLATION: From all this rage we created hope. There

was no hope, it was anger without hope. It is anger without hope that

creates violence. But anger with hope is a different kind of anger.

We are containing the rage, so they should thank me. It is a democratic

rage that is needed to go forward. With the rise of the Five Stars

Party, there is political deadlock. Both traditional bloc, centre left

and right, made noises against austerity. But Grillo's party made

low noises against t and people expect him to force through change.

We are looking at party movement that has huge support among young

voters. There is clearly a generational confrontation going on.

Young voters are clearly on Grillo's side. And now clearly that

they have so huge support of so many MPs and senators, that

expectations are running high. Because Grillo has promised to open

up the Italian parliament like a tin of tuna, they want more

transparency andless bureaucracy. They want more efficient

politicians, less perks, lower salaries. They want a whole lot of

things from Beppe Grillo and his movement. Mr Grillo himself can't

enter parliament due to a manslaughter conviction after a

fatal car crash. The Italian election has gone off script. Last

summer the European Central Bank put the dampers on the crisis by

offering to buy unlimited amounts of Italian and Spanish debt. We

called it then the "virtual bail out", because they didn't need to

do anything. But Italian voters seemed to have concluded that if

the bookie jar is bottomless, better to vote for the people who

say, dip into it some more. Here is the result. Italy's bond yield, its

cost of Government borrowing, which had fallen sharply after the ECB's

move, last summer, spiked up towards 5%, moving more in day than

it normal low would in a year. If this goes further, and drags

Spain up as well, the ECB may actually have to start buying the

bonds. Italy accounts for about 17% of the

eurozone's GDP. It is huge. It is a very big economy, it is one of the

founding members of the eurozone. So it is one thing when Greece

looks a little bit shaky, and has some political instability. The

eurozone could probably have survived that, it cannot survive it

if Italy is going to be locked out of the bond markets. And also to

need a bail out if it doesn't have a Government to ask for one. We

could be looking at an Italian default, that is worst case

scenario and not the base case, but it is a risk now, where investors

didn't think it was for the last couple of months. That is a really

big deal. Europe does not need a rerun of the crisis, growth is set

to be very low this year. Low in France, low in Germany, and the

once-booming netherlands predicted to be in recession all year. Enter

Bersani by-election the smart money is for this man, the centre left

leader, to form a Government with Grillo's party offering support on

a case-by-base basis. But that kind of Government moves slowly, and the

markets can move fast. Tonight Silvio Berlusconi, who still is

clinging on for a sequel, issued this video message to his

supporters. TRANSLATION: I wish to hug everyone, one by one, to thank

them for renewing their faith in me and our political mission. Backing

our wish to defend the family businesses and our love for freedom

and Italy. To some, being hugged by Berlusconi would itself be a

horrifying thought. The problem with the great euro-horror movie is

everyone can hear you scream. Just before we came on air, I spoke to

the vice secretary of Pier Luigi Bersani's democratic party. I began

by asking him whether he thought the democrats could make a

coalition deal with Berlusconi, or the Five Star movement? We will do

our best to avoid economic and economic problems in Italy. For

that we need a Government, the only way to do that now is to form a

minority Government. We ask the other Members of Parliament to

allow our Government to start. We think it would be now impossible to

form a coalition Government with Berlusconi, or a coalition

Government with Grillo, for different reasons. With Berlusconi

because Berlusconi is our main opponent. With Grillo, because

Grillo is not a party, he's not a traditional party, he's a movement.

With them, maybe, we can be able to reach agreement, issue by issue.

The main problem is the beginning of the new Government. The birth of

the new Government. But, Mr Grillo thinks that you will do a deal with

Berlusconi. If Grillo won't do a deal with you, in order to get some

stability, would you do a deal with Berlusconi? We know that today is

impossible to form a coalition Government as the one you have in

the UK, or the one they have in Germany. So we will try to form

this minority Government, and to try to reach votes in parliament.

Of course, it is weak and very difficult as a situation, but it is

the only way to avoid, for Italy chaos. And we ask for everybody

taking his responsibility for what concerns our responsibility. We

think that on the economy, Europe and institutional changes, it is

possible to have in the next months important reforms. We will try all

our best to reach these reforms, in parliament, with the votes of our

Members of Parliament. What if you fail? What if you can't do a deal?

We are very worried about the risk of economic chaos. We very much

worry about the risk of exporting the virus of instability in the

rest of the eurozone. Of course the big risk is that without a

Government the rising of interest rates will create a situation of

instability and this instability can be exported into the rest of

the eurozone. This is why we will do all our best to form a

Government. How would you describe Silvio Berlusconi, then? Berlusconi

is our main opponent. He's our main opponent. He did a lot of mistakes

for the country. Of course we have to avoid having new elections

immediately after these elections. Because the populistic majority

with Berlusconi or Grillo will create a very negative situation

for the country. This is why we need to avoid new elections. We

need to have a Government today. Thank you very much for joining us.

I'm joined now from Rome by a senator in Berlusconi's People of

Freedom Party. First of all, you heard Mr Letta saying there that

chaos is looming ahead. There will be no coalition, but would you

support the democratic party in a minority Government? Well, I'm glad

that Mr Letta changed his mind. He was the very first to say that we

should go to new elections when he saw the first results. Then I'm

glad that he changed his mind. Today Berlusconi made a very

specific proposal there, the same that he made during the electoral

campaign. Of course we know that we can't enforce all those reforms

that we would like to have, but we would like to have some answers

about issues. They cannot ask our support, attacking us all the time,

and not telling us what they want us to support. What they are going

to do for the Italian economy. We just hear them speaking lots of

parties, laws that are in the interests of the politicians and

they are not saying nothing to address the economic crisis. We

have proposals about the tax rebate for those who are there. It is too

late for you to do that. The only way to get stability. The only way

to get stability is to get a Government on the table quickly. If

it means supporting democratic parties and minority Government?

You are saying it is too late. Thank you for interrupting me. But

you are saying it is too late. Too late for what? We had the results

yesterday. What, we should have done those proposals before the

elections? We didn't know the results yet. I don't know why you

are telling me that it is too late. It is not too late for Mr

Berlusconi, given that it's, people would say it is the behaviour of Mr

Berlusconi which has led to the uprising of people like Beppe

Grillo, because the disaffection of the political system has grown so

great? Well, by the way I can't hear you very well. I understand

that you are saying that it is Berlusconi's fault that Grillo took

all those votes. Actually Grillo has had the support of many medias,

because they thought that Grillo would take away votes from

Berlusconi. Instead Grillo is taking away votes also from the

left party. This is as a result of a propaganda war against Berlusconi,

with the judiciary and the populisim of Grillo and any

organisations, the result is the democratic party is trying to court

Mr Grillo, and Mr Grillo has refused, rejected that attempt.

Just calling Bersani a zombie, and a walking dead man, and a failure.

So I don't think that you can blame Berlusconi for all that what

happened in Italy. What happens next? We have a situation in the

economy where people are talking about the virus that actually

Italy's problems are bad enough for the Italian people, economic

problems, but they will become economic problems for the eurozone?

Sure this is why Berlusconi, he already did that yesterday, not

personally him, but through some aides. But today he personally

offered to anyone who was, of course Bersani at first, of course,

because he has the majority at the House. He offered the collaboration

for all those who want to have a tax rebate spending cuts to revive

the economy and institutional reforms. Now we want answers about

issues, they can't ask just to have our support without telling

anything about what they are going to do. And after they have attacked

us, and just proposing something that it is absolutely indifferent

to the economic crisis that won't create any jobs, and won't help the

country. If they are changing their mind that's good, we are ready to

take our responsibility. But which can't just say, yes, because they

insult us and then they ask us for our support.

In the run up to the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion,

Newsnight has conducted a long interview with Tony Blair. Re-

examining the decisions he made and the impact that has had on trust

between politicians and the people. Part of that interview was included

in our special debate on Iraq last night. Tonight, here's a second

part. In which the former Prime Minister, who is a Special Envoy to

the Middle East, talks about the dangers supposed by Syria and Iran.

We began, however, by discussing the role of intelligence leading up

to the Iraq War. When was the moment that you knew

that there were no weapons of mass destruction? The moment that we

knew that the intelligence was wrong was obviously when the Iraq

Survey Group finally reported. It is very important that people

understand what they did report and what they didn't. Their eventual

findings were, yes he had put his programme into abeyance, but he

retained the intent and expertise. I have no doubt at all, that had we

backed off he would have been back to it again. You couldn't go to war

on an intention. The only way you could invade Iraq was if you were

absolutely certain. The only legal basis that he certainly had WMD,

not an intention? Exactly, that is why I say to people. How many times

have we been over this argument. If people want to see the intelligence

we relied on, the simplest thing is they read the Joint Intelligence

Committee reports that are now freely and public low available.

Exactly a year -- Publicly available. Exactly a year before

the invasion. You wrote to your Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell,

you said, "We have to resword the story and the message, because it

has to be about the nature of the regime". That came out at Chilcot.

Can you see why people thought they were misled, a year beforehand you

were thinking about the best way to make the case? You are obviously

going to think of the best way to make the case if you believe it.

that a case of making the case and trying to find the evidence to fit

that? If you are in any doubt, if your problem is a "deceit" problem,

look at the Joint Intelligence Committee reports. The point is

this, however, the nature of the regime, this is why this

distinction between the nature of the regime, and the use of WMD, is

always well, not so much a forced one, but one lacking in common

sense. The reason why we fear Iran with a nuclear weapon today, is in

part because of the nature of the Iranian regime. If the Iranian

regime were a democracy with a benign view towards the rest of the

region, we still probably wouldn't want them to have a nuclear weapon,

but it would be a completely different proposition. The thing

was, even then, you have got Saddam then, but you also had Assad's

father, WMD in Syria. Abuses of human rights then. The thing is, in

a sense you either, you go in with WMD, it matters, surely, it matters

then and it still matters about whether or not there were WMD

because, it is a question of trust between politicians and the public,

isn't it? It is a matter of trust. And when the allegation was first

made that people are being deliberately misled, we had a six-

month Government inquiry, it was the first time Government and the

Intelligence Services, everybody gave evidence. It took six months.

The judge that we put in charge was someone was absolute impeccable

integrity, nothing to do with politics, that was the Hutton

Inquiry. When he came out with the verdict that there was no deception,

people didn't like it so they trashed the report and the judge. I

agree with you, of course it is a serious issue about trust in

politics. The fact is there have now been five different inquiries

into the same issue. As I say, the simple thing is, if you are a

member of the public and you don't know whether you were deliberately

misled or not, go and read the Joint Intelligence Committee

reports. Isn't it terrible that in this country now we can't go to war

on the basis of intelligence again k we? I think, I don't think

whether we go to war on the basis of intelligence or not is really

the issue. I think what is the issue, frankly, after Iraq and

Afghanistan, is whether we disregard the price of any such

intervention as too high. Well, yes. I was wondering about that, after

Iraq, do you think that you could ever make case for moral

intervention? Yes, of course. talk about Iran. You talk about

Syria? Yes. Look at what's happening in Syria today. Now,

because we don't have troops there, it is not on our television screens

every night in the same way. If this carries on much longer in

Syria, there will be virtually as many people proportionately killed

in Syria, as in the whole of the conflict since 2003 in Iraq, and

we're at the beginning of this process now. You have a dictator

there literally wiping out whole villages, using scud missiles and

heavy artillery. We are not intervening.

Do you think we should intervene? As I have said on many occasions,

we don't have to put our own boots on the ground, I do think we should

be taking a far stronger line on Siria. I think, in the end, if --

Syria. I think in the end, if we don't intervene, and you carry on

with this number of people dying, you carry on with the situation

where increasingly I think you will find in the opposition forces it is

the more extreme elements that take charge. We are going to end up with

a very, very big problem further down the line. So my view is when

you debate the wisdom of intervention versus non-

intervention, non-intervention is also a decision, it is a policy and

has consequences. Yes, but if it is not boots on the ground, it is

bombs from the air, for example, you would have to have a legal

basis for going into Syria. You will never get that through the UN?

It is very difficult to get it through the UN. What would you do?

Sometimes he look at the UN Security Council as if it was the

Supreme Court of justice. It is a group of political leaders looking

at their political interests. In my view, of course we should try to

get a diplomatic solution. Even though we should be trying to work

with the Russians and Chinese and others to get a way through. But

there are things we could be doing to help change the balance of power

in this struggle. And my anxiety is that we are about to learn again

the lesson of the consequences of non-intervention. We went through

this with Rwanda genocide and again in Bosnia, we didn't intervene,

250,000 people died before we finally realised in the end these

are struggles in which our own interests, quite apart from the

humanitarian aspect, are dramatically engaged. I still think

in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan, once those conflicts got beyond the

ray genome change stage, Saddam was toppled, the Taliban driven out of

Afghanistan, and they then changed into these deep-seated sectarian

conflicts, we have an interest in ensuring that the sensible people

win those conflicts. The problem is now, is that we are pretty sure

that Iran has weapons of mass destruction at some level, or on

its way to getting them. As a result of what happened in Iraq,

Iran is an absolute powerhouse in the region. This is the number one

enemy of the west, number one enemy of America, and as a result of the

problems in Iraq, Iran is gaining power, and another foothold in

Iraq? This is, in my view, the worst geopolitical argument I have

come across. This parliament that some how we should have kept Saddam

in power in order to act as a bulwark against Iran. That was the

policy of the west, in the 1980s. We supported Saddam, in his

struggle against Iran. The consequences were, a war in which

there were one million casualties. Hundreds of thousands of people who

were killed, largely by the use of chemical weapons and other

artillery from Saddam. Without of that came two things, first of all,

the absolute belief by Saddam that the existence of chemical weapons

was essential for his regime. That is why he should he managed to push

back the Iranians. And the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was borne

out of their belief after that struggle that conventional weapons

were not enough. When you look back in history, the idea it is a

sensible policy to support people like Saddam to be a bulwark against

Iran, it is not the right policy. The right policy is you get rid of

dictators like Saddam, and you confront Iran and hope there is

change there too. You have to confront these countries, I would

suggest, without putting any British forces anywhere near them.

Because, frankly, the British public has no appetite for that.

And obviously you saw in Obama's address, he's not going on any

foreign adventures either? I agree, there is a huge reaction. Of course

there is going to be, minutes any form of intervention. All I'm

saying to you is, that is the argument now. Let's wait and see

how that argument is, particularly after what is happening in the

Middle East. Look at the Middle East today. You have Syria, as I

say, which is in a state of disintegration, with thousands of

people dying every month. You have Iran trying to get nuclear weapons

capability. Further awe field you have Pakistan, Afghanistan in state

of great uncertainty. You have Yemen. You have Libya and Tunisia

and Egypt, after their revolutions. Now with huge uncertainty as to

what happens. You agree, you do agree with the revolutions in Egypt

and so on. Although you did support Mubarak, you do agree with the

revolutions? I do, I also say the revolutions aren't the end, they

are the beginning. And what we are going to have to understand in the

west is, it's OK to say we will disengage and let these countries

get on with it. Of course we are trying 0 do what we can to help,

those Governments in Libya and Tunisia and Egypt, but it is going

to be a long, hard struggle. I would actually watch Egypt in

particular. I hope that in the end that can be stablised. It may not.

What is happening in Syria is, as I say, ghastly. All I'm saying to you

is, in the end the essential judgment is this, is the world

going to be safer if you leave these countries to their own fate,

in answers is. So there is a dictator in power with an

oppressive regime, we will leave them there. If the country rises up

and throws them off, well that's their decision. Or is it better to

see the forces that are trying to destablise the region and beyond,

which in my view are forces linked by a common ideology, based on a

perversion of religion, this Islamism, or is it better to see

them as part of a whole picture. That is the essential picture. The

judgment of history will be made about this, not now, because we are

in the middle of it, it will be made later. That is the essential

question. Are these separate struggles not linked really where

you have got to take a case-by-case view, or is there something that

fundamentally unites this process, and where we should see ourselves

as having a profound strategic interest in engagment. I'm in the

latter camp. But there are plenty of people who would say I'm wrong.

There are plenty of people who would say you will never be

supported by the country, because you squadered it during the war on

Iraq? Look, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was difficult and

long and bloody. Not because of getting rid of the regime, but

because of what happened afterwards. And what happened afterwards was

not something that occurred naturally, it occurred by the

intervention of outside forces, linking up with internal forces.

This is, as I say, precisely the problem you have everywhere in the

region and beyond. In fact, as a result of the war in Iraq, Al-Qaeda

is more on the rise than it was? think that is highly disputable. In

Iraq British forces and others did immense damage to Al-Qaeda. But the

fact is the ideology is still there, that is my point. It is a long

generational struggle. And the question is, is it a struggle of

which we should be interested and engaged, or is it one we say, look

we have had enough of all that we will stay out of it. I totally

understand why after long and arduous and difficult campaigns

people in our country and America and elsewhere say let's stay out of

it. You can just see what is happening to France and Mali, it is

hard to stay out of it, in the end, I'm afraid, the problem is still

there. In your memoirs you write about redeeming something from the

tragedies of the deaths in Iraq. In a way is your role as a Middle East

envoy some kind of attempt to atone? No. It is because I believe,

look, I set out straight after September 11th, I set out at the

party speech a couple of weeks later a global view, which is a

view I still hold. Which is after 9/11, the callous of risk has --

calculus of risk had changed, we had to take tougher lines against

those proliferating chemical, nuclear or buy lopbl kal weapons.

Secondly, I took the view that this ideology based on a perversion of

the religion of Islam had to be confronted. And one part of

confronting it is to deal with the long-running Israeli-Palestinian

dispue. Not because it is a cause of that extremism, but because

resolving it you put a huge boost in place for the modern-minded view

of the world. Which is really what is going on within the Middle East

and elsewhere. It is a struggle between the close-mind -- closed

mind and the open mind. The closed mind believes in societies run by

religion. The open mind says religion has a place in society,

but we should live together irrespective of whatever faith we

are, and we need an open-minded tolerant and democratic view of the

way we govern ourselves. Do you think you will be redeemed?

less interested in my personal position in this. That in at least

keeping people's minds alert to the possibility, that what happened in

Iraq was not some deceit or deception, it was actually a very

difficult decision, but it was a decision that became even more

difficult as a result of forces that are the same forces we are now

facing in many different parts of the world. I truly believe i may be

wrong, I tell you genuinely believe it. I think the only way we

overcome the forces in the end, is to stand up to them, to stand

alongside. Where I think the majority of people, even in Iraq

today, which is on the side of tolerance and democracy S but the

struggle is long and hard -- democracy. But the struggle is long

and hard and will take an intense amount of determination and will to

win. Thank you very much.

You can catch up with our debate on Iraq, ten years on, on the BBC

iPlayer. Before the end of the programme we will have the front

pages. First, the idea that there is a link between sugar and

diabetes is quite a common one. Chances are you put that down to

sugar leading to obesity, and hence to diabetes. But a new expensive

epidemiological study, published today, and looking right across

populations. Reveals that our own sugar intake might be connected to

diabetes, unconnected with obesity. We look at what the research can

mean for all of us. It is not just the sugar we add to

our food, ow the sugars hidden in our every-day diet that can affect

our health. This latest research is attracting attention because it

looks at data from 175 countries over the past decade. The

scientists found a link between increased availability of sugar in

a population's food supply, and the amount of diabetes in that

population. The standard mantra was that a calorie is a calorie F you

take in more calories than you burn, you will get obese and are at

higher risk for diabetes. We are finding that may be oversimplified.

That many people not yet obese are at high risk of diabetes, and many

obese are not at high risk for diabetes. It is more complex,

obesity is a problem, but the type of calories you eat may be

pertinent to your risk, and sugar calories may be more pertinent than

other sides of calories. He says he's not playing down the risk of

diabetes from obesity, but his work, published in the peer journal, plus

plus, suggests sugar is playing a role in its own right. The

researchers found each 150 extra kilo calories per person per day,

brought a rise in diabetes of 0.1%. If those 150 extra kilo calories

were sugar, the pref veins of -- prevalence of diabetes was 1.1%,

even including obesity, ageing, physical activity, other types of

calories and eco and social variables. In other words, the more

sugar there is in a population's diet, the higher the prevalence of

diabetes in that population. This research did not track what was

eaten person-by-person, it looked at the population as a whole. Nor

did it attempt to distinguish between type I diabetes, which

tends to appear in the young, and requires insulin injections, and

type II, which people tend to develop over their lifetime.

Delegates at a conference in Manchester today, were looking at

the public health challenges of obesity, including diabetes.

Professor Simon Capewell worked on a report on obesity published last

week by the academy of royal colleges. It called for a ten-point

action plan, including a 20% tax on sugary drinks. This is a very

helpful paper, because it eases out the independent --tiess out the

independent contribution of sugar in the diet. And diabetes numbers

have been going up steeply around the world, over time, one of the

big contributors has clearly been increasing body weight. Obesity.

Until recently the assumption was sugar just makes a contribution

because it increases body weight. This paper and other analysis now

clearly shows that even after you allow for the increase in body

weight and put that to one side, sugar by itself also independently

increases diabetes. The charity Diabetes UK says the findings

warrant further research. It is certainly is an interesting study.

The researchers themselves were surprised at some of the findings,

so Diabetes UK will be looking very carefully to future investigations.

But what we must remember, with diabetes, it is not just about

sugar. It is about high blood pressure, it is about high blood

fat as well. There is a lot of things go into the problems

creating diabetes. Would you advise anybody with diabetes to alter

their diet at all as a result of this study? People with type I tie

beauties is ignore it and -- diabetes can ignore it and carry on

as before. People with type II diabetes might think that by

cutting sugar out of their diet they can solve the whole problem.

So we will continue to advise people to eat a healthy, balanced

diet. The UK organisation funded by sugar manufacturers, to speak on

their behalf, reacted coolly to The doctor agrees his findings

cannot and do not prove that sugar causes diabetes, that would require

controlled trials looking at individuals, and how much sugar

they eat. We need to next do a clinical trial, where we try people

out on low-sugar diets and see what their diabetes risk is in the

future, compared with the average diet in the population. Other than

feeding people sugar to see if they develop diabetes, which would

clearly be unetle ka, that future work may -- ethical, that future

work may be the best way to understand just how important this

sugar signal really is. Tomorrow morning's front pages,

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds

We will be covering the Pope's final day in office tomorrow. Today

he waved to the crowds of Vatican Square, toured in the Pope-mobile,