:00:09. > :00:13.The Islamic fascist forces sweeping through the north of Iraq have to be
:00:14. > :00:17.stopped, the American Secretary of State said today, since they
:00:18. > :00:21.threaten the very existence of the country, but how? We have views from
:00:22. > :00:26.America and Iran and our diplomatic editor is here. With images emerging
:00:27. > :00:32.of Iraqi prisoners apparently being killed by the insurgents, Iraq falls
:00:33. > :00:41.deeper into Civil War. Lord Saatchi joins us to argue it is time to
:00:42. > :00:48.abolish corporation tax. I came out believing it was against God's will
:00:49. > :00:53.to provide health care or benefits, I was misogynistic because I was
:00:54. > :00:58.taught women should obey their husbands.
:00:59. > :01:00.taught women should obey their what goes on behind our private
:01:01. > :01:02.Christian schools. what goes on behind our private
:01:03. > :01:05.British women are engaged from what goes on behind our private
:01:06. > :01:09.land and sea, their mission, to remove Saddam Hussein from power and
:01:10. > :01:12.disarm Iraq from its weapons of mass destruction. Will our relationship
:01:13. > :01:17.with Tony Blair ever recover from that moment, or is there some other
:01:18. > :01:28.reason he makes so many people so angry.
:01:29. > :01:33.Fighting has continued today between the Iraqi Government and its enemies
:01:34. > :01:41.in the Sunni militant group ISIS. But while the battlefield seems to
:01:42. > :01:44.be stablising, the political mercury is risinger, the American Secretary
:01:45. > :01:48.of State today accused ISIS of massacring huge numbers of captured
:01:49. > :01:52.Iraqi troops. Disturbing images suggesting this may be happening
:01:53. > :01:57.have been posted by the Sunni group on its own social media pages. We
:01:58. > :02:16.have been examining the claims that the Jihadists have been carrying out
:02:17. > :02:21.executions on a massive scale. When Tikrit fell ISIS captured thousands
:02:22. > :02:26.of soldiers. There are suggestions they were murdered en masse soon
:02:27. > :02:29.after the images were taken. It is part of an information strategy,
:02:30. > :02:34.complete with Twitter and Facebook accounts being run by the Jihadist
:02:35. > :02:40.group. It is very similar to the kind of videos that we saw from
:02:41. > :02:45.ISIS's predecessor organisations in the mid-2000s. The style of pictures
:02:46. > :02:47.and the kinds of executions of so called traitors, Government people.
:02:48. > :02:55.We have all seen this before. What makes it different are the numbers
:02:56. > :02:59.of people that are being executed. Still photographs show the men being
:03:00. > :03:04.herded into trucks and taken to waste ground, there it appears they
:03:05. > :03:08.were executed by the dozen. It apparently marks an escalation in
:03:09. > :03:12.the brutality of this conflict. Some have pointed out these are stills
:03:13. > :03:18.from a video that has not yet appeared. So is this material
:03:19. > :03:21.genuine? It is very difficult to say with any high degree of certainty,
:03:22. > :03:25.but certainly from what we know about where the images came from and
:03:26. > :03:28.what they appear to show and what we know about ISIS already, it is a
:03:29. > :03:32.pretty fair assumption to make that this is genuine and this happened.
:03:33. > :03:37.But other footage, believed to show the abuse of Iraqi prisoners also
:03:38. > :03:42.taken near Tikrit has emerged. Prisoners, bewildered and dehydrated
:03:43. > :03:56.are taunted and challenged to repeat an ISIS slogan. The man doing this
:03:57. > :04:00.has a north African accent. You can never be sure for definite, but you
:04:01. > :04:02.can look at things like the accent of the people in the videos, the
:04:03. > :04:07.clothes that they are wearing and the environment they are in. These
:04:08. > :04:13.people appear to be an Iraqi army uniform, the accent spoken by the
:04:14. > :04:17.people are captured are Iraqi accents for sure, we think the
:04:18. > :04:22.militants and captors are north African, possibly Libyan or
:04:23. > :04:26.Tunisian, that is in keeping with ISIS's recruitment, they recruit
:04:27. > :04:30.from a wide variety of countries. Later the captured Iraqis were
:04:31. > :04:36.executed, so really any debate is about the scale rather than the fact
:04:37. > :04:42.that ISIS kills its captives. But why publicise it? I think the
:04:43. > :04:46.principal audience for this right now are people inside of Iraq. They
:04:47. > :04:50.want to tell people that there is absolutely no point in trying to
:04:51. > :04:53.confront ISIS. They want to scare people, they want to terrorise
:04:54. > :05:00.people, they want to achieving exactly the same effect that we saw
:05:01. > :05:05.in the taking of Mosul. When seven or eight hundred ISIS people scared
:05:06. > :05:08.30,000 soldiers so much that they were completely abandoning their
:05:09. > :05:13.positions and essentially running away. The Iraqi Government has been
:05:14. > :05:17.blocking certain social media accounts, and tonight there are
:05:18. > :05:21.reports that they are trying to cut off internet access all together in
:05:22. > :05:30.the five provinces worst hit by the violence. Volunteers, mostly Shia
:05:31. > :05:36.have meanwhile been flocking to support the Government. So is the
:05:37. > :05:41.ISIS strategy designed to terrorise these men, or goad them into
:05:42. > :05:46.performing their own atrocities in revenge? Social media is the new
:05:47. > :05:51.battleground in wars around the world, and ISIS is not the only one.
:05:52. > :05:56.In this conflict the Iraqi Government, or forces, members of
:05:57. > :06:00.Iraqi forces have also been posting pictures of their atrocities
:06:01. > :06:05.on-line. Especially Facebook, and we have seen even images of executions
:06:06. > :06:10.where they are boasting about their crimes. So ISIS is far from the only
:06:11. > :06:18.player in the game of propaganda on social media. In its professionally
:06:19. > :06:23.produced videos ISIS boasts that its enemies can expect no mercies. But
:06:24. > :06:29.its enemies too are multiplying and many no doubt will feel that there
:06:30. > :06:35.are now scores to be settled. The threat posed by ISIS has caused
:06:36. > :06:40.such alarm that in keeping with the proverb that the energy of my enemy
:06:41. > :06:44.is my friend, there are suggestions that the USA might start talking to
:06:45. > :06:49.Iran in pursuit of a solution to the crisis. Does this mean the United
:06:50. > :06:54.States is about to join in this fight? Speculation has increased
:06:55. > :07:00.because of what John Kerry said today. Interestingly rather like the
:07:01. > :07:06.Syrian crisis, John Kerry, America's chief diplomat has sounded the most
:07:07. > :07:11.bellicose of the senior official, he said AFSHGs is one -- air strikes
:07:12. > :07:16.may be one of the options the US is looking at. We know HMS Bush is
:07:17. > :07:20.getting ready for that type of contingency. As far as I have heard
:07:21. > :07:24.that this would be regarded as a last resort, the US would prefer to
:07:25. > :07:28.step up support with more drone flights. Apparently US drones have
:07:29. > :07:32.been operating in Iraq for the past few months already. They want to
:07:33. > :07:36.step up that kind of help and intelligence. They want to boost the
:07:37. > :07:39.performance of the Iraqi army if they possibly can and would only
:07:40. > :07:43.resort to military action if they felt they absolutely had to. How
:07:44. > :07:47.does it fit with the biggest picture of American relations with Iran? Of
:07:48. > :07:51.course people inevitably asked today if we are about to start military
:07:52. > :07:57.action potentially are we co-operating with Iran, are we tying
:07:58. > :08:01.this up with them? Fascinatingly the Pentagon said they would not be
:08:02. > :08:03.co-ordinating with Iran. That is a very specific military term, it
:08:04. > :08:09.really just says we will not have guys in the same punkers. We are not
:08:10. > :08:12.going to be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's air force
:08:13. > :08:16.hitting the targets they want us to. It would mean that the US and the
:08:17. > :08:21.Iraqi Armed Forces would be operating and co-ordinating and the
:08:22. > :08:23.Iranians, potentially, and the Iraqi Armed Forces would be doing the same
:08:24. > :08:28.thing. So it would mean potentionally they were on the same
:08:29. > :08:35.side. Now, of course talks have been going on in Vienna on the Iranian
:08:36. > :08:39.nuclear issue which is a whole other major question coming to a political
:08:40. > :08:42.juncture, the drive to get a final deal resolving that long-running
:08:43. > :08:47.international problem. The Americans have been there, William Burns who
:08:48. > :08:50.ran the back channel with Iran who made the progress on the nuclear
:08:51. > :08:54.dossier has been there. They have been talking for sure, we think they
:08:55. > :09:00.have been talking about Iraq too. Here now is the US Ambassador to the
:09:01. > :09:04.UK, you are not going to say this has nothing to do with the 2003
:09:05. > :09:08.invasion, are you? I would just build on what Mark said, you heard
:09:09. > :09:13.from Secretary Kerry and President Obama, he made it clear that he is
:09:14. > :09:19.weighing all the options about how we can help stop the barbarism that
:09:20. > :09:23.your opening segment showed. But the President also made the point that
:09:24. > :09:26.in addition to any immediate things we might do to help that ultimately
:09:27. > :09:30.the solution is not a military one, the solution is a political one and
:09:31. > :09:37.called on the people of Iraq to build a unity Government so that
:09:38. > :09:43.Shia and Kurds and Sunni could all work together to isolate and rid
:09:44. > :09:50.their country of the terrorist scourge. This was seen to come? The
:09:51. > :09:55.urgency is to deal with the situation on the ground. The
:09:56. > :09:59.unarguable fact that Al-Qaeda and equivalent and cohorts were not in
:10:00. > :10:03.Iraq before the invasion of 2003, were they? Indeed and look President
:10:04. > :10:07.Obama was very outspoken at the time before he was in federal office and
:10:08. > :10:10.he ran a presidential campaign very publicly many times saying that he
:10:11. > :10:15.thought that was a mistake for reasons I won't go through right
:10:16. > :10:19.now. But once he got into office he said he wanted to responsibly wind
:10:20. > :10:24.down this effort in Iraq, but we will not disengage, America has to
:10:25. > :10:28.stay engaged, if we don't we are not safe. That is why we have stayed
:10:29. > :10:31.engaged and tried to train the troops and remain so. The training
:10:32. > :10:36.wasn't so effective, they seemed to all run away? Look what the
:10:37. > :10:39.President said a few days ago is we were very troubled. Think about the
:10:40. > :10:43.sacrifice that the American troops have made and the investment the
:10:44. > :10:47.American people have made, say what you will about 2003 massive
:10:48. > :10:52.investment giving the Iraqi people a chance to seize their own future,
:10:53. > :10:55.and invested in training it. You saw it was very troubling in Mosul with
:10:56. > :11:00.thousands of people turning and running from the Armed Forces, that
:11:01. > :11:04.is not what we trained them to do. We can do a lot as America, the
:11:05. > :11:07.international community, but we can't do it for them. That political
:11:08. > :11:10.will and determination to fight, that comes from a trust in the
:11:11. > :11:14.political system that has to be unified and make people feel part of
:11:15. > :11:17.a shared solution. That is what has gone wrong, there is no faith in the
:11:18. > :11:25.politic calm system? Not enough, clearly. Paul Bremmer says you can't
:11:26. > :11:30.sort this out without troops on the ground, do you agree with that? As a
:11:31. > :11:35.private citizen he's entitled to his opinions. He knows whereof he
:11:36. > :11:38.speaks? President Obama said he would keep lots of options on the
:11:39. > :11:46.table, putting troops on the ground is not one of the options the things
:11:47. > :11:50.he's considering. We have hard won humility from experiences around the
:11:51. > :11:57.world about our abilities to affect change inside countries. That is why
:11:58. > :12:01.we're... What does that mean? We had 167,000 ground troops there. And
:12:02. > :12:05.couldn't contain certain amounts of violence. So we have learned those
:12:06. > :12:09.lessons and the lesson is not to retreat as a country, America stays
:12:10. > :12:13.engaged and stays leading but we have to do it with the Iraqi people
:12:14. > :12:18.taking own anothership and the Iraqi -- ownership and the Iraqi people
:12:19. > :12:22.building a system that their forces are not only well equipped and well
:12:23. > :12:26.trained but they have the will to fight for the Iraqis. These ISIS
:12:27. > :12:29.people, they are not part of the Iraqi political system, they don't
:12:30. > :12:37.care what is good for Iraq. How are you going to stay engaged faced with
:12:38. > :12:40.a catastrophe like this? We are staying engaged right now, we have
:12:41. > :12:44.been engaged since winding down the troops. We have stayed engaged
:12:45. > :12:48.through training. We have the biggest embassy in the world in
:12:49. > :12:52.Baghdad. We are diplomatically engaged, we are engaged with
:12:53. > :12:57.development, training and intelligence. It doesn't work? It
:12:58. > :13:02.does work, it isn't perfect and the President and the secretary of state
:13:03. > :13:07.would be the first to say, but just because of that doesn't mean we
:13:08. > :13:10.don't stay engaged. It makes it more important. If we pull back and other
:13:11. > :13:14.parts of the international community pull back look what will fill the
:13:15. > :13:18.void. What are you able to offer the Iranians as an inducement to
:13:19. > :13:21.co-operate with you in attempting to address this problem? I wouldn't put
:13:22. > :13:26.it that way, I don't think we are talking about inducements, certainly
:13:27. > :13:31.we are engaged with everyone in the neighbourhood so to speak, to say we
:13:32. > :13:34.all have a stake in it. The people of Iraq are under threat, the
:13:35. > :13:37.neighbouring countries are under threat, the Secretary of State said
:13:38. > :13:42.today we're not going to rule out any options for constructive
:13:43. > :13:46.solutions here. So you are perfectly happy to be an ally of Iran in this
:13:47. > :13:52.matter are you? I would not put it that way at all. We are open to
:13:53. > :13:55.constructive ideas and it is not a position for me here to rule out any
:13:56. > :14:06.of those options. Thank you very much ambassador. We have the Middle
:14:07. > :14:10.East programme director at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington
:14:11. > :14:15.and she joins me from there. What is the Iranian interest in all of this
:14:16. > :14:22.please? I think the main interests of Iran is to have a neighbouring
:14:23. > :14:33.country that is stable and that is not in a chaotic situation as Iraq
:14:34. > :14:35.that is has been and continues to be. That is the main interest of
:14:36. > :14:42.Iran. If the United States approached Iran with a view to some
:14:43. > :14:45.sort of operation and highly unlikely to be a military
:14:46. > :14:51.co-operation, what would be the likely response in Tehran, do you
:14:52. > :14:57.think? Well, there is diversity of views coming out from Tehran. There
:14:58. > :15:03.are certain members of Government who say they would talk about Iraq
:15:04. > :15:09.with the United States even in Vienna if the United States
:15:10. > :15:15.approaches them. The head of the National Security Council in Iran
:15:16. > :15:21.said that we are not going to talk with the United States, except under
:15:22. > :15:26.certain conditions. There are others who have even hinted that we should
:15:27. > :15:31.only talk to the United States if they stop supporting ISIS, which is
:15:32. > :15:39.amazing, to make that kind of statement. What would sensible
:15:40. > :15:47.members of the regime in Tehran be seeking from any talks? Well, I
:15:48. > :15:54.think they would like to see what the United States is planning to do,
:15:55. > :16:04.that is probably their first question and, secondly, the role of
:16:05. > :16:08.Iran could be to bring maybe some pressure on Al-Maliki to even at
:16:09. > :16:16.this stage of the game to try to form a more inclusive Government and
:16:17. > :16:25.also you know try to influence the Shi'ite militias who have been quite
:16:26. > :16:31.close to the Revolutionary Guards in, during their stay in Iraq. Thank
:16:32. > :16:38.you very much indeed. Now, as the great Mark Twain the
:16:39. > :16:44.difference between a tax collector and taxidermist, is the taxidermist
:16:45. > :16:47.leaves you with your skin! Political right-wingers have argued for
:16:48. > :16:51.generations the way to improve the economy is free people from
:16:52. > :16:58.taxation. Now the Conservative peer Lord Saatchi has produced a plan to
:16:59. > :17:03.abolish corporation tax, a tax on small firms' profits. Paradoxically
:17:04. > :17:14.he believes that cutting the tax could slash the deficit faster than
:17:15. > :17:17.it would levy it. In the first term Margaret Thatcher landed on a policy
:17:18. > :17:23.that would change the political landscape. Right to buy affected six
:17:24. > :17:28.minion people. Michael Heseltine remarked that no single piece of
:17:29. > :17:32.legislation transferred wealth from the state to the people. Now another
:17:33. > :17:37.senior Tory, with a pedigree to match, thinks he has landed on the
:17:38. > :17:44.same kind of game-changer. Not popcorn, but a policy some might see
:17:45. > :17:47.Asimly full of hot air. A move to abolish corporation tax for small
:17:48. > :17:50.businesses, which this company, going for just three years and
:17:51. > :17:54.facing their first corporation tax bill believe would make all the
:17:55. > :17:58.difference. Instead of spending money on corporation tax we could
:17:59. > :18:03.spend it on employing more pastry chef who make our popcorn, we could
:18:04. > :18:08.invest more in machinery to help us produce more popcorn across more
:18:09. > :18:12.amazing flavours as well. Free marketeers will cite the curve, the
:18:13. > :18:15.relationship between the rate of taxation and resulting levels of
:18:16. > :18:18.revenue that the Government brings in. They will argue that the lower
:18:19. > :18:23.the rate of taxation for businesses the greater the overall benefit to
:18:24. > :18:30.the economy will be. They will be persuasive, but will they be right?
:18:31. > :18:34.Let's test the claim, Lord Saatchi says the impact of the policy would
:18:35. > :18:39.be to reduce the deficit faster than predicted by the OBR. In this
:18:40. > :18:42.instance I would be surprised if in the short run you got more revenue
:18:43. > :18:46.from something like this, in the long run if it changed the structure
:18:47. > :18:51.of the economy that might happen. What about the claim it would expand
:18:52. > :18:54.employment faster than predicted? It might increase employment, wages,
:18:55. > :19:00.they might just increase the profits or the take-home pay of the
:19:01. > :19:06.entrepeneurs. Or it would increase competition and cartel capitalism,
:19:07. > :19:10.the domination of the multinational? It might help change the structure
:19:11. > :19:17.of the economy, but over the foreseeable future you are not going
:19:18. > :19:20.to break up capitalism as a result of something like this. It is a
:19:21. > :19:25.policy that doesn't come cheap, with a static cost of ?10 billion,
:19:26. > :19:30.roughly what the abolition of stamp duty on homes would cost. Businesses
:19:31. > :19:34.say corporation tax isn't the biggest worry. Most businesses are
:19:35. > :19:40.struggling with business rates, in the rented accommodation and rented
:19:41. > :19:44.kitchens we are here, the biggest challenge is moving from a place
:19:45. > :19:49.with business rates to our own dedicated facility. The greatest
:19:50. > :19:54.worry says the IFS and the TUC and others is it would increase the
:19:55. > :19:59.likelihood of tax avoidance, once you have tasted the no increase in
:20:00. > :20:04.tax on the company and profits made, the opportunity for getting around
:20:05. > :20:09.the tax system all together would would be irresistable. Is this what
:20:10. > :20:13.the Treasury wants to sign up to? Lord Saatchi is here with us now,
:20:14. > :20:16.how would you pay for this to start with? I will answer the question,
:20:17. > :20:20.but before I do, as you have given me the honour of being one of your
:20:21. > :20:26.last interviews on Newsnight. This is going to be embarrassing. What is
:20:27. > :20:35.this gift? On behalf of all your victims, it is... "The Road To
:20:36. > :20:39.Serfdom". The first edition in the very important book in the history
:20:40. > :20:47.of politics. Wasn't this Margaret Thatcher's great text? It is written
:20:48. > :20:55.by Von Hayer and her mentor in many ways. I'm looking forward to reading
:20:56. > :21:00.it. Your victims wish you well. On to the question, yes, how would you
:21:01. > :21:04.pay for this? Can I put it, can I ask that directly, I will put this
:21:05. > :21:10.into the context, if I may, on Wednesday 900 people are coming to
:21:11. > :21:14.the Centre for PolicStudies '40th an versery, the Thatcher conference on
:21:15. > :21:21.liberty. And 31 think tanks from around the world. They are coming
:21:22. > :21:28.and there is an amazing galaxy to address the question of freedom and
:21:29. > :21:33.liberty. Our aim in the Centre for Policy Studies, as in the aim of
:21:34. > :21:38.founding the centre is to enhance freedom. We will be publishing on
:21:39. > :21:43.Wednesday some research, some polling, which people will find, I
:21:44. > :21:52.think, very distressing. It asks who do you trust? Big companies or big
:21:53. > :22:01.Government? It finds that 70% of people distrust big Government and
:22:02. > :22:06.that 70% distrust big companies. Therefore our aim is to increase
:22:07. > :22:10.people's freedom and our method of doing that is to say that people who
:22:11. > :22:15.are starting up new companies, or who are in small companies, that is
:22:16. > :22:20.companies with less than 50 people, will pay no corporation tax, and by
:22:21. > :22:28.the way, no capital gains tax when the companies are sold. These
:22:29. > :22:31.companies pay no corporation tax. Can I ask you the question again
:22:32. > :22:37.then, how do you pay for that? The cost of doing that is ?11 billion.
:22:38. > :22:41.So it is around that in the national accounts, it is a significant sum.
:22:42. > :22:47.So your question will be where will this money come from. That is what
:22:48. > :22:53.it is? Good. The answer is that following the advice of deep throat
:22:54. > :22:58.in Watergate, you remember that he said "follow the money", and what
:22:59. > :23:04.the economist who have produced this policy have done is to follow the
:23:05. > :23:07.money. That ?11 billion which is in that second lost to the Treasury
:23:08. > :23:11.were does it go? That's what they have done. It doesn't stay under
:23:12. > :23:15.people's pillows, that is in nobody's interest. Thanks to the
:23:16. > :23:18.Treasury, the Treasury has recently published its own report on what
:23:19. > :23:24.happens when corporation tax is reduced. They find that the money
:23:25. > :23:29.goes in three directions, it is paid in dividends, which then involves
:23:30. > :23:33.more income tax, it goes in hiring more people, which means less
:23:34. > :23:38.welfare payments for the Treasury and more income tax for the Treasury
:23:39. > :23:41.and it goes in the third direction in further investment which speeds
:23:42. > :23:46.growth. Therefore we are going to say on Wednesday that this policy
:23:47. > :23:53.recovers the ?11 billion. And there is the very nice man from the IFS as
:23:54. > :23:57.he said can reduce the deficit faster than the OBR currently
:23:58. > :24:02.predicts. It is interesting you should choose this tax as opposed to
:24:03. > :24:06.the tax that businesses care about more, like business rates and VAT
:24:07. > :24:11.for example? Why not tackle those? Well you could, one could try to
:24:12. > :24:16.abolish all tax, if you like. But what we are interested in doing is
:24:17. > :24:20.abolishing two taxes. Corporation tax only on small companies, with
:24:21. > :24:25.less than 50 employios, and capital gains -- employees, and capital
:24:26. > :24:30.gains tax that those who sell shares in small companies don't pay tax. If
:24:31. > :24:35.those two abolitions don't have a similar effect to the effect of
:24:36. > :24:42.buying your own council house in terms of cultural affects and social
:24:43. > :24:46.impact. Wouldn't one effect be, as was suggested earlier, to encourage
:24:47. > :24:50.people to avoid tax because they would choose, well I don't pay any
:24:51. > :24:53.corporation tax, I'm a small business, why not just pay myself
:24:54. > :24:59.through my company as opposed to taking it as income and paying
:25:00. > :25:02.income tax? The thing is this policy doesn't involve any new legislation
:25:03. > :25:06.or new definitions of small companies. There are things called
:25:07. > :25:10.small companies now. There is a small company tax regime. There are
:25:11. > :25:13.different laws and different rules which apply to small companies as
:25:14. > :25:18.they exist now this is most certainly going to encourage people
:25:19. > :25:24.to be small companies. And you honestly believe this could be
:25:25. > :25:30.afforded at a time of financial stringcy. The cost is ??11 billion.
:25:31. > :25:35.A lot of money? According to figures by the IFS has looked at, that money
:25:36. > :25:38.is recovered in four years and the result in terms of the deficit...
:25:39. > :25:42.The Treasury don't think it would be recovered in four years, they think
:25:43. > :25:46.it will take 20 years to recover 60% of it? We don't know what the
:25:47. > :25:50.Treasury is saying about it, they are considering it. The case that
:25:51. > :25:54.has been put to the Treasury and which the IFS was commenting on is
:25:55. > :26:00.that we are looking here for more freedom. This is in effect a social
:26:01. > :26:10.policy. Not an economic policy. It is a social policy, being brought
:26:11. > :26:15.into effect by economic means. The affect of the social policy we are
:26:16. > :26:22.looking at is Britain to have a more get-up-and-go dynamic entrepeneurial
:26:23. > :26:25.culture. If the abolition of the taxes for small companies doesn't
:26:26. > :26:29.get people out of bed in the morning, nothing will. Thank you
:26:30. > :26:31.very much and thank you for the book.
:26:32. > :26:35.Government ministers worrying about what children are taught in schools
:26:36. > :26:39.have made much in the last couple of weeks of claims that Islamic
:26:40. > :26:43.fundamentalists were trying to imbue young people with a warped view of
:26:44. > :26:47.the world. It has led to much concern about British values. But do
:26:48. > :26:51.these concerns extend also to schools of other faiths which teach
:26:52. > :26:55.extreme interpretations. Parents are allowed to choose an education for
:26:56. > :27:02.their children, which fits their religious convictions. But where
:27:03. > :27:11.does belief end and bigotry begin. We report on what's happening in a
:27:12. > :27:15.number of Christian schools. When the Trojan horse allegations hit the
:27:16. > :27:23.headlines, Education Secretary, Michael Gove, declared that no pupil
:27:24. > :27:25.should be exposed to extremist views on radicalisation while at school.
:27:26. > :27:28.The Government has made it clear there is no place for religious
:27:29. > :27:32.extremism in Britain's state schools. But some private schools,
:27:33. > :27:37.which don't receive Government funding are openly teaching what
:27:38. > :27:43.could be described as a hardline Christian agenda. Private or
:27:44. > :27:47.independent schools do not have to teach the National Curriculum. And
:27:48. > :27:52.at least 30 private schools in the UK, and some home schooling parents,
:27:53. > :27:57.teach the accelerated Christian education, or ACE curriculum. It is
:27:58. > :28:06.marketed as a Bible-based curriculum, designed to protect
:28:07. > :28:10.children from secular lies. In science lessons pupils are taught
:28:11. > :28:14.that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up, that the earth is just a
:28:15. > :28:20.few thousand years old this instead of the 4. 5 billion years old that
:28:21. > :28:23.scientists believe, and the curriculum explicitly states that
:28:24. > :28:28.even on scientific matters the Bible is the final authority. We spoke to
:28:29. > :28:34.one ex-pupil who has campaigned against the curriculum. I think that
:28:35. > :28:37.essentially allowing the ACE curriculum means we are letting
:28:38. > :28:41.children be lied to. They are telling them things as though they
:28:42. > :28:46.are facts that are not fact. My parents sent me to an ACE school
:28:47. > :28:49.when I was 11, they wanted a Christian education. I think the
:28:50. > :28:54.curriculum was more extreme than they realised. I came out of my ACE
:28:55. > :28:59.school believing it was against God's will to provide healthcare or
:29:00. > :29:02.benefits to citizens, I was misogynistic because I was taught
:29:03. > :29:05.that women should submit and obey their husband, I believed science
:29:06. > :29:14.could show us that homosexuality was immoral and wrong. The ACE biology
:29:15. > :29:22.textbook mixes questions on cell division and photo synthies with
:29:23. > :29:27.statements like a"abortion is murder", "homosexuality is sin" and
:29:28. > :29:34."sides is a direct consequence of violating God's laws". Michael Rice
:29:35. > :29:38.is a professor of science education and Anglican priest. He believes the
:29:39. > :29:44.ACE curriculum is letting pupils down. The ACE curriculum they are
:29:45. > :29:48.pretty fundamentalist so they are right at one end of the spectrum.
:29:49. > :29:52.One of the disappointments to me is the way that some ACE schools are
:29:53. > :29:57.clearly giving the impression that you can't have a strong religious
:29:58. > :29:59.faith and accept the mainstream scientific understanding of the
:30:00. > :30:03.world. What you want is all students, whatever sort of school
:30:04. > :30:07.they are going to, to realise that the theory of evolution is very,
:30:08. > :30:13.very widely accepted in the scientific community, but it doesn't
:30:14. > :30:17.help students from fundamentalist Christian families to leave school
:30:18. > :30:22.thinking that the theory of evolution is just rubbish. But
:30:23. > :30:27.currently parents have the right to educate their children in line with
:30:28. > :30:32.their religious beliefs. The 62 pupils at this Christian school near
:30:33. > :30:39.Swindon learn the ACE curriculum. We spoke to two senior pupils. The
:30:40. > :30:43.curriculum is based on an American fundamentalist viewpoint. That's
:30:44. > :30:48.shipped over to here and the teachers then kind of deliver that
:30:49. > :30:53.to us in a way that associates critical thinking and other ways of
:30:54. > :30:58.learning. I guess the influence of God really plays a big part in
:30:59. > :31:03.science and how we view that and how we a taught that. There are a lot of
:31:04. > :31:06.people in the school that may not 100% believe in creation or
:31:07. > :31:10.evolution, but I believe that the world was created and that's just my
:31:11. > :31:15.opinion, but we all have our own opinion in the school and no-one is
:31:16. > :31:19.forced to believe certain things. I asked the headteacher why
:31:20. > :31:24.creationism is taught to pupils in science lessons? We teach them that
:31:25. > :31:30.there are these two sides to the argument. The ACE programme teaches
:31:31. > :31:34.that, with a heavy emphasis on the creationism being the Christian
:31:35. > :31:41.viewpoint. And no, I don't believe that it harms their education at
:31:42. > :31:49.all, after all, if we are talking about choice in education, then the
:31:50. > :31:54.choice to believe in any kind of area that one chooses must be open,
:31:55. > :32:00.presumably. It would be perfectly OK for you to teach your pupils that
:32:01. > :32:06.the earth was flat? Unless, not if I didn't believe that to be the case,
:32:07. > :32:13.obviously. So if that was in the Bible, you would teach that, that it
:32:14. > :32:18.was perfectly OK to hold that as a scientific viewpoint? Not
:32:19. > :32:22.necessarily. What the world doesn't like about bibically-based views is
:32:23. > :32:27.there are absolutes in there, and that is not a very well received
:32:28. > :32:35.kind of concept. Do you subscribe to those absolutes? Yeah, I do. Like
:32:36. > :32:39.many other ACE schools, Ofsted rated this school as good, and said that
:32:40. > :32:46.the curriculum was good. But what happens when pupils leave? ACE
:32:47. > :32:52.pupils don't sit GCSEs and A-levels but instead earn the international
:32:53. > :33:02.certificate of Christian education. Or ICC E. But unlike mainstream
:33:03. > :33:07.qualifications, the ICCE is not aid and I credited by the exams
:33:08. > :33:14.regulator, for that reason some universities won't accept it. In
:33:15. > :33:17.essence, ACE could be regarded as a fundamentalist curriculum,
:33:18. > :33:24.delivering a little known qualification, all with Ofsted's
:33:25. > :33:31.blessing. My guest is the current President of the Association of
:33:32. > :33:38.Science education and has back add new law to prevent creationism being
:33:39. > :33:46.taught. And my other guest has attended an ACE school and involved
:33:47. > :33:50.in promoting it. Why do you think ACE creationism in science classes?
:33:51. > :33:54.There seems to be some attack on ACE students and saying in some way they
:33:55. > :34:00.are unable to have a decent academic education. That was not my why. If I
:34:01. > :34:04.could address this issue first. I'm asking you a straight forward
:34:05. > :34:08.question why is it taught in science not religion? It is taught in both.
:34:09. > :34:13.It is a potential answer to a question that all of us must face
:34:14. > :34:17.which is not only how did we get here but questions like why are we
:34:18. > :34:20.here? Questions like what meaning does life have and where do we go
:34:21. > :34:23.when we die? These are fundamental questions that many people ask,
:34:24. > :34:26.rather than closing down questioning in students and saying we have come
:34:27. > :34:31.to one understanding of the world, we need to be open to questions. It
:34:32. > :34:38.is a met at that physical question, not a science question? Why are we
:34:39. > :34:44.here is a met at that physical question not science question. This
:34:45. > :34:48.is potentially true. Yet you teach it in science? I don't teach
:34:49. > :34:51.anything. I'm a former student. It is your organisation? It is not my
:34:52. > :34:57.organisation. It is an organisation you believe in? Yes I do. May I just
:34:58. > :35:05.explain why I believe in it. My sister is PhD. Let's Alice Robert
:35:06. > :35:08.have a go. Alice Roberts is a PhD and understands the importance of
:35:09. > :35:15.academics, my brother is studying masters, I graduated philosophy and
:35:16. > :35:18.politics at York, to suggest that they are academically impeded is
:35:19. > :35:23.nonsense. We saw a couple of very smart young students at the school,
:35:24. > :35:28.the question is not their education? Was implied in the video. I don't
:35:29. > :35:31.think it was, clearly there were able students there what is the
:35:32. > :35:36.problem? The problem is basically that of standards. But you saw
:35:37. > :35:40.perfectly able students there, going off to Cambridge? But being caught
:35:41. > :35:43.that evolution and this is from their textbook, being taught that
:35:44. > :35:47.evolution is scientifically unsound, which is patently not true.
:35:48. > :35:51.evolution is scientifically unsound, Evolution is a theory? So is the
:35:52. > :35:54.idea that the earth goes round the sun rather than the other way round,
:35:55. > :35:58.these are scientific theories. That is a disproven idea? We can
:35:59. > :36:03.establish that the earth is not flat as was said in the piece, the earth
:36:04. > :36:07.isn't flat we know it isn't, empierically we know it is round?
:36:08. > :36:11.Empierically we know evolution has happened. There are numerous lines
:36:12. > :36:14.of evidence, there is no debate in science about this. And the
:36:15. > :36:17.Government accepts this. Just because you all choose to believe
:36:18. > :36:21.the same thing doesn't mean it is true, does it? As a scientist we
:36:22. > :36:25.constantly test what we think is right against the evidence, and no
:36:26. > :36:29.evidence has come to light that disproves evolution, despite what
:36:30. > :36:34.the ACE textbooks say. My main issue is the Government is quite clear
:36:35. > :36:37.that science should be taught as a comprehensive coherent and
:36:38. > :36:41.extensively evidenced they are year, that is their own words in their
:36:42. > :36:44.advice to free school, why one rule for our state-funded schools and
:36:45. > :36:48.when it comes to independent schools we don't seem to find if science is
:36:49. > :36:51.taught properly or not. Does it matter if they are not funded by
:36:52. > :36:54.taught properly or not. Does it state? If they are private schools,
:36:55. > :36:58.why shouldn't they teach what they like? If that's an argument then
:36:59. > :37:02.they should be able to teach the earth is flat. They are not teaching
:37:03. > :37:09.the earth is flat are they? Nobody believes this. Let's be honest. If
:37:10. > :37:13.people pay for their children to be educated we know there should be
:37:14. > :37:16.standards, Ofsted visits the schools, there is a view standards
:37:17. > :37:20.should be achieved, and those standards should include the content
:37:21. > :37:23.of the curriculum not just the quality of teaching and leadership
:37:24. > :37:28.in the school which is what Ofsted has done before. Ofsted is being
:37:29. > :37:32.changed partly in response to the Birmingham schools issue. Ofsted
:37:33. > :37:35.hopefully there is going to be a tighter inspection regime coming
:37:36. > :37:40.into play, where they will look at content of curriculum. When you look
:37:41. > :37:46.at this, this textbook of yours here, it does say that the theory of
:37:47. > :37:52.evolution is false. You believe literal truth of the Bible do you? I
:37:53. > :37:56.believe that God is the creator, and do you know. Do you believe the
:37:57. > :38:01.world was created in six days? You will have to forgive me I'm not
:38:02. > :38:05.actually a scientist. I'm just asking you what you believe? Then
:38:06. > :38:12.you will bring it down to a faith question, if I believe it was or
:38:13. > :38:15.wasn't S How long did it create to create the world? You are asking me
:38:16. > :38:18.a faith-based question. But you have been taught science in school, what
:38:19. > :38:21.were you taught in science in school? I was taught the theory of
:38:22. > :38:26.evolution alongside the theory of creation. The two were presented to
:38:27. > :38:30.me. And do you know what having twoal ternives enables me to be a
:38:31. > :38:35.critical thinker. It is notable one of your great lines is that you want
:38:36. > :38:38.students to be open minded and yet you are going completely against
:38:39. > :38:42.this in what you are saying, you are saying everybody is open minded in
:38:43. > :38:48.as much as they agree with me. Not at all. Your own textbooks say that
:38:49. > :38:52.evolution is a scientifically unsound theory, which is patently
:38:53. > :38:57.not true. This is a lie which children are being taught. I know
:38:58. > :39:02.that there is certainly a lot of critque around theory of macro
:39:03. > :39:05.evolution, and all of these different areas that, again, not
:39:06. > :39:12.being a scientist, I'm not well placed to comment on. You might look
:39:13. > :39:19.at Provan John Lennox at Oxford's survey of all of this issue about
:39:20. > :39:24.whether the earth reveals a creator, in his book God's Undertaker which
:39:25. > :39:27.surveys the issue very well and is a voice worth hearing. Could have
:39:28. > :39:31.asked him to be on the programme. I don't think the issue is whether
:39:32. > :39:35.evolution has happened, whether it is a reality. The issue is whether
:39:36. > :39:38.the Department for Education and the Government, which holds a view on
:39:39. > :39:42.this which says evolution should be taught as a comprehensive, coherent
:39:43. > :39:46.and extensively evidenced theory, whether that should be extended to
:39:47. > :39:50.independent schools when assessing standards. And indeed to other
:39:51. > :39:54.theories perhaps? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. The crisis in Iraq
:39:55. > :39:58.has suddenly breathed new life into one of the great issues of British
:39:59. > :40:03.domestic politics. Just how much do you dislike Tony Blair? He claims
:40:04. > :40:07.that the invasion of Iraq, which he so vehemently supported and so much
:40:08. > :40:11.of the country so vehemently didn't support has nothing to do with the
:40:12. > :40:15.upsurge of violence there. Instead it is the consequence of not
:40:16. > :40:20.intervening in Syria. He must be unhinged, says the Mayor of London,
:40:21. > :40:27.Boris Johnson. Even members of his own party accuse Tony Blair of
:40:28. > :40:33.acting like a neo-con. Prime Minister, performer, statesman. Tony
:40:34. > :40:39.Blair you Knighted the left and swept -- united the left and swept
:40:40. > :40:41.to power on a booming economy and improvement of public services. It
:40:42. > :40:45.is a single decision most will remember him. All we are asking for
:40:46. > :40:50.in the second receipts devolution is the clear -- resolution, is the
:40:51. > :40:55.clear ultimatum that if Saddam carries on not co-operating then
:40:56. > :40:59.force should be used. Even as the death toll mounted he stood by his
:41:00. > :41:05.decision. The apology so many people want over Iraq has never been forth
:41:06. > :41:09.coming. This weekend we had a fresh reminder of how unlikely that is.
:41:10. > :41:14.Even if you left Saddam in place in 2003 there would have still been a
:41:15. > :41:18.major problem in Iraq, you can see what happens when you leave the --
:41:19. > :41:24.Tatar in place, like Assad, it doesn't go away. Mayor Boris Johnson
:41:25. > :41:27.had a different take? If you say seriously that the invasion of 2003
:41:28. > :41:31.had absolutely nothing to do with the lawlessness and chaos that then
:41:32. > :41:35.took place, then I think you need your head examined. And yet when
:41:36. > :41:39.asked in a poll this weekend which leader would most likely make you
:41:40. > :41:44.vote Labour, twice as many people said Tony Blair as did Ed Miliband.
:41:45. > :41:52.So how did the British public view this man that they once embraced. My
:41:53. > :41:59.guest iskm will you pleasist of the Guardian, and author, and the Times
:42:00. > :42:04.columnist and proponent of intervention in Iraq in 2003 and
:42:05. > :42:09.now. Is it Iraq that makes Tony Blair such a powerful figure? I
:42:10. > :42:13.don't know what you mean by powerful. He excites powerful
:42:14. > :42:20.responses? He certainly does, absolutely, passionate responses. I
:42:21. > :42:23.think an overwhelming number of people think he was desperately
:42:24. > :42:28.wrong about Iraq, and some people think he was a war criminal, I don't
:42:29. > :42:32.take that view. I think he was disastrously wrong I think he has
:42:33. > :42:34.had to justify himself and that dreadful decision ever since. I
:42:35. > :42:40.think it must be very hard to live with. He can't leave it alone. He
:42:41. > :42:43.can't just be quiet about it. He has to persuade himself, I think, that
:42:44. > :42:48.all those people didn't die in vain, that the country hasn't been in
:42:49. > :42:56.turmoil for all these years for no reason. It is Iraq isn't it? I don't
:42:57. > :43:00.know whether, Iraq is a big part of it, but when I was coming on the
:43:01. > :43:04.programme I was looking back at some of the things I was writing about
:43:05. > :43:09.the Iraq War about what I described as Blair hatred. There was a section
:43:10. > :43:14.of opinion, usually writers and other sort of people like this,
:43:15. > :43:17.artists, a feeling that Blair was an utterly fraudulent character who had
:43:18. > :43:20.destroyed some how something important about the way in which
:43:21. > :43:27.politics in Britain worked. Had diminished it down to focus groups,
:43:28. > :43:31.and had essentially given way to a sub-Thatcherite he agenda, that is
:43:32. > :43:36.if you were against Thatcher. And then also there were forces on the
:43:37. > :43:42.right, take the Daily Mail, which in 2010 did this editorial where you
:43:43. > :43:47.remember when Blair did his autobiography and gave ?5 million to
:43:48. > :43:55.armed services charities, they said for once in his lying war mongering
:43:56. > :44:01.career the former Prime Minister has done something right. That level of
:44:02. > :44:06.hate ed is not just about Iraq it is about something other. It is about
:44:07. > :44:12.Tony Blair, accept the terrible phrase as a "change agent". He's
:44:13. > :44:17.associated with a level of change in this country with a lot of people
:44:18. > :44:21.found discombobulating and difficult, there are aspects of his
:44:22. > :44:24.character they don't like either. Because he achieved significant
:44:25. > :44:27.difference in this country? Because the country changed such a lot while
:44:28. > :44:31.he was Prime Minister actually, and he stands in, actually in a funny
:44:32. > :44:36.kind of way as the same way as Polly and I do in a much more diminished
:44:37. > :44:40.way as being the sorts of people who have brought immigrants in lark
:44:41. > :44:43.numbers of this country, as the sort of people who like the European
:44:44. > :44:44.Union, and the sort of people who would have given us
:44:45. > :44:49.Union, and the sort of people who euro, et cetera, et cetera. He was
:44:50. > :44:55.the representative of it. I think that is partly true, of course we do
:44:56. > :44:59.have an 80% right-wing press who detest anything that Labour does and
:45:00. > :45:04.wish to trash his record. What is interesting about him and why there
:45:05. > :45:09.is quite so much hatred he is has been such a bad custodian of his own
:45:10. > :45:15.reputation. First of all he spends his whole time on foreign policy
:45:16. > :45:18.which is his weakest point, he spent very little time talking about the
:45:19. > :45:24.good things he did. The definitive survey of his social policies came
:45:25. > :45:30.out, produced by the LSE, just looking at how much he improved
:45:31. > :45:35.education, poverty, a million pensioners taken out of poverty,
:45:36. > :45:38.Sour Start, childcare, huge social reforms, very important, very
:45:39. > :45:44.successful. You would never guess that from a post-political career
:45:45. > :45:49.given council to the Government of Kazakhstan. That is what is so
:45:50. > :45:56.strange. If behaved like Jimmy Carter and gone and done good works
:45:57. > :46:01.and not made skill squillions of money and not lived in a jet set
:46:02. > :46:06.with highly unsuitable people. If he had given himself to the things he
:46:07. > :46:10.did best and emphasise that part of his time in power, I think he would
:46:11. > :46:13.be seen differently now. Mostly people really care about their
:46:14. > :46:21.legacy, he seems to have squadered it. I will really disappoint you
:46:22. > :46:27.here, Polly is right! A lot of these things, when texts turn up from Tony
:46:28. > :46:31.Blair to Rebekah Brooks that I'm right behind you, there is a cast
:46:32. > :46:35.loyalty going on here between people who ran things that doesn't look
:46:36. > :46:38.good to people outside. Even if the vast bulk of the money he has got he
:46:39. > :46:43.has put into charities, and he has. I don't know about the vast bulk, he
:46:44. > :46:49.still has a huge lot yet. He has. The relationship with the Murdoches
:46:50. > :46:53.is toxic, and peculiar, weird, the stories coming out since, and he has
:46:54. > :46:59.fallen out with Murdoch. Do you think he's unhinged as Boris says? I
:47:00. > :47:07.think pots Blairex after anybody has been -- I think possibly aft eight
:47:08. > :47:13.years in politics it is enough. He is hypernormal in a way, that means
:47:14. > :47:18.he's a bit bonkers, it is a bit odd to have Boris going around telling
:47:19. > :47:21.people they are unhinged. That is enough for now, that is all we have
:47:22. > :47:27.time for tonight, good night.