:00:08. > :00:19.No world War three, tick. Economy hasn't fallen into a big hole, tick.
:00:20. > :00:23.Bake off still on the box, tick. This Brexit thing seems to be going
:00:24. > :00:29.OK. Except of course, hasn't started yet. The economy appears buoyant, so
:00:30. > :00:33.how much can we read into that? We will try to make sense of the
:00:34. > :00:37.economic signals and see where we are heading. The head of MI6 says
:00:38. > :00:44.they will hack their way to victory as he recruits 1000 new spies. The
:00:45. > :00:48.information revolution fundamentally changes our operating environment.
:00:49. > :00:51.In five years' time there will be two sorts of intelligence services,
:00:52. > :00:55.one that understands this fact and prospers and one that doesn't and
:00:56. > :01:00.hasn't. And Ed Balls is here as the polls close in the Labour leadership
:01:01. > :01:01.election, with Jeremy Corbyn the hottest favourites. Where did it all
:01:02. > :01:08.go wrong? The doom-monger Remainers have been
:01:09. > :01:13.slain, their scares exposed. That view has gained a bit
:01:14. > :01:17.of traction of late, and today we got an official
:01:18. > :01:19.statistical summary of data so far from the Office
:01:20. > :01:23.for National Statistics. And it was ambivalent enough
:01:24. > :01:25.to reassure all sides. Basically, it said -
:01:26. > :01:27.we don't really know But we've got through
:01:28. > :01:30.the first part. There was other news too:
:01:31. > :01:32.an official forecast It cut its UK growth
:01:33. > :01:38.forecast for next year, but nudged it up for this year,
:01:39. > :01:42.and headlines went both ways too. Clearly the world hasn't
:01:43. > :01:43.fallen in, and that raises two questions
:01:44. > :01:45.- big questions. And secondly, does the economics
:01:46. > :01:51.profession have egg on its face for suggesting things
:01:52. > :01:57.might go wrong? No one doubts there were
:01:58. > :01:59.the occasional exaggerations on both In fairness to economists,
:02:00. > :02:10.they were a little more The most talked about warnings came
:02:11. > :02:14.from the Governor of Material slowdown in growth,
:02:15. > :02:20.notable increase in inflation, that's the MPC's
:02:21. > :02:23.judgment, it's a judgment not based It is a judgment not based
:02:24. > :02:28.on a whim, it is a judgment based on rigorous analysis and
:02:29. > :02:30.careful consideration. Of course, there is a range
:02:31. > :02:33.of possible scenarios around Which could possibly
:02:34. > :02:36.include a technical Well, in using the words that he did
:02:37. > :02:45.at the bank behind me, Mr Carney gave the Remain politicians
:02:46. > :02:47.something they could COuld work up into
:02:48. > :02:51.more lurid scenarios. But nothing that has happened
:02:52. > :02:53.since June has made the actual words appear
:02:54. > :02:56.particularly stupid. And for economists more generally,
:02:57. > :02:59.they have had some mood swings, as they so often do,
:03:00. > :03:05.and not just the economists. The first big business survey that
:03:06. > :03:07.came after the With the global financial crisis
:03:08. > :03:19.of 2008, 2009, the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the 1998 Asian
:03:20. > :03:22.financial crisis, the difference this time is that it is all entirely
:03:23. > :03:25.home-grown, which suggests the impact could be greater on the UK
:03:26. > :03:28.economy than before. All in all, it's a mixed enough
:03:29. > :03:36.picture for everybody's interpretation to be guided
:03:37. > :03:42.by their preconceptions. So what do we know
:03:43. > :03:44.and what don't we? Look at that edge of
:03:45. > :03:48.the Grand Canyon in the And the pound has not
:03:49. > :03:53.recovered from that But then you can look at things
:03:54. > :03:57.like car production, which So let me tell you why the answer
:03:58. > :04:05.to the question "what is the It is that economists
:04:06. > :04:12.are making one important prediction and that is that
:04:13. > :04:15.companies will hold off investing Why build a new factory if you don't
:04:16. > :04:21.know if you'll be able to sell That is a scary prediction,
:04:22. > :04:25.but it is way too early Economists are saying that business
:04:26. > :04:30.investment will contract next year. 90% of them feel that
:04:31. > :04:37.would be the case. And the average expectation
:04:38. > :04:40.is for a contraction This is quite unusual,
:04:41. > :04:47.it would generally occur in a recession, such as we had
:04:48. > :04:52.in 2009, for example. But this time it is occurring
:04:53. > :04:55.without a recession in GDP So it is a sharp change
:04:56. > :05:03.in an unusual circumstance. We will wait to see
:05:04. > :05:06.what happens next year but the truth is, economies
:05:07. > :05:11.do move quite slowly. Markets move fast, the pound can
:05:12. > :05:14.plummet here in the city in a day but production lines,
:05:15. > :05:16.they chug along, chickens carry on laying eggs,
:05:17. > :05:21.regardless of referendum results. We have little idea
:05:22. > :05:23.yet as to what "Brexit means Brexit" means,
:05:24. > :05:25.what its short-term effects are, let alone
:05:26. > :05:33.the all-important long-term impact. With me now is Linda Yueh,
:05:34. > :05:34.Professor of Economics at London Business School,
:05:35. > :05:36.Chris Giles, who is the Economics Editor
:05:37. > :05:38.at the Financial Times, and Alistair Heath, Deputy Editor
:05:39. > :05:46.of the Daily Telegraph. Alistair, I think you are the most
:05:47. > :05:53.sceptic among the panel. You think the economics profession over egged
:05:54. > :05:57.it and have egg on their faces? Yes, big time. All the hysteria about an
:05:58. > :06:02.immediate recession, a financial collapse, that hasn't materialised
:06:03. > :06:05.and I think it was a mistake for economists to make that kind of
:06:06. > :06:10.prediction or to allow themselves to be portrayed as making that kind of
:06:11. > :06:15.projection. It has damaged their credibility going forward, and that
:06:16. > :06:19.is a problem because we need their assistance when it comes to
:06:20. > :06:22.negotiating the right kind of Brexit, a pro-growth, liberal
:06:23. > :06:27.Brexit. They damaged themselves and went too far. I think what the data
:06:28. > :06:31.to date shows is there was no catastrophe, that this Armageddon
:06:32. > :06:36.situation did not materialise. Linda, speak up for the economists?
:06:37. > :06:40.I think there is some truth to the fact that because this was a
:06:41. > :06:45.referendum that was fiercely argued, I think both cases stated their
:06:46. > :06:49.cases very strongly. Economic is not a science, it is a social science.
:06:50. > :06:55.So the long-term negative effect, that lots of economists predicted is
:06:56. > :06:58.predicated on the UK not having astrometry deal with the EU and the
:06:59. > :07:02.rest of the world, not having the same kind of access to the world's
:07:03. > :07:06.biggest thing this block. But we don't know where that is going to
:07:07. > :07:13.head and the immediate impact, which wasn't emphasised enough, in the
:07:14. > :07:17.short term although this creates economic uncertainty, use and the
:07:18. > :07:20.one thing economists agree on its investment is not on take-off, lots
:07:21. > :07:23.of funds will wait to see, there are some signs of that. The Bank of
:07:24. > :07:27.England report on their business agents around the country said that.
:07:28. > :07:33.But the one thing I want to stress about uncertainty is different for
:07:34. > :07:37.you and me, for other businesses and for consumers. Consumers are much
:07:38. > :07:41.more optimistic, as we have seen in some of the surveys. Businesses are
:07:42. > :07:46.more worried. Eventually the two come together, but just as you and I
:07:47. > :07:48.react to uncertainty differently, there will be mixed reactions to
:07:49. > :07:52.Brexit and the fact we are leaving and I think that point should have
:07:53. > :07:56.been made more clearly. That is all you'll see in the immediate short
:07:57. > :08:00.term, it's only been three months since the vote and we are still in
:08:01. > :08:05.the EU until we are out on the subject of the same trade bills. Do
:08:06. > :08:08.you think the economists over egged it... Mark Carney, said there is a
:08:09. > :08:13.possibility of a technical recession. I think you've got to be
:08:14. > :08:16.very careful. I think Alistair's portrayal of what economists
:08:17. > :08:21.actually said is incorrect. They were much more careful. I think they
:08:22. > :08:25.made in two areas they should hold their hand up and say, actually I
:08:26. > :08:29.don't think we were right about the immediate impact. One was those
:08:30. > :08:34.warnings about a potential financial crisis. That clearly hasn't
:08:35. > :08:39.happened. The second was there was an expectation that sentiment and
:08:40. > :08:41.confidence would disappear and that happened, but it came back much
:08:42. > :08:46.quicker than they thought. Those two things I think they should put their
:08:47. > :08:50.hands up on. With anyone forecasting a financial crisis warning it was a
:08:51. > :08:54.possibility? I think that was entirely correct, it was possible.
:08:55. > :09:00.It didn't happen. If they didn't warn about it we could have been
:09:01. > :09:04.likely wearing 2008 saying, where were these economists, why were they
:09:05. > :09:08.warning about it? I think the way they warned of this and the words
:09:09. > :09:12.they dropped like recession, and some saying the next six quarters
:09:13. > :09:15.there will be three or four negative quarters of growth, I think that
:09:16. > :09:20.contributed to a sense of panic and created a lot of problems. There was
:09:21. > :09:24.a run on some commercial property funds and all sorts of dislocation,
:09:25. > :09:28.which fortunately seems to have abated. I think economists made a
:09:29. > :09:31.mistake and overrate their case, but it says nothing about the long run
:09:32. > :09:37.or the medium run. It doesn't say whether Brexit will a long long run
:09:38. > :09:42.triumph or a damp squid are in the shorter men made a mistake. One
:09:43. > :09:47.thing we do know, on the morning the pound fell, Linda, by 10% or so. We
:09:48. > :09:53.looked at that and said, that is a big fall and it has basically gone
:09:54. > :09:59.back up again. It has just settled at 1.30 against the dollar instead
:10:00. > :10:03.of 1.40 or 1.40 five. The markets react quickly but economies moved
:10:04. > :10:08.slowly, like oil tankers. One reaction to the pound could be we
:10:09. > :10:11.sell more, we buy more from the rest of the world than we sell. Some
:10:12. > :10:16.economists would say that sterling is essentially settling to wear
:10:17. > :10:21.investors think the economy is headed, which as we 40 said, in the
:10:22. > :10:26.medium term it depends a lot on what trade deals we get. But on the whole
:10:27. > :10:32.there is worry, the same worries we had about the British economy before
:10:33. > :10:35.the referendum, trade deficit, low productivity and wages, all those
:10:36. > :10:39.things are still true. Sterling reflects that. What's interesting is
:10:40. > :10:43.the stock market. It fell and then recovered. You saw the OECD and
:10:44. > :10:48.others say what they hadn't figured in their June assessment was the
:10:49. > :10:55.action of the Bank of England, of the Treasury, the fact... With the
:10:56. > :11:03.Bank of England made a big difference? I only use that as an
:11:04. > :11:07.example to say that... I think before class should be like the
:11:08. > :11:10.weather app on your smartphone, if it tells you what happened today
:11:11. > :11:14.it's pretty good. My point is policymakers can change the course
:11:15. > :11:18.of the economy and that's why it's hard. I want to come to investment,
:11:19. > :11:21.do we all do we not believe that companies are holding back on
:11:22. > :11:25.investment, relative to those they might have carried out in the
:11:26. > :11:30.absence of the Brexit to come as a result of the uncertainty Linda
:11:31. > :11:33.spoke about? We do, we don't have a lot of evidence for it is the honest
:11:34. > :11:39.answer. You haven't changed your mind that is one of the potential
:11:40. > :11:43.short-term effects? Yes, the potential short-term cost. You gave
:11:44. > :11:46.evidence economists are still very much in that position, thinking
:11:47. > :11:50.investment is going to fall. Not dramatically, but is going to be
:11:51. > :11:55.lower next year. They thought it was going to be rising. And it hasn't,
:11:56. > :11:58.so they've made a six or 7% difference to the forecast.
:11:59. > :12:02.Forecasts have changed for investment. You would think that is
:12:03. > :12:04.rational, because if there is a huge amount of uncertainty, the
:12:05. > :12:08.government doesn't seem to have much of an idea of what sort of Brexit
:12:09. > :12:13.once, it certainly doesn't want to tell the public it. If you hand have
:12:14. > :12:17.to spend ?304 million, would you do it now or wait a little bit? It is a
:12:18. > :12:22.rational thing to wait. You would agree with that? It is possible,
:12:23. > :12:26.yes. If there is one area affected in the short term it is business
:12:27. > :12:32.investment, because companies... It makes sense he would wait. It's
:12:33. > :12:37.possible, but the fact that 90% of economists are predicting something
:12:38. > :12:40.next year, I not bothered by that because I think the constant
:12:41. > :12:44.consensus among economists keeps changing. Sometimes they get it
:12:45. > :12:48.completely wrong and they are bad at making short or long-term forecasts.
:12:49. > :12:52.But I perfectly except it may be the case. One thing we all agree on if
:12:53. > :12:56.it's too early to say what the long-term impact of Brexit is. Any
:12:57. > :13:02.indication, anything, Linda, that has given you a sense of foreboding
:13:03. > :13:06.or a sense of encouragement, as you've looked at what has happened
:13:07. > :13:12.so far? I think consumer sentiment gives me a sense that quite a lot of
:13:13. > :13:15.people think the future will be better. Economists... It's very
:13:16. > :13:19.difficult to model how that plays out, but obviously consumption is
:13:20. > :13:23.the biggest part of the British economy. One of the hardest things
:13:24. > :13:27.about leading indicators is normally you would look at bond deals but
:13:28. > :13:33.because central banks have injected so much cash and rates are so low,
:13:34. > :13:36.they are not good indicator these days. The long-term interest rates
:13:37. > :13:41.in the markets and government lending have been so low... Yes,
:13:42. > :13:45.usually you would say, wait, actually bond yields, the government
:13:46. > :13:49.interest rates look lower in the future, that means the economy will
:13:50. > :13:53.be weaker because rates have to be cut. That's normally how you would
:13:54. > :13:57.view it. The other indicator is stock prices. The fact stocks
:13:58. > :14:02.reflect how companies feel they are going to be earning in the future,
:14:03. > :14:07.how investors view that, that's normally a leading indicator of how
:14:08. > :14:13.the economy does. I think these surveys are important, and it is
:14:14. > :14:17.important to note because all these investment decisions take a long
:14:18. > :14:21.time to realise. We haven't got much time. I just want to ask about the
:14:22. > :14:25.importance of the argument we've been having and the narrative,
:14:26. > :14:29.crests, that Brexit seems all right. I don't know how many conversations
:14:30. > :14:31.you've had, I'd had a lot in the last few weeks. Do you think that
:14:32. > :14:41.might affect the of Having quite a good period now or a
:14:42. > :14:46.reasonable period is paradoxically quite bad for the long-term records
:14:47. > :14:50.of gives us a sense of superiority, we are great, this is what we felt
:14:51. > :14:54.after the Second World War, we don't need to join in with other
:14:55. > :14:59.countries, we can do Brexit all along, let's do it straightaway.
:15:00. > :15:02.These would be the worst sort of decisions we could take and
:15:03. > :15:06.paradoxically, the fact that things have been slightly better than we
:15:07. > :15:12.might have expected might make it worse in the long run. What do you
:15:13. > :15:18.say to that? I think there is the possibility of that but I think that
:15:19. > :15:30.if you look at what Eurosceptics believe, they believed in this Nike
:15:31. > :15:34.swish, some transitionary period and then a stronger economy and so on so
:15:35. > :15:39.I think people have always expected it to be so so it is about the
:15:40. > :15:44.detail and we don't know what the government was today but we have
:15:45. > :15:50.ahead, they seem to want to restrict immigration, and that probably means
:15:51. > :15:55.they will not want a hard Brexit rather than soft. We will know
:15:56. > :15:58.before long. Thank you all very much. --
:15:59. > :15:59.Austerity may be choking local government, --
:16:00. > :16:03.one part of the public sector that is not in retreat.
:16:04. > :16:04.It's MI6, the secret intelligent service.
:16:05. > :16:06.Newsnight has learned that it is on a recruitment
:16:07. > :16:09.drive, and is looking for a thousand extra staff.
:16:10. > :16:11.You're better off applying if you know something
:16:12. > :16:13.about the internet, as it's technology that is making the job
:16:14. > :16:15.of MI6 so much harder, and driving the demand.
:16:16. > :16:30.Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban explains.
:16:31. > :16:37.in an age when people live so much of their lives online, how can you
:16:38. > :16:43.create convincing false identities? And how do you stop our intelligence
:16:44. > :16:50.service from using facial recognition to find out the real
:16:51. > :16:56.identities of your operatives? MI6 has argued it needs more people to
:16:57. > :17:01.create aliases and cover its tracks. It currently has 2500 staff but
:17:02. > :17:09.Newsnight has established this is set to grow by 40% took nearly 3500
:17:10. > :17:15.by 2020. Last year the government announced the agencies would get
:17:16. > :17:23.1900 more people. Newsnight has established that MI6 will get most
:17:24. > :17:28.of that and MI5, currently 4000, and GCHQ at 5600 receiving smaller
:17:29. > :17:33.increases. Although the service has not yet publicly confirmed the scale
:17:34. > :17:37.of its increase, the MI6 chief, and a rare public appearance yesterday,
:17:38. > :17:45.acknowledged the size of the challenge posed by the internet. The
:17:46. > :17:48.information revolution fundamentally changes or operating environment. I
:17:49. > :17:54.would go further to say that in five years' time there will be two sort
:17:55. > :17:59.of intelligence services, those that understand this factor and those
:18:00. > :18:05.that don't and not. I am determined that MI6 will be in the former
:18:06. > :18:09.category. How exactly has the internet change things? The killing
:18:10. > :18:16.of a Palestinian militant in Dubai in 2010 gives some close. Using CCTV
:18:17. > :18:21.and passport details, it took only a few days to point the finger at his
:18:22. > :18:26.-- is really intelligence. They cloned the passports of people who
:18:27. > :18:29.had visited Israel were left there. Why? Because completely fake
:18:30. > :18:37.identities are not easily discovered. But as they should, bad
:18:38. > :18:43.fakes are not much harder to find with governments and even insurgent
:18:44. > :18:49.groups, able to deploy advanced techniques. Our opponents,
:18:50. > :18:52.unrestrained by considerations of lawfulness or proportionality, can
:18:53. > :18:55.use these capabilities to gain visibility of our activities, which
:18:56. > :19:01.means we have to completely change the way that we do stuff. And then
:19:02. > :19:06.there is rapid advance of facial recognition technology. For example,
:19:07. > :19:13.a photo of John Smith, arriving at an airport somewhere as a vacuum
:19:14. > :19:18.cleaner sales rep, can now be the first searched. It might reveal
:19:19. > :19:21.someone of an entirely different name several years earlier
:19:22. > :19:26.celebrating their recruitment to the foreign office on Facebook. Of
:19:27. > :19:30.course, these techniques can put plenty of aces into the hands of
:19:31. > :19:36.British espionage also. But the agencies have convinced Whitehall
:19:37. > :19:40.that post Snowdon, cooperation with the big service providers and
:19:41. > :19:43.technology firms has taken a knock. To the extent that those revelations
:19:44. > :19:49.damaged and undermines the trust that needs to exist, I think it is
:19:50. > :19:53.highly problematic. Now the agency has to recruit almost 1000 new
:19:54. > :19:59.people to establish more elaborate aliases, sweep up Bridge of Spies
:20:00. > :20:04.online identities and exploit the options to gather more intelligence
:20:05. > :20:06.through the internet. And on civil service pay, finding so many new
:20:07. > :20:16.people could be quite a challenge. Markers of me. How quickly has those
:20:17. > :20:21.caught up? George Osborne talked about expanding the intelligence
:20:22. > :20:26.services? There were two statements last year, one about 1000 new spies
:20:27. > :20:31.and one about 1900 in the strategic defence review and both referred to
:20:32. > :20:34.the top agencies, including GCHQ, the security service and buy some
:20:35. > :20:41.aspects even of police intelligence as well but we know that 1000 will
:20:42. > :20:47.go just to MI6, so forget the numbers going to those other
:20:48. > :20:50.agencies, which on their terms is a famous bureaucratic victory. And a
:20:51. > :20:58.pretty substantial growth. It is 40%. Is it technology driving that
:20:59. > :21:03.order they just want extra people? That is very important and it is
:21:04. > :21:05.fascinating, yesterday, to hear the chief making those arguments
:21:06. > :21:12.publicly without going into the details of how much they are going
:21:13. > :21:15.to get. They are comfortable talking about two there are three key
:21:16. > :21:18.missions. As they involve counterterrorism, cyber security
:21:19. > :21:24.and, in those areas, this is the key, this type of thing. The other
:21:25. > :21:26.area which they term more generically strategic advantage,
:21:27. > :21:32.that is more interesting, the traditional business of spying, in
:21:33. > :21:36.support of the UK's diplomatic position and all of this was agreed
:21:37. > :21:41.before Brexit but if you wish to say that we still punch above our weight
:21:42. > :21:46.in the world, and to find out the detail of those other European
:21:47. > :21:48.countries' positions on this negotiation, it would be useful to
:21:49. > :21:52.have this extra resources. Thank you.
:21:53. > :21:54.For the world community, or most of it, the Syrian government
:21:55. > :21:56.and Russia are between them responsible for atrocities that
:21:57. > :22:00.In addition to the targeting of an aid convoy on Monday,
:22:01. > :22:03.there were more deaths of those trying to help people yesterday,
:22:04. > :22:06.Well, when it comes to Syria we know our position,
:22:07. > :22:08.we know the American position, the Russian position too.
:22:09. > :22:11.But what do self-respecting Syrian government supporters say
:22:12. > :22:14.about the things that are occurring in their country?
:22:15. > :22:20.Earlier I spoke to Bouthaina Shaaban.
:22:21. > :22:23.A spokesperson for the Syrian government.
:22:24. > :22:29.I believe that nobody knows for sure what happened but what is certain
:22:30. > :22:34.is that neither the Syrians nor the Russians have any interest
:22:35. > :22:38.in targeting the humanitarian convoy when we are trying our best to make
:22:39. > :22:43.humanitarian assistance reach everywhere in that country.
:22:44. > :22:46.But it is unlikely the rebels would want to attack a convoy
:22:47. > :22:53.There are Russian planes, there were Russian planes,
:22:54. > :22:58.two Russian warplanes in the sky at the time.
:22:59. > :23:08.The Russians have just released pictures of the convoy
:23:09. > :23:12.that was protected by artillery and they have just said, the UN,
:23:13. > :23:18.that there was an American drone who was accompanying the convoy.
:23:19. > :23:22.So as you said, there are many statements about what happened
:23:23. > :23:29.but the one certain thing is that the convoy was in an area
:23:30. > :23:43.Neither nor the Syrians or Russians were anywhere near the area
:23:44. > :23:49.You know, also, I would like to remind you that for the last
:23:50. > :23:51.week that terrorists in Idlib were announcing in full
:23:52. > :23:58.mouth that they would not adhere to the truce agreed
:23:59. > :24:01.upon by the Russians and the Americans and it was
:24:02. > :24:03.said that they were going to burn any convoy that comes
:24:04. > :24:11.Do you think the bombing, deliberate bombing or
:24:12. > :24:13.attack on a Red Cross convoy is a war crime?
:24:14. > :24:15.Because many people are saying that this looks really
:24:16. > :24:19.They think your side is guilty of it.
:24:20. > :24:23.I think the logical thing would have been for the Russians and
:24:24. > :24:27.the Americans to try to investigate, do a proper investigation,
:24:28. > :24:35.instead of circulating concepts and assumptions.
:24:36. > :24:38.Do you think the Syrian government can win the war that is currently
:24:39. > :24:44.Do you know how we can win the war in our country?
:24:45. > :24:49.By stopping this war and by stopping the bloodshed in our country.
:24:50. > :24:55.We are absolutely devastated every day because of this war.
:24:56. > :25:02.It is a war that has been imposed on us, it is a war that has been
:25:03. > :25:04.brought to our people, to destroy our people
:25:05. > :25:10.I know, but what I want to ask is, do you think you can win the war?
:25:11. > :25:13.We're all thinking about ways in which this war, which has gone
:25:14. > :25:17.We don't want it to be like the Lebanese civil war,
:25:18. > :25:27.President Assad is not thinking about himself,
:25:28. > :25:36.he is thinking about Syria and about the Syrian people.
:25:37. > :25:38.It is our institutions, our schools, our army that has been destroyed.
:25:39. > :25:41.We want to stop this war, we want to stop the bloodshed.
:25:42. > :25:46.There are over 30,000 terrorists and mercenaries who have
:25:47. > :25:49.been brought to Syria, they are butchering our people.
:25:50. > :26:00.The West keeps calling it a civil war, it is not a civil war.
:26:01. > :26:03.I understand the way you want to frame the war is not
:26:04. > :26:09.I understand that you want to say it is bad foreigners
:26:10. > :26:12.We know that the war is a bit more complicated than that,
:26:13. > :26:16.which is why we persist in calling it a Civil War, even though,
:26:17. > :26:18.of course, lots of foreign powers are at fault.
:26:19. > :26:22.Let me just ask you about more immediate issues.
:26:23. > :26:24.Do you think, is the Syrian government position that there
:26:25. > :26:28.There was not a single gunshot in which the Syrian government
:26:29. > :26:32.refused to cooperate with the Russians and the Americans
:26:33. > :26:40.It is those terrorists who at every single juncture refused to adhere
:26:41. > :26:45.And yet we don't see the West pointing fingers at the terrorists.
:26:46. > :26:48.We see the West pointing fingers at the Syrian government.
:26:49. > :26:59.The Syrian government is the one who looks like the West,
:27:00. > :27:01.it is not the terrorists who look like the West.
:27:02. > :27:04.I could explain why but I'm not going to because we don't have time.
:27:05. > :27:08.The suggestion from the Americans is that there may be some kind
:27:09. > :27:13.of no-fly zone over large parts of Syria, northern Syria.
:27:14. > :27:17.Could you, Syria, agree to the idea of a no-fly zone as part
:27:18. > :27:24.Because a no-fly zone is a huge violation of our sovereignty.
:27:25. > :27:28.Do you think the Syrian government, as you look back over the last five
:27:29. > :27:30.years, what mistake, what is the biggest mistake
:27:31. > :27:35.Is it not having conceded to the demonstrators early
:27:36. > :27:42.Is it the barrel bombing or the chlorine gas?
:27:43. > :27:45.Is it not having come to the negotiating table earlier?
:27:46. > :27:48.What do you see as the biggest mistake your side has made or do
:27:49. > :27:52.you think you have made no mistakes at all, it is only everybody else
:27:53. > :28:02.Unfortunately, I come here and I take my time out in order
:28:03. > :28:06.to address you and your respectable audience and all I get is accusatory
:28:07. > :28:09.questions that are taken from a media that has taken
:28:10. > :28:16.Everyone speaks about barrel bombs and chlorine and nobody accepts,
:28:17. > :28:19.to come to the country and see exactly what is going on.
:28:20. > :28:22.We actually do have people, the BBC sends people to Syria
:28:23. > :28:27.Can I ask when you were last outside Damascus, just out of interest?
:28:28. > :28:31.Because it must be quite difficult to travel.
:28:32. > :28:34.When were you last able to get to Aleppo, for example?
:28:35. > :28:39.Personally, I haven't been travelling to Aleppo
:28:40. > :28:42.but there are many people from Aleppo who are coming
:28:43. > :28:45.here and from here who are going to Aleppo and who are
:28:46. > :28:51.So we are all a bit reliant on second-hand reports.
:28:52. > :28:53.Thank you very much for talking to us.
:28:54. > :29:04.Theresa May is facing a bit of criticism from supporters
:29:05. > :29:07.of David Cameron for dismantling his legacy - with the return of grammar
:29:08. > :29:09.schools and the very public sacking of George Osborne.
:29:10. > :29:12.But Newsnight has learnt that she is not holding back
:29:13. > :29:14.and is preparing changes to how the Conservative party is run
:29:15. > :29:30.Nick Watt is with me. What have you learned? Newsnight understands that
:29:31. > :29:35.a race me is taking a very hard look at how the Conservative party raises
:29:36. > :29:40.money and the signals that sends out. I understand that in her sights
:29:41. > :29:44.is the annual Black and white party for the party, this takes place
:29:45. > :29:47.every February, lots of champagne, they got into trouble if you years
:29:48. > :29:51.ago when the auction and an internship, not sending out the
:29:52. > :29:55.right signal! No decisions have been made about dumping the name but I
:29:56. > :30:07.think the feeling is that they need to do this differently and there is
:30:08. > :30:09.talk about how maybe you could have a series of parties outside London.
:30:10. > :30:12.I think that Theresa May thinks that sort of event really does not sound
:30:13. > :30:14.very good signal, does not fit in with their mission. To champion the
:30:15. > :30:17.struggling middle classes. And I understand from Downing Street that
:30:18. > :30:20.she is thinking of taking quite a look at how wider fundraising, is
:30:21. > :30:25.applied to be so reliant on hedge funds and also looking at imposing
:30:26. > :30:28.that ?50,000 cap on individual donations. The Labour Party will not
:30:29. > :30:29.like that, they say that will be hostile because that would harm
:30:30. > :30:37.their trade union donations. Do you feel you're getting a picture
:30:38. > :30:42.of Theresa May, the Prime Minister and what she will be like? She made
:30:43. > :30:45.her name in 2002 when she said there was a danger the Conservative Party
:30:46. > :30:49.could look like the nasty party. She clearly thinks it looks like the
:30:50. > :30:53.elitist party wants to move away from that. It also shows how she
:30:54. > :30:57.wants to run the Conservative Party very differently. Patrick McLachlan,
:30:58. > :31:02.the party chairman has gone back to the traditional role, he sits in the
:31:03. > :31:11.Cabinet in the Woakes Cecil Parkinson did under Margaret
:31:12. > :31:13.Thatcher and he does the two bits, runs the machinery century, out in
:31:14. > :31:15.the country. She wants to get away from the split role when the
:31:16. > :31:18.fundraising was done by Andrew Feldman, David Cameron's big body.
:31:19. > :31:21.She wants to get away from that but there murmurings maybe she does need
:31:22. > :31:26.to realise that money does need to be raised and there are some
:31:27. > :31:30.concerns among Tories that know about fundraising who say, watch
:31:31. > :31:31.out, you need to be careful, we do need to raise money. Nick, thank
:31:32. > :31:32.you. The voting is over in Labour's
:31:33. > :31:34.leadership election. The results will not be counted
:31:35. > :31:37.as quickly as a vote on Strictly. We have to wait to Saturday,
:31:38. > :31:40.but hey, you know who's One person who was a leadership
:31:41. > :31:44.candidate himself once, but whose career has had some
:31:45. > :31:47.interesting turns since, One time sidekick to Gordon Brown,
:31:48. > :31:50.then a job in the Cabinet, Shadow Chancellor,
:31:51. > :32:01.he has been around. A very good evening to you. Thank
:32:02. > :32:05.you for coming in. Good to be here. How bad is it that Jeremy Corbyn is
:32:06. > :32:09.going to win the Labour Party, do you think? I think the country needs
:32:10. > :32:12.a strong opposition that can be a credible party of government. At the
:32:13. > :32:17.moment the verdict of the voters is the Labour Party is not a credible
:32:18. > :32:21.party of government. I'm afraid Jeremy Corbyn has brought in new
:32:22. > :32:25.members, he might win the leadership election among the new members and
:32:26. > :32:29.members of the Labour Party, but the issue is, what does the country say?
:32:30. > :32:33.If Jeremy had succeeded in a great boost in the opinion polls, that
:32:34. > :32:42.would be different, but I'm afraid at the moment the verdict of people
:32:43. > :32:45.in marginal seat is they don't feel that Labour at the moment is
:32:46. > :32:47.speaking for them. Until that changes, I'm afraid Labour will be a
:32:48. > :32:50.party of opposition and that's not good enough, we should be a party of
:32:51. > :32:54.government. What you think went wrong with the Owen Smith campaign?
:32:55. > :32:59.Is it about him, the candidate, the pitch? What happened? Clearly the
:33:00. > :33:03.membership of the Labour Party has changed very substantially over the
:33:04. > :33:09.last year and a half. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly speaking for, in touch
:33:10. > :33:12.with the members of the Labour Party, it seems, because they are
:33:13. > :33:17.voting for him in large numbers. Owen Smith was almost the outsider,
:33:18. > :33:22.challenging the incumbent. The problem is, in a democracy it is not
:33:23. > :33:26.the members of the party who elect the government, it's the voters. I
:33:27. > :33:30.don't remember a time where the Labour Party membership and its
:33:31. > :33:36.views had become so disconnected from where the marginal seat, the
:33:37. > :33:40.swing voter, the centre-left vote is an issue after issue, things are
:33:41. > :33:45.pulled apart. To be fair to Jeremy, if he wins, he is winning because he
:33:46. > :33:48.speaking for his members. The failure, and you are part of this
:33:49. > :33:53.scum and new Labour is part of this, the failure is, is it not, that your
:33:54. > :34:01.site, Owen Smith and your clan have not managed to grip 500,000 people
:34:02. > :34:07.in the same way Jeremy Corbyn did? Jeremy Corbyn has mobilised and
:34:08. > :34:13.infused a lot of people and for some reason the other wing of the party
:34:14. > :34:16.just can't? What's wrong? In this world, where numbers are being
:34:17. > :34:22.recruited on the mentorship has grown, the only answer in the end,
:34:23. > :34:27.for the centrist mainstream centre-left of the Labour Party, is
:34:28. > :34:31.to do the same. But in the end, I know from general elections and how
:34:32. > :34:35.you win, you have to have a compelling vision, which people
:34:36. > :34:39.think reflects their view of the world. Jeremy clearly has a complete
:34:40. > :34:45.vision that represents members views and I think Owen has been saying, I
:34:46. > :34:48.sort of share your views, but I'm not Jeremy Tilse I don't think in
:34:49. > :34:54.the end that will work. Labour is going to have to say, or the PLP,
:34:55. > :34:58.the mainstream Labour MPs are going to have to say, we have a view of
:34:59. > :35:01.the world which is not the same as the Conservatives, not the same as
:35:02. > :35:07.new Labour but also not the same as Jeremy Corbyn's... He didn't define
:35:08. > :35:13.himself enough? I think it is very difficult for Owen when you have
:35:14. > :35:18.such a short campaign, to do that. I think he chose not to do that. Chose
:35:19. > :35:25.to be as close to Jeremy as he could be, that's not going to work. Look
:35:26. > :35:28.back to when Labour was in power. Somehow, at some point, now you look
:35:29. > :35:32.back on it looks as though there was a bit of a wedge between traditional
:35:33. > :35:39.Labour voters and the new Labour project. A lot of them went to Ukip,
:35:40. > :35:48.some went to Jeremy Corbyn, who is not New Labour at all. Is that a
:35:49. > :35:53.single thing, is it about the immigration, the polls in 2004,
:35:54. > :35:57.2005, when we had unrestricted immigration and no one else in
:35:58. > :36:01.Europe did? Is it about the crash? What do you think whether one or two
:36:02. > :36:04.things that led to that? I don't think it's one thing and I think in
:36:05. > :36:09.some ways the problem started earlier than that. 1997, Labour said
:36:10. > :36:13.we can run the economy competently, we can be tough with the public
:36:14. > :36:20.finances and invest in the schools and hospitals. We can reverse the
:36:21. > :36:25.unfairness of the Tory years. From 97-2001 that was compelling. After
:36:26. > :36:29.2001, a weak Conservative leader. Labour turned on itself. We started
:36:30. > :36:33.to be defined by arguments about whether we were going to privatise
:36:34. > :36:37.the NHS or not, which was completely out of touch of whether country was
:36:38. > :36:41.and where the members were. It started earlier. On top of that you
:36:42. > :36:47.have the global financial crisis, which we didn't see manage, the
:36:48. > :36:50.globalisation of labour, a problems for communities up and down the
:36:51. > :36:56.country... China, industry moving to China over that period? I think we
:36:57. > :37:00.thought in 2001 globalisation would be about companies moving to China.
:37:01. > :37:03.What we never saw was that globalisation would actually be
:37:04. > :37:09.people moving from Poland and the Czech Republic to work in Britain. I
:37:10. > :37:13.don't think in our country, France, Germany, America politics has coped
:37:14. > :37:17.with that global financial crisis or the mobility of labour or the
:37:18. > :37:22.squeeze on medium incomes at a time when incomes at the top have been
:37:23. > :37:25.rising so fast. All of those things meant the centrists, centre ground,
:37:26. > :37:31.which said we could grip a manage this, people said, you are not doing
:37:32. > :37:35.so well. Why has it not really work? In those circumstances populism
:37:36. > :37:39.techs over, whether it is Donald Trump, Marine le Pen or Jeremy
:37:40. > :37:45.Corbyn. It's easier to communicate in a protesting way, it's not a
:37:46. > :37:50.manifesto for government. Ed Balls, thank you very much indeed. Let's
:37:51. > :37:59.take a quick look at the the Times's from page. Our story, MI6 hires
:38:00. > :38:00.hundreds more spies. That is it from us.
:38:01. > :38:03.We leave you with great news for TV post-production geeks.
:38:04. > :38:05.The ReelSteady image stabilisation software plugin for Adobe
:38:06. > :38:10.After Effects has been thoroughly tested and works rather well.
:38:11. > :38:12.Why are we telling you this interesting but slightly niche fact?
:38:13. > :38:15.Well, the stabiliser software has now been tested with the help
:38:16. > :38:17.of a legendary GoPro movie - that of basejumper Graham Dickenson
:38:18. > :38:28.In case you're wondering, yes he used a parachute.
:38:29. > :39:18.Vive la France! Vive la France!
:39:19. > :39:25.across western Scotland and Northern Ireland. Plenty of sunshine
:39:26. > :39:32.cloud, a bit damp. Eastern Scotland will see some showers, into the
:39:33. > :39:32.cloud, a bit damp. Eastern Scotland of Northern Ireland later on. Plenty
:39:33. > :39:36.of sunshine in of Northern Ireland later on. Plenty
:39:37. > :39:44.north-west up and having a sunny day that some
:39:45. > :39:50.will brighten up across northern England, with quite a
:39:51. > :39:50.will brighten up across northern across East Anglia and the
:39:51. > :39:57.south-east. Through the afternoon across East Anglia and the
:39:58. > :40:03.quite warm, 20 or 21 the high. across East Anglia and the
:40:04. > :40:04.glum start much of Wales in south-west