10/05/2017 Newsnight

It's not the way they meant to release it, but a draft

of the Labour manifesto has found its way into the press.

A radical manifesto - but is it 1983 again?

The Mirror journalist, Jack Blanchard, with

Is he trying to run the US like it's a game show?

We'll ask if the President is irreversibly undermining

and politicising justice and security in the US.

And Noam Chomsky hasn't mellowed much, aged 88.

the most dangerous organisation on Earth?

Probably not the news that Labour wanted -

but a draft of their manifesto has been leaked.

The Telegraph and Daily Mirror have it and wrote it up

Labour's NEC is gathering tomorrow in what is called a Clause five

meeting, to agree the final version, so it could in theory

"We do not comment on leaks. We will announce our policies

in our manifesto, which is our plan to transform Britain for the many

Well, many not the few is the kind of theme of the draft -

with, for example, a plan for there to be at least one

publicly owned energy company in every part of the UK.

National Grid, railways and bus companies are to be nationalised.

Well, I'm joined by Jack Blanchard, the Mirror's political editor -

And with our own political editor, Nick Watt.

Just to be clear, Jack, what you have there is a print out. It's not

a typeset, formalised version? I'm afraid not. No cover, no glossy

feel. It is a dodgy, leaked document. But it does have their

draft measures. Give us some of the eye-catching ones. There's a lot in

there. As you mention, there is the plan to bring a big part of the

energy industry back into public ownership. There is a huge

investment plans for the NHS, ?6 billion extra a year, which will be

funded with new taxes on people earning more than ?80,000 a year.

There's council houses to be built every year, tuition fees abolished

entirely... We kind of knew that anyway. And then the creation of new

Whitehall departments, a Ministry of Labour, a Department for housing,

because Labour seat workers' rights and housing as central. Lots and

lots on workers' rights. The Telegraph have written it up

tonight. You take a slightly different spin than the Daily

Mirror. They are saying it is 1983 all over again. The moderates in the

Labour Party are relatively relaxed about this draft manifesto which

they had obviously seen. They are saying this is the closest the

Labour Party has got to the 1980s, the famous 1983 manifesto, the

longest suicide note in history, as the late Sir Gerald Kaufman calls

it. They are saying that they are upholding Labour's commitment to

renewing Trident in this manifesto, that there was a curious paragraph

after that, saying any Prime Minister would want to use the

nuclear deterrent with caution. Which I think they have done up

until now! 82%... Commitment to the 2% spending on defence. They are

saying that Robin Cook could've written that in 1997. Who has

written this? Is it Corbin 's team? Absolutely. Two or three key members

in his team. They obviously have not had very much time to do it. They

started looking at all the things they wanted to do, and they have

reached out from there. Labour are not doing well in the polls, but

when you look at the policies, like nationalising railways, people will

like it. Would you describe this as quite populist in flavour, taxing

the rich more to pay more into the NHS? A nationalised energy company

in all regions? I spoke to a senior member of Corbyn's team tonight

asking if they wanted to say anything. They didn't want to

comment on record, but when I said some of this looks quite left-wing,

they said, no, it is popular. If you look at these individual policies,

like energy and privatised railways, and higher taxes on some people,

people agree with them on that. I was talking to one moderate this

afternoon. The moderates said that the abolition of university fees

would connect people. And they said, oh, dear me, is this going to raise

questions about their strategy? The moderate strategy is to let Jeremy

Corbyn own it. The one red line was a Trident renewal commitment. For

everything else, they are taking the tragedy -- the strategy owned by

John Golding. They say that he must own this so he can own the general

election result. Let's think about the process. This goes to this

Clause 5 meeting tomorrow. Is that just a formality? Will they not it

through, or will the NEC be over each other's shoulders, trying to...

I think it is tweets more than anything more serious. -- it is

tweaks. I don't think they will change much. In the past, you had

battles, although that would take place beforehand. It's not just the

NEC, it is the Shadow Cabinet, and it is the trade union liaison and

contact group. The trade unions have a big say. I was told one thing that

might cause a problem at the meeting tomorrow is what it says about

immigration. The trades union do not think it goes fast -- far enough.

Will the party be really annoyed? Is it a shambles or a clever media

strategy? Lets leak it out, let's get people talking... It's not that.

It looks slightly shambolic. My understanding is this has happened

before. Because Labour has this process, this big meeting full of

senior people who all discuss it, leaks can happen because of this

process. But it is in their constitution and it's how they work.

It's not what they planned, but it was all due to come next week

anyway. Whose interest is it to leak this, and for what motive? You could

say that the Corbyn Knights have a good reason for leaking it, to get

away with any problem. And to stop anybody watering it down? And you

could play that game, so I don't exactly know. Thank you for coming

in with it. Thanks very much. So - a President fires the head

of the internal security service, on perplexing grounds that

are months' old. Just as the security

service is investigating It doesn't sound like

the US, but it is. Today, the New York Times

reported that the terminated director of the FBI

James Comey had just been asking for more resources

for the investigation into Russian Was he sacked to thwart

an inconvenient investigation? Or, do we believe the Trump line -

that Mr Comey had lost the trust of Democrats and Republicans alike

and the FBI needed a fresh start? Well, for many, the President has

crossed a dangerous threshold - the constitution has checks

and balances on his power, but it has to allow him some

discretion, and to them, he's broken the spirit of US

convention, by exploiting his powers Our diplomatic editor

Mark Urban is with me. In FBI terms, the history of the

FBI, how big a deal is it for the FBI director to be sacked? I think

you know the answer to this question. One has been sacked

before, by Bill Clinton back in 1993. William Sessions. People say

this was a move like Nixon. Nixon fired the special prosecutor who had

been appointed to investigate the Watergate burglary, so that's where

there are parallels. Consternation in Washington today, and all sorts

of versions coming out of a beleaguered president becoming

obsessed with this Russia issue, finally boiling over and doing this.

That is from anti-Trump media, but it is true that he hadn't been doing

public engagements in recent days, and it's also true that even his

press people seemed unaware until moments before this happened that it

was going to happen. They have been putting some other lines out today,

like saying, we thought the Democrats would really like this and

be supportive. Everybody has jumped to their own conclusion about why it

happened, and that is largely to do with the Russian thing. But that

Russian investigation will go on. It all comes back to the investigation

of the connection between the trump campaign and the Russians.

No-one has produced evidence of it yet, but there's a lurking suspicion

that team Trump might have encouraged, co-ordinated,

or been in some way complicit with Russian hacking

If that was true, well, let's just say it's not a good thing to do.

Paul Wood is in Washington, and looks at what's left

of the investigations into the Russian connection

The political melodrama "House of Trump" is a ratings smash.

But at times it's a little dark, and the plot does stretch credulity.

In part one, the FBI investigates whether the Trump campaign conspired

with a foreign power, Russia, to steal the US

In part two, Trump fires the FBI director, James Comey.

It was not to derail the FBI investigation,

Yes, that is Henry Kissinger next to him.

The question is, naturally, were about Comey's sacking.

He wasn't doing a good job, very simply.

The president wrote a terse letter to Comey,

saying it was "Vital to restore public trust and

Significantly, he recalled Comey "Informing me on three

separate occasions that I am not under investigation".

At the White House briefing, an avalanche of scepticism...

Look, I think it was something that...

Above my pay grade was decided to be included, and I'm not going to get

Trump's critics paint a different picture.

They don't believe that Comey was sacked,

as the White House says, because he was too tough

The White House should perhaps recall what another president, LBJ,

said about another FBI director, J Edgar Hoover.

Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

It is a delicious irony that Russia's Foreign Minister should be

visiting Washington today to see Mr Trump.

Never forget that the US intelligence agencies all say that

Russia interfered in the election, and they did it to put

That assessment was made by James Clapper, when he was director

He told Congress this week that Russia had hacked leading Democrats

and then leaked out damaging information a sophisticated

They must be congratulating themselves for having

exceeded their wildest expectations with a minimal

And I believe they are now emboldened to continue such

activities in the future both here and around the world,

No evidence has been made public proving

There's no evidence either for the claim that the Kremlin

is blackmailing the president, using a tape of him

Nor has it yet been shown that Trump's business dealings put him

But the FBI investigation will continue after Comey's departure.

There are also four separate congressional enquiries.

All these investigations now have many more questions

following the events of the last 24 hours.

What does he know that's yet to be made public?

And, was Trump reassured that he himself was not the subject

Washington echoes to talk that a special

Inevitably, the President's critics compare this to Watergate.

There is a clear and present danger of a cover-up,

history doesn't repeat but it rhymes.

And this firing very much has the look and feel of an effort

to stop an investigation and politically interfere with it.

Not since Watergate has a president dismissed the person leading

But, President Trump may be right, that only his aides and associates

Then the question will be that which came to define Watergate -

what did the president know, and when did he know it?

How much of a danger do you think this Russian investigation is to

President Trump? Well, we know that the idea mesmerises the intelligence

community. Ex-director Comey and others, as well as the President's

political opponents. It is that there is some kind of connectivity

that is provable between the Trump campaign, and the hacking and

leaking of e-mails during last year's presidential election. That

is clearly the main thing they are going for. There are peripheral

issues with money, meetings coordinating policy, other things.

But that is the central thing they want to prove. Clearly, if they get

there, if it is possible to prove that connection of people meeting,

and money going... You know, actual connectivity, let's leaked this

one... In the coming days, then it is an absolute major bombshell. But

they are a long way off. The President's defences are holding up

in certain respects. For example, today more than 75 Democrats and

independents joined the call for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

No Republicans, just three in Congress and the Senate, led by John

McCain, backing the idea of a special committee of enquiry. On the

whole come his defences are holding up. Self-evidently they've not got

the point where they could launch a charge against individuals on these

very serious potential allegations, and of course even if they do, they

may well be arms lengths associates people who were dismissed from the

campaign at some point during the campaign. It may be, if there is in

the end a parallel to Watergate, the attempts to cover up or disrupts

investigations that could finally do for him. Mark, thank you.

One concern is whether the President is somehow undermining

the institutions of the US, politicising justice

and damaging morale at the FBI and Department of Justice.

The kind of thing that you might expect of lesser countries.

Let's talk to Sidney Blumenthal, a senior aide to Bill Clinton

who worked at the Clinton Foundation.

First - Charlotte Laws, an author and political commentator

who was one of President Trump's earliest supporters.

Charlotte, why do you think the President acted now on this? This

question of why now seems to be one that has least satisfactory answers?

Well, I think it was a cumulative effect. I think it had been building

like a storm for President Trump. This goes all the way back to

January. Comey was increasingly viewed as a political figure which

is inappropriate for someone who is the director of the FBI. There were

calls from the Republicans to sack him. Here in Los Angeles, I'm

independent but I know a lot of Republicans and they were all saying

to me back in January, why doesn't Trump fire Comey? There was a big

push for this. I think that Trump had it in his ear like I had it in

my ear. The Democrats were calling for Comey to be fired during the

campaign and there were reports that within the FBI there is

disgruntlement and they were unhappy with the leadership. That was

happening at the same time. You have controversy from a few days ago

where Comey went out and misstated information regarding e-mails which

created huge controversy and he had to come out and change what he had

said, clarifying it. Then you have the deputy who made a recommendation

that he was fired. All of these things had come together and I think

that Trump had an erosion of confidence. You've given me a big

list there. And people will judge whether they think those things on

that list are convincing or not. Do you not think that the president

should have thought about how it looks? He is being investigated, or

his campaigners, by the FBI. He sacks the director. Maybe he should

have said, I do not like this guy that I will wait until the

investigation is over before I sack him? Well, I think you don't do

something like this unless you have a pure heart. It is like if you or

did tractors say that you stole a red Corvette, you don't go out and

borrow one and put it in your driveway if you don't have a pure

heart. I think his detractors would have criticised him no matter when

he fired Comey. The investigation may not be over the years, and

secondly, if he did it back in January when he first came into

office, he still would have been criticised for the same basic

reasons. I think so many people are anti-Trump in the media and the

Democrats and political figures that it is hard for him to do anything

that is seen as right or proper. I want to ask you one question. This

perplexes me. In the letter that Trump sent to Comey, he used the

line "While I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate

occasions that I am not under investigation, blah blah blah... ",

what a strange thing to write. It is like it is on Trump's mind, as he

terminates this guy, is the investigation into his team. Why

would you write that in there? It is very strange to me. Because being

president is very much public relations. He wants to make it clear

to America that he is not personally under investigation. As I understand

he isn't. Personally. He wants to make it clear. I also think that the

reason why he did not call Comey himself was because Trump has a

reputation of not liking to confront people and make them feel bad. It's

very hard for him to fire people. I've heard many people say it with

regards to the Trump Organization, he would leave people in the company

even though he wanted them gone because he couldn't bring himself to

fire them face-to-face or he would get someone else to do it. That's

probably the reason why he did not call him and that is the reason for

that comment in the letter. His catchphrase was "You're fired". But

you are ironically saying he was incapable of firing people. Let me

go to Sidney Blumenthal now. I may come back to you afterwards. Do you

think that this is a constitutional crisis? Or at least a constitutional

moment? It is a crisis in democracy and it has been ever since the

moment that Donald Trump was inaugurated. He declared war on the

free press and called them enemies of the people. There hasn't been

that kind of language since Middle Europe in the 1930s. Against the

free press. And, he has attacked judges. He has called them so-called

judges, and attacked the judicial system on cases that he is involved

in, attempting to ban people based on their religion from the

country... We know all of that, but I'm just wondering whether that

really undermines the institutions of democracy in the USA... It puts

enormous stress on those institutions. There has not been a

president like Donald Trump in the entire history of the US. Not even

Nixon. While Nixon was guilty of crimes which were the articles of a

peach mint, there hasn't been such a systematic assault on the

institutions of democracy in the US. Then under Donald Trump --

impeachment. We heard this from Charlotte earlier, he basically

blamed Comey for losing Hillary Clinton the election. It's

interesting the Democrats are the great defenders of Comey, because

Comey is now Trump's enemy and they had to rally round. What is going on

there? I would say that the approximate cause given for the

firing of Comey by the assistant Attorney General was ridiculous on

its face. It is entirely true that Comey is guilty of everything listed

there and how he behaves, that happened back in July 20 16. After

that event, Donald Trump conducted a very public campaign claiming that

even though Hillary Clinton had been exonerated, that she should have

been locked up and that she was a criminal. He even used the

Republican convention to express that theme. Mike Glennon let chance

of "Lock her up" from the platform of the Republican convention. It's

ridiculous. Everybody knows it is a ridiculous reason. The reason is

that he is attempting to obstruct the investigation into Russia's

intervention in the US election. That is your charge, the

congressional investigations will continue. But tell me, what are you

meant to do if you are the President of the United States, and you do not

like your FBI director? And you don't think he is doing a good job?

And there is chatter all over the place saying that the guy is not up

to it? You are going to sack him, right? It's an interesting question.

Had he wanted to change his FBI director, who has a term of nine

years, he could have done that during his transition or when he

first came into office. Instead, he praised him and he had a public

meeting with him that was filmed in which he embraced him. So something

else has happened. What we've learned in the last 24 hours is that

there is a grand jury that has been convened by James Comey and it is

hearing testimony from associates of Michael Flynn, who says he has a

story to tell. We learned James Comey asked for a vast increase in

funding for his investigation. There are other elements involved here.

Sidney Blumenthal, fax Charlotte, you are not go to blame anyone for

putting two and two together, saying he has obviously done this as he is

leading an investigation which is effective into his campaign? I do

not think you can read into President Trump's mind. I think he

wants this investigation concluded. I do not think he has tried to

thwart it but get it behind him. It's a handicap to his presidency. I

do not think it is logical to think that that was the goal behind his

actions. Charlotte, don't you agree it should be pretty difficult for a

president? The president has the power to sack the director of the

FBI, wouldn't it be better if presidents used it with restraint

and it was fairly difficult to do? Thinking about it for awhile, have

consultations and enquiry? I cannot quite hear you, the sound has got

rough? It should be difficult to sack the director of the FBI and not

too easy for a president to do that? Well, presidents can have anybody

that they want is the director of the FBI. It is his decision and I do

not think he was praising Komi initially, but I think he wanted him

to have a chance. -- Comey. Face-to-face, he has a reputation

for getting along with everybody, and being friends with people. And

getting them to do what he wants them to do, building relationships.

I do not think it is unusual at all. It is obviously President Trump's

choice, and I think he likely has a pure heart in this. I cannot read

into his mind like Sidney Blumenthal cannot, that is what I think. Thank

you both very much. One potential threat hanging over

the Conservative campaign was that of possible prosecutions

for breeches of election This is all to do with the party

spending national money on local campaigns, and counting it

in the wrong box, in order to override rules about

how much can be spent. Well, today that threat

almost went away. 15 police forces looking at multiple

constituencies reported to the Crown Prosecution Service,

and in 14 of those, However, it's not a get out of gaol

free card for the Tory campaign. In one prominent case -

a decision is still to come. The Conservative Party has already

been in trouble over its election Tory HQ has paid a ?70,000 fine

for misreported spending the result of an exhaustive

Channel 4 News investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service said

today that it was now only considering criminal charges

relating to overspending There was an error made

in our national returns And the Electoral Commission

fined us for that, The cases dropped today relate

to a battle bus campaign which took Tory activists and shipped them

into target seats. Now, what these cases actually

demonstrate is a real oddity Specifically, there would have been

no investigation at all, and no problems at all,

had those Tory activists simply handed out leaflets that only

mentioned David Cameron The problem was that, and I quote

the Electoral Commission, "they found social media posts

where activists from the coaches "were holding campaign material

promoting individual candidates." The reason they drew that

distinction is that our law distinguishes between national

spending - promoting parties - and local election spending -

promoting candidates. Take two activists for a party

who both want their man, Joe Bloggs, Let's say both get on a bus paid

for by the party on the same And both are going leafleting

to help Mr Bloggs. Let's say, by the luck of the draw,

one of them gets a bundle of leaflets that praise local man

Joe Bloggs, and the other gets leaflets that only

mention the party leader The activists delivering

the local Joe Bloggs leaflet will count as local spending,

but the activists delivering the national leaflets will count

as national all-party spending. Never mind the fact that a vote

for the national party in this seat In Victorian times, an MP was simply

returned for his constituencies without any regard for his party

label whatsoever, and the parties were not creatures really

recognised by the law. They were certainly not

controlled by the law. More recently, that is to say

within the last 20 years, we've had a system which has

recognised political parties and sought to control party

expenditure, hence we've got one system left over from Victorian

times for individual MPs, and one system recently introduced

for national expenses, for national campaigns, for now

recognised political parties. The case whose fate is yet

to be decided, though, South Thanet in Kent,

is the most serious, and it's not about activists handing

out the wrong leaflets. It's about one party

using its spending superiority It's precisely the sort

of activity that these rules This case is so high profile

because Nick Timothy, now the Prime Minister's co-chief

of staff, ran that campaign. The CPS might not prosecute, though,

for the same reason they declined They have to prove the local MP

or agent broke their spending limits deliberately,

not by accident, because Tory Central Office gave candidates duff

advice about receipts. The law draws quite odd lines,

and prosecution is difficult. Our political editor

Nick Watt is here... Viewsnight now, and in the run up

to the election we've been devoting this spot to provocative ideas

for the party manifestos. Should they be minded

to look for some. Tonight Faiza Shaheen,

director of the Thinktank Class Noam Chomsky is not

just one of the world's most famous academics -

his work on linguistics has shaped the field in the modern era -

he is also one of the world's most famous supporters of

the political left. Well, Professor Chomsky has been

at the University of Reading this evening; giving a lecture

on the state of western democracy. He is 88. He has campaigned for

socialism for decades, and just as rage on social injustice erupts and

there's an overthrow of established thinking, he finds that President

Trump is in office for him. I went over to Reading this afternoon to

talk to him about everything that's going on. I asked what it was about

Donald Trump that appealed to American voters. What is the

alternative? The Democrats gave up on the working class 40 years ago.

The working class is not their constituency. No one in the

political system is. The Republicans claim to be, but they are basically

their class enemy, however they can appeal to people on the basis of

claims about religion, white supremacy... So you think there was

quite a racist motivation? No doubt about that. Are we talking 3%, 30%

of the voters? Roughly? There's a substantial streak of fundamentalist

religion. Trump took an enormous quantity of the Christian

fundamentalists, who are a big segment of the US population.

Remember, in the United States, about 40% of the population think

the second coming is going to be in their lifetimes. The United States

is off the spectrum in this respect. Do you think Trump will do much

damage while he is there, and will it be permanent damage to the

institutions of the US? I think the main damage he will do is to the

world, and it is already happening. The most significant aspect of the

Trump election, and not just Trump, the whole Republican Party, is their

departing from the rest of the world on climate change. You have called

the Republican party the most dangerous organisation on earth. In

human history. It is an outrageous statement. When I said it, I said it

was very outrageous. But is it true? You are rating them as worse than

Kim Jong-un of North Korea, or as Isis? Is Isis dedicated to

destroying the prospects for organised human existence? It's that

bad? What does it mean to say we are not doing anything about climate

change, and we are trying to accelerate the race to the

precipice? And you don't entertain the possibility that they might be

genuine in their belief... Doesn't matter. If the consequence of that

is, let's use more fossil fuels, let's refuse to subsidise developing

countries, if that is the consequence, that is extremely

dangerous. Macron won the French election, Emmanuel Macron, and

internationalist, liberal, loves the EU. All the things, in a way, that

the Trump voters have tried to reject. Can he succeed? Is this the

end of populism in Europe? By no means. Macron is a good example

about how the core of the institutions have collapsed. He came

from the outside. A vote for him was substantially a vote against Le Pen,

who is recognised to be a serious danger. What about the British

election? Jeremy Corbyn has been leading the Labour Party. They have

an uphill task, according to the opinion polls. Have you any advice

or thoughts about how Labour refines its pitch and makes it to government

in the UK? If you asked me to vote, I would vote for them. They have a

problem. I think he is a very decent and good person, and I've followed

his career for some years. He is evidently not inspiring the

population. Labour has not come out with its programme, so we don't

really know what it will be. There is a sense of a lack of clarity

about what he stands for, which is odd because he was someone who was

most clear about it. What has happened to the Labour Party through

the neoliberal years is, it became is, as many call it, Thatcherite,

especially under Blair. It did not represent the working class. I want

to talk to you about Julian Assange. You have been a big supporter of him

and WikiLeaks. Many progressive people have looked at WikiLeaks and

said, this organisation is on the wrong side of history. Do you still

believe in Julian Assange, despite the fact that they published e-mails

of Hillary Clinton's... I believe that the persecution of him is

completely wrong. The threats against him are completely wrong.

They should be withdrawn. He should be freed. He shouldn't be

imprisoned. Judicial process. He needs to be questioned about the

accusations. It is pretty much a front. There is no reason why

Swedish prosecutors can't interrogate him on the charge that

they think they have. In fact, they've already begun to do so.

What's keeping him in prison... In an embassy, is his desire to go in

there. Is the threat that the US will go after him. Is he right to

worry about it? Of course. It is the threat that is wrong. As to what

WikiLeaks has decided to release, you can have various opinions. What

is your opinion of stolen e-mails, perfectly legitimate e-mails, stolen

and put in the public domain? I would not have been in favour of

doing that, but the general idea of informing the public, informing

citizens, of what you are doing and keeping from them, that's a good

idea. Gnome Chomsky, thank you very much indeed.

Noam Chomsky there, in all fairness speaking before The Mirror

And you can see a longer version of that on the Newsnight YouTube page.

And if the election has been spoiling the vibe

of your springtime, we leave you with a celebration

of seasonal fertility courtesy of film-maker Jamie Scott.

Mr Scott has a genius for filming flowers blooming in time lapse,

and his latest work took three years to make.

# A friend with breasts and all the rest

# A friend who's dressed in leather