0:00:18 > 0:00:19TRANSLATION: I don't care. I couldn't care less.
0:00:19 > 0:00:21Ever get the feeling someone's laughing at you?
0:00:21 > 0:00:23He was actually laughing at accusations of US
0:00:23 > 0:00:25election interference, but President Putin might as well
0:00:25 > 0:00:26have been talking about Salisbury.
0:00:26 > 0:00:30So what, if anything, can we do about Russia?
0:00:30 > 0:00:35One option - kick Russian state television out of Britain?
0:00:35 > 0:00:41Or maybe boycott the World Cup?
0:00:41 > 0:00:46But is there really anything we can do to intimidate
0:00:46 > 0:00:49such a large nation?
0:00:49 > 0:00:52There have been declarations of solidarity today from the US
0:00:52 > 0:00:54to France and Germany - but how far will their support
0:00:54 > 0:00:56extend beyond rhetoric?
0:00:56 > 0:00:58What kind of strategy will work?
0:00:58 > 0:01:01We'll reflect on the choices, or lack of them.
0:01:01 > 0:01:02Meanwhile, it's goodbye from him.
0:01:02 > 0:01:06US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been shown the door,
0:01:06 > 0:01:09which means the West is not at its most cohesive - in fact,
0:01:09 > 0:01:11not even the West Wing is.
0:01:11 > 0:01:14Is US foreign policy in disarray, or has Trump now found someone
0:01:14 > 0:01:19who can see it his way?
0:01:19 > 0:01:20And puzzle time: which Disney character has the chancellor
0:01:20 > 0:01:26likened himself to?
0:01:26 > 0:01:27But what is a Tigger?
0:01:27 > 0:01:28# The wonderful thing about tiggers
0:01:28 > 0:01:30# Is tiggers are wonderful things!
0:01:30 > 0:01:32# Their tops are made out of rubber
0:01:32 > 0:01:34# Their bottoms are made out of springs!
0:01:34 > 0:01:35Yes, some upbeat economic news
0:01:35 > 0:01:37in his spring statement gives Philip Hammond a spring
0:01:37 > 0:01:44in his step.
0:01:44 > 0:01:49# I'm the only one!
0:01:49 > 0:01:51Time, then, to ask whether it's time to ease
0:01:51 > 0:01:54the squeeze on public spending.
0:01:54 > 0:01:55Hello.
0:01:55 > 0:02:00Yesterday, the Prime Minister had said Russia should tell us what it
0:02:00 > 0:02:02knows about the Salisbury attack by the end of today.
0:02:02 > 0:02:07Her time horizon was quickly hardened into a theatrical midnight
0:02:07 > 0:02:09deadline for the Russians to respond, and we
0:02:09 > 0:02:15are not far off that.
0:02:15 > 0:02:18Today, we heard a Russian response - Moscow says Britain must supply
0:02:18 > 0:02:20samples of the poison found on Mr Skripal and his daughter,
0:02:20 > 0:02:22and anyway denies any involvement in the attack.
0:02:22 > 0:02:25It's perhaps unsurprising that the Russians are not playing ball.
0:02:25 > 0:02:28But it leaves a challenge for Theresa May as tomorrow -
0:02:28 > 0:02:30to mix metaphors - the ball now lies in her court.
0:02:30 > 0:02:32What does Britain do?
0:02:32 > 0:02:35The helpful news for her is that from Germany to France
0:02:35 > 0:02:36even to the White House,
0:02:36 > 0:02:39there is now increasing support from close allies.
0:02:39 > 0:02:46Here's Mark Urban.
0:02:46 > 0:02:49Britain set the timescale, little more than 24 hours for Russia
0:02:49 > 0:02:52to come up with answers on the poisoning in Salisbury.
0:02:52 > 0:02:57But it's a type of pressure that's not likely to cow president Putin.
0:02:57 > 0:02:59I think it's very difficult to see whether the Kremlin
0:02:59 > 0:03:00is worried or not.
0:03:00 > 0:03:06But if we judge purely by what is in the Russian press
0:03:06 > 0:03:09and the Russian newspapers, it is not on the front pages anywhere,
0:03:09 > 0:03:11including on the main internet websites.
0:03:11 > 0:03:13And it doesn't seem to be that this is the core issue
0:03:13 > 0:03:16which is going to dominate the remaining several days
0:03:16 > 0:03:19of the Russian election campaigning.
0:03:19 > 0:03:23It is quite remarkably absent for the kind of crisis
0:03:23 > 0:03:31that is looming on the horizon from public opinion.
0:03:31 > 0:03:34And asked today about Britain's challenge, Russian Foreign
0:03:34 > 0:03:36Minister Sergey Lavrov responded with one of his own.
0:03:36 > 0:03:41TRANSLATION: We immediately requested through an official note
0:03:41 > 0:03:46access to that chemical agent so that our experts could
0:03:46 > 0:03:47analyse it in accordance with the Chemical
0:03:47 > 0:03:50Weapons Convention.
0:03:50 > 0:03:52So, time is short for Russia, but they aren't going to buckle.
0:03:52 > 0:03:56The march of minutes also prompts questions for the UK's allies.
0:03:56 > 0:04:00Since late last week, British diplomats have been
0:04:00 > 0:04:03consulting European capitals, often reluctant to sanction Russia
0:04:03 > 0:04:08in the past, gauging their appetite for tough action now.
0:04:08 > 0:04:11It's a very complicated issue.
0:04:11 > 0:04:15We have certain very large European countries like Germany,
0:04:15 > 0:04:18France and Italy, where the sentiment is not as firm on Russia
0:04:18 > 0:04:19as we see in other countries.
0:04:19 > 0:04:22So it is still an open question.
0:04:22 > 0:04:27But I think there is a universal condemnation of this kind of attack.
0:04:27 > 0:04:31But what the EU will do is still not very clear.
0:04:31 > 0:04:34And unfortunately, we have seen in the past that
0:04:34 > 0:04:36sometimes tough talk has not followed by concrete action.
0:04:36 > 0:04:37And President Trump, often assailed by critics
0:04:37 > 0:04:40for being in Putin's thrall, says Russia must now
0:04:40 > 0:04:44provide clear answers.
0:04:44 > 0:04:47It sounds to me like they believe it was Russia and I would certainly
0:04:47 > 0:04:55take that finding as fact.
0:04:58 > 0:05:02It will be organised in Russia!
0:05:02 > 0:05:06For many European countries the question may be
0:05:06 > 0:05:09whether they are prepared to boycott the football World Cup in Russia.
0:05:09 > 0:05:11Germany are the reigning champions, but interestingly, even Germany's
0:05:11 > 0:05:13bestselling tabloid could be ready to advocate a boycott.
0:05:13 > 0:05:18I think there are things beyond football.
0:05:18 > 0:05:22So in the case that, for example, Prime Minister May would ask
0:05:22 > 0:05:28for a British boycott of the World Cup, and would ask Nato
0:05:28 > 0:05:32allies in Europe, in the West, to join into the boycott,
0:05:32 > 0:05:35I would say we as a newspaper, a news organisation,
0:05:35 > 0:05:40would not be in favour of turning down a request.
0:05:40 > 0:05:44We would be in favour of supporting that request.
0:05:44 > 0:05:50And as the last hours of Mrs May's ultimatum trickle away,
0:05:50 > 0:05:53it's time also for her to decide what steps the UK
0:05:53 > 0:05:55should take on its own.
0:05:55 > 0:05:57From expelling spies in the Russian Embassy -
0:05:57 > 0:06:03which today tweeted out a series of messages warning Britain
0:06:03 > 0:06:05against tough action - to imposing so-called Magnitsky
0:06:05 > 0:06:07law-type sanctions on Russian officials or even using GCHQ
0:06:07 > 0:06:14capabilities against the Kremlin.
0:06:14 > 0:06:15Well, cyber-countermeasures are something that has
0:06:15 > 0:06:20to by definition happen in the shadows, so to say.
0:06:20 > 0:06:22In the classified domain, through the intelligence agencies
0:06:22 > 0:06:24of the British Government or European governments
0:06:24 > 0:06:27and the United States.
0:06:27 > 0:06:32This is also something that has been discussed during the Obama
0:06:32 > 0:06:33administration in the United States, during
0:06:33 > 0:06:36the election interference.
0:06:36 > 0:06:39Whether the US should, you know, for example,
0:06:39 > 0:06:42have a more offensive cyber strategy against Russia, to maybe have
0:06:42 > 0:06:43intelligence communities leak information about corrupt Kremlin
0:06:43 > 0:06:48officials, where their money is, how they are using Western financial
0:06:48 > 0:06:53institutions to hide their stolen money and to launder that money.
0:06:53 > 0:06:56I think these are all potential options.
0:06:56 > 0:07:03The choices are many, but the dilemma is acute.
0:07:03 > 0:07:11A nerve gas attack on British streets may be
0:07:17 > 0:07:19an unprecedented outrage, but the response, the extent,
0:07:19 > 0:07:22and even what it's meant to achieve, are all the subjects
0:07:22 > 0:07:23of fierce debate.
0:07:23 > 0:07:25And Mark's here now.
0:07:25 > 0:07:26Our political editor Nick Watt is here too -
0:07:26 > 0:07:28Nick, we'll come to you in a moment.
0:07:28 > 0:07:31Mark, update us on the investigation in Salisbury today.We have known
0:07:31 > 0:07:34for a couple of days that identifying the agent suddenly
0:07:34 > 0:07:37recast the investigation and they are looking further back. As a
0:07:37 > 0:07:42result of what we have learned today, we can now see that it is a
0:07:42 > 0:07:46window of between one and a half and four and a quarter hours during
0:07:46 > 0:07:51which they think this happened, never before they got the pub in the
0:07:51 > 0:07:57centre of Salisbury. In that window of time, the is very important. But
0:07:57 > 0:08:01they are still saying that they don't know how and when the poison
0:08:01 > 0:08:05was dispensed -- the car is important. There was speculated
0:08:05 > 0:08:07within the law enforcement community that there was some kind of method
0:08:07 > 0:08:11of dispensing it inside the car. That would not appear to be the case
0:08:11 > 0:08:15from what the police have said today. But the car is important and
0:08:15 > 0:08:19where it was during 40 minutes after they had left home and before they
0:08:19 > 0:08:22arrived in the town centre, much longer than is needed for that
0:08:22 > 0:08:28journey. This is the key thing we have heard from the police, though -
0:08:28 > 0:08:33they are still saying there is no suspect, and they must be keen to
0:08:33 > 0:08:38make a determination of someone of that kind.So they want people who
0:08:38 > 0:08:44saw the red BMW.The pressure is on. Theresa May is going to step up
0:08:44 > 0:08:50tomorrow and talk about whatever the Russians have responded. What might
0:08:50 > 0:08:55she do?I understand there will be a substantial response from the Prime
0:08:55 > 0:08:58Minister in the House of Commons tomorrow, but we will not see the
0:08:58 > 0:09:02full range of measures in the UK for two broad reasons. In the first
0:09:02 > 0:09:05case, there will be things that the UK will do that they will not want
0:09:05 > 0:09:09to advertise. And in the second place, there is an assumption that
0:09:09 > 0:09:13Vladimir Putin will retaliate, and therefore the UK needs some space to
0:09:13 > 0:09:18be able to respond to that. There is also a hope that the UK will not be
0:09:18 > 0:09:23alone. There were two encouraging phone calls today with two Nato
0:09:23 > 0:09:30allies, Chancellor Merkel and President Trump.Thanks.
0:09:31 > 0:09:33In a further development today, it was confirmed that
0:09:33 > 0:09:35counterterrorism police are leading an investigation into
0:09:35 > 0:09:38the unexplained death in London yesterday of a man believed to be
0:09:38 > 0:09:39Russian businessman Nikolai Glushkov.
0:09:39 > 0:09:42Mr Glushkov sought exile in Britain after being convicted of fraud
0:09:42 > 0:09:45in Russia and had become a vocal opponent of President Putin.
0:09:45 > 0:09:47There seems to be no evidence linking this latest death
0:09:47 > 0:09:51to what happened in Salisbury - but the timing is at the very least
0:09:51 > 0:09:53awkward as the world waits to see how Mrs May responds
0:09:53 > 0:09:54to the Skripal affair.
0:09:54 > 0:09:56So let's discuss that response now.
0:09:56 > 0:09:59I'm now joined by Andrew Mitchell, Conservative MP and the former
0:09:59 > 0:10:00Secretary of State for International Development.
0:10:00 > 0:10:03He is leading a cross party group of MPs preparing to back
0:10:03 > 0:10:07a "Magnitsky amendment" to the government's Sanctions Bill.
0:10:07 > 0:10:09Also with me is the Washington Post columnist and LSE
0:10:09 > 0:10:11professor Anne Applebaum.
0:10:11 > 0:10:15In Washington is Andrei Illarionov.
0:10:15 > 0:10:17He was chief economic advisor to Putin -
0:10:17 > 0:10:19and is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center
0:10:19 > 0:10:27for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
0:10:27 > 0:10:32I wonder if I could start with you, Andrei Illarionov. Where do you
0:10:32 > 0:10:37think we go when it looks as though the Russians are somehow not taking
0:10:37 > 0:10:45the British complaints very seriously?Well, that is not
0:10:45 > 0:10:50surprising.
0:10:50 > 0:10:57surprising. The traditional response of the Russian authorities is like
0:10:57 > 0:11:01that. Remember what happened with the Litvinenko case, when he was
0:11:01 > 0:11:09poisoned in Britain 12 years ago. So it is not a surprise. What is more
0:11:09 > 0:11:12surprising is the lack of response from the British side and the
0:11:12 > 0:11:18western side to all these cases of aggression, whether it is against
0:11:18 > 0:11:25Britain, as it was in 2006 and 2018, or against Georgia in 2008 or
0:11:25 > 0:11:32against Ukraine in 2014, against the United States during the
0:11:32 > 0:11:36intervention in the election and so on.We know the charge sheet. Tell
0:11:36 > 0:11:45us what we should be doing?
0:11:45 > 0:11:48us what we should be doing?There are at least two sides of potential
0:11:48 > 0:11:53response. One is punishment of those who are responsible for all those
0:11:53 > 0:11:58acts of aggression and terror. It should be clearly said that that is
0:11:58 > 0:12:05a terrorist act. The other one is more long term and a wider response
0:12:05 > 0:12:14from Britain and not only from Britain, but from the wider West.
0:12:14 > 0:12:22The final long term goal of such a strategy is to have Russia, free,
0:12:22 > 0:12:28democratic, rule of law based on peaceful.Sorry to interrupt, but
0:12:28 > 0:12:36what do we actually do? We know the goal. What do we do?You don't know
0:12:36 > 0:12:42yet, because there is no consensus in the western world. There is not
0:12:42 > 0:12:47even discussion about what the long term goal is. There was not much
0:12:47 > 0:12:50discussion about the strategy itself. That is why it is firstly
0:12:50 > 0:12:55necessary to come to an understanding among the Western
0:12:55 > 0:13:00countries of what the West wants from Russia. That is the main
0:13:00 > 0:13:03question new post at the beginning. What kind of Russia would you like
0:13:03 > 0:13:10to see?Lets hope that there. Andrew Mitchell, it does feel as though we
0:13:10 > 0:13:13don't have a strategy here. While lurching after a headline that will
0:13:13 > 0:13:18work on Thursday. Is there actually a strategy for a medium-sized
0:13:18 > 0:13:21country like Britain to have sanctions that work against someone
0:13:21 > 0:13:26like Russia?I am sure there will be. It is comparatively early. We
0:13:26 > 0:13:32have the statement yesterday from the Prime Minister. There will be
0:13:32 > 0:13:34another tomorrow, but the most important thing is to gather the
0:13:34 > 0:13:43evidence. We must find out where culpability lies and put it in my
0:13:43 > 0:13:48view through the United Nations. Firstly, it may be circumstantial.
0:13:48 > 0:13:52Is that good enough?We must be absolutely clear about what
0:13:52 > 0:13:55happened, or we won't have conviction when we put it into the
0:13:55 > 0:13:58public domain through the United Nations so that our allies can see
0:13:58 > 0:14:03the threat it poses to all of us.Is it premature for the Prime Minister
0:14:03 > 0:14:08to stand up tomorrow and pretend we are starting on a new path? It is
0:14:08 > 0:14:14our deadline, not theirs. Do we need to do it that fast?, the deadline
0:14:14 > 0:14:20was to answer two questions.And tomorrow, should she be saying this
0:14:20 > 0:14:24was the response, or should she say now we will think about it response
0:14:24 > 0:14:28and gather a coalition of allies?I think she will take it to the next
0:14:28 > 0:14:32stage. She will say what evidence is now available, how she will put into
0:14:32 > 0:14:39the public domain and what the consequences are.
0:14:39 > 0:14:46And the same question to you.The nature of the question shows what is
0:14:46 > 0:14:50the important point, the UK needs to be part of an alliance, part of the
0:14:50 > 0:14:54European Union, what with EU allies. Unfortunately this is the worst
0:14:54 > 0:15:00possible moment for the UK to leave the EU just as Russia becomes the
0:15:00 > 0:15:06surgeon in many spheres not just inside Britain. The most the UK
0:15:06 > 0:15:12could do to revive those alliances, the better. It is all about the
0:15:12 > 0:15:17allies but also about understanding why we do have power and influence.
0:15:17 > 0:15:22The Russians keep their money, their wives and children, their property,
0:15:22 > 0:15:26in this country and western Europe. Ending that practice, the
0:15:26 > 0:15:32money-laundering done, enforcing our own laws and using those laws about
0:15:32 > 0:15:36mysterious money, we now allowed to go and ask people where your money
0:15:36 > 0:15:42comes from. Pushing that through, ending the practice of using shell
0:15:42 > 0:15:47companies to buy property, companies in the UK, that could all make an
0:15:47 > 0:15:54enormous difference.And you would agree with that, you support the
0:15:54 > 0:15:59Magnitsky Amendment.Yes, that enables us to take serious measures
0:15:59 > 0:16:04against those conducting themselves in this way from Russia and I think
0:16:04 > 0:16:08Parliament will want to see something like the full Magnitsky
0:16:08 > 0:16:13Amendment that has been introduced in America and Canada.A couple of
0:16:13 > 0:16:19other options, a World Cup boycott, surely pointless unless everyone
0:16:19 > 0:16:28does the same?I think it is silly to involve sport and talk about a
0:16:28 > 0:16:33ban. We need to use the leverage we have in those areas where we can
0:16:33 > 0:16:36control things that matter. And working in conjunction with other
0:16:36 > 0:16:42allies. Imagine if we could end Russian money-laundering all across
0:16:42 > 0:16:55Europe and begin working with the EU to close all the loopholes.I would
0:16:55 > 0:17:01not ban RTX. I spoke out during the Russian bombing of Aleppo and they
0:17:01 > 0:17:09carried that in Russia. I do not think it is sensible to ban arty.It
0:17:09 > 0:17:22gives credence to the view that broadcasting is partisan here.It is
0:17:22 > 0:17:30not sensible to ban Russian state elevation.Of all the things, the
0:17:30 > 0:17:35specific things you've heard, I know you want a big strategy for the West
0:17:35 > 0:17:42to align itself. What would you do specifically if you with the UK?Let
0:17:42 > 0:17:48me just address what my colleague has already said, everyone should
0:17:48 > 0:17:53understand this is war. This is aggression against Britain,
0:17:53 > 0:18:00aggression against other countries, aggression against the West. And in
0:18:00 > 0:18:05the war of aggression there is no response that would be enough or not
0:18:05 > 0:18:10enough. So that is why all these instruments that have already been
0:18:10 > 0:18:18mentioned dealing with illegal financial assets in London or the
0:18:18 > 0:18:22Magnitsky act or the state broadcaster of all of them are
0:18:22 > 0:18:28important. All of them are important but they are only elements. Some
0:18:28 > 0:18:33elements of the possible grand strategy. So you do not need to
0:18:33 > 0:18:39forget about the long-term goal of such a strategy. And that is why
0:18:39 > 0:18:46those instruments could not
0:18:46 > 0:18:49those instruments could not only be elements but if you really want to
0:18:49 > 0:18:57win the war you need to give this expression.Thank you very much.
0:18:57 > 0:18:59Well, we've referred to it already.
0:18:59 > 0:19:01Rex Tillerson, US secretary of State, has finally,
0:19:01 > 0:19:04after months of chat about it - been sacked by President Trump.
0:19:04 > 0:19:07Mr Tillerson was reportedly not actually told,
0:19:07 > 0:19:10other than finding out with everyone else when the President
0:19:10 > 0:19:11announced it on Twitter.
0:19:11 > 0:19:14One satirical website suggested that Tillerson had been surprised to find
0:19:14 > 0:19:17he was still in the job.
0:19:17 > 0:19:19He had certainly been semi-detached from the Trump operation
0:19:19 > 0:19:26for almost his entire period in office.
0:19:26 > 0:19:31When he was appointed 13 months ago, Rex Tillerson was an outsider.
0:19:31 > 0:19:34He wasn't a politician, but a former Exxon chief executive, and he'd
0:19:34 > 0:19:39never met Donald Trump until he was offered the job.
0:19:39 > 0:19:41At his Senate confirmation, a record number of
0:19:41 > 0:19:42votes went against him.
0:19:42 > 0:19:45Democrats suggested he was too pro-Putin.
0:19:45 > 0:19:47Now of course, the line is he has been
0:19:47 > 0:19:51sacked because he is too anti-Russian for president Trump.
0:19:51 > 0:19:53That is not the President's line.
0:19:53 > 0:19:56We got along actually quite well.
0:19:56 > 0:19:58But we disagreed on things.
0:19:58 > 0:20:00When you look at the Iran deal, I think
0:20:00 > 0:20:05it's terrible, I guess he thought it was OK.
0:20:05 > 0:20:08I wanted to either break it or do something and he felt a little
0:20:08 > 0:20:09bit differently.
0:20:09 > 0:20:12And President Trump is right, they clearly have been at
0:20:12 > 0:20:13odds.
0:20:13 > 0:20:15In tone and substance, again and again.
0:20:15 > 0:20:19In the summer Tillerson openly registered his opposition to
0:20:19 > 0:20:22Trump's plan to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
0:20:22 > 0:20:30I was free to express my views.
0:20:31 > 0:20:33I took a counter view to the decision that
0:20:33 > 0:20:34was made.
0:20:34 > 0:20:37But I fully appreciate the elements behind why he took the
0:20:37 > 0:20:38decision.
0:20:38 > 0:20:40And then there was a striking interview that Tillerson
0:20:40 > 0:20:42gave to Fox News after racist violence in Charlottesville,
0:20:42 > 0:20:44distancing himself from the president's views.
0:20:44 > 0:20:52I don't believe anyone doubts the American
0:20:58 > 0:21:00people's values or the commitment of
0:21:00 > 0:21:01the American government, or of the
0:21:01 > 0:21:03government agencies to advancing those values and defending those
0:21:03 > 0:21:04values.
0:21:04 > 0:21:05And the President's values?
0:21:05 > 0:21:07The president speaks for himself, Chris.
0:21:07 > 0:21:10Tempting as it is to see this in terms of policy differences,
0:21:10 > 0:21:12perhaps the real story is just the chaos in the White House.
0:21:12 > 0:21:14John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice,
0:21:14 > 0:21:16Colin Powell, Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher, the last six
0:21:16 > 0:21:19secretaries of state have all served four years, not one.
0:21:19 > 0:21:21And no-one needs reminding that there have been all
0:21:21 > 0:21:29too many comings and goings in an administration so young.
0:21:32 > 0:21:39Well the replacement to Rex Tillerson is Mike Pompeo. He is a
0:21:39 > 0:21:43defender of the CIA after a Senate report on torture detailing
0:21:43 > 0:21:50practices such as waterboarding. He said that they were heroes and not
0:21:50 > 0:21:59torturers. So where I things in the White House?
0:22:03 > 0:22:06I'm joined from Washington by David Frum - he was a speechwriter
0:22:06 > 0:22:08for George W Bush and has recently written a book about
0:22:08 > 0:22:09Donald Trump's White House.
0:22:09 > 0:22:13Anne Applebaum is still with me too.
0:22:13 > 0:22:18I think he will be remembered at the least bad Secretary of State under
0:22:18 > 0:22:26Donald Trump. I will direct attention to a story that may not
0:22:26 > 0:22:30broken in the UK but is indicative of what is going on. Rex Tillerson
0:22:30 > 0:22:36was not the only person to lose his job today, Donald Trump also lost
0:22:36 > 0:22:39his chief personal aide, the person who would walk around with the
0:22:39 > 0:22:42president and hold onto things for him. It turns out he was escorted
0:22:42 > 0:22:47from the building to the new job because he is under investigation
0:22:47 > 0:22:50for serious financial crimes. That is the kind of thing that is
0:22:50 > 0:22:56happening more and more, people going out for reasons that another
0:22:56 > 0:23:01administration 's would have prevented them even serving as
0:23:01 > 0:23:07visitors let alone star.You were a fan of Rex Tillerson?I think he
0:23:07 > 0:23:10will be remembered as a disastrous secretary of state. He treated the
0:23:10 > 0:23:14State Department as if it were a kind of non-performing part of Exxon
0:23:14 > 0:23:19and tried to reform it, bases. He stuck to a tiny group of advisers,
0:23:19 > 0:23:25he ignored diplomats and expect. He tried to do large-scale reforms
0:23:25 > 0:23:28which no one saw the point of, mostly to do with cutting money
0:23:28 > 0:23:35which is not how you want to push the diplomatic corps. All kinds of
0:23:35 > 0:23:39people left the State Department. Huge numbers of exits.He made
0:23:39 > 0:23:45diplomacy seemed like an unattractive thing. Having said
0:23:45 > 0:23:49that, these things are not exclusive, on the one hand you could
0:23:49 > 0:23:53say he was a terrible secretary of state at also say the next one main
0:23:53 > 0:24:01be no better. So not clear that we have reason to rejoice.Do we think
0:24:01 > 0:24:05might Pompeo will be less of a restraining influence on the
0:24:05 > 0:24:11president and the world will be more subject to changes and policy
0:24:11 > 0:24:17changes in the presidency?Mike Pompeo was a businessman and member
0:24:17 > 0:24:23of Congress, and much more sensitive reader of the personality of the
0:24:23 > 0:24:29president than Rex Tillerson. So he will bend more to the presidential
0:24:29 > 0:24:33will then Rex Tillerson and seems more in line with his views on Iran.
0:24:33 > 0:24:38But we're already escalating crisis in the Korean peninsula, the idea
0:24:38 > 0:24:45that we could escalate that with Iran as well, to nuclear crisis at
0:24:45 > 0:24:53the one time.And just expand on your idea about more instability to
0:24:53 > 0:24:57come. And thinking in foreign policy. You have all these crises
0:24:57 > 0:25:00but just in terms of the sort of day-to-day stuff outside of the
0:25:00 > 0:25:06three or four critical things on the top of the list for the Secretary of
0:25:06 > 0:25:12State.Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he has his administration
0:25:12 > 0:25:16not quite the way he wants, but almost. Indicating more changes are
0:25:16 > 0:25:21to come. And he also seems to be more and more impatient on any kind
0:25:21 > 0:25:24of restraint on him. That augurs ill for those members of his
0:25:24 > 0:25:28administration who have tried to restrain him in one way or another.
0:25:28 > 0:25:37Chief of staff John Kelly, people who are good at their jobs and have
0:25:37 > 0:25:44told the president you cannot do this or that.It feels like people
0:25:44 > 0:25:48come and go so frequently, can we believe that for another three years
0:25:48 > 0:25:53or even seven years under resident tramp, that that kind of place of
0:25:53 > 0:26:00chaos can carry on.It happens in other countries, Italy for years had
0:26:00 > 0:26:04government that changed constantly, in Latin American countries people
0:26:04 > 0:26:08come and go all the time. We get used to thinking of the United
0:26:08 > 0:26:11States as a stately model where things happen slowly and
0:26:11 > 0:26:16administrations do not change. And the secretaries of state stick
0:26:16 > 0:26:19around for four years but really there's no reason to expect that.
0:26:19 > 0:26:25This is a president who wants to hear, he wants people to express his
0:26:25 > 0:26:32will and when they do not he fires them. He does not want to hear
0:26:32 > 0:26:37people contradict him. But he did not like about Rex Tillerson is that
0:26:37 > 0:26:42he sometimes said no, that is not how things are, I see things
0:26:42 > 0:26:49differently. Mike Pompeo, he has been good and ripping the president,
0:26:49 > 0:26:52outlining his views with those of the president. Done a couple of
0:26:52 > 0:26:58things that think are worrying, one of them he actually lied about an
0:26:58 > 0:27:03CIA report and said it showed there was no Russian interference of
0:27:03 > 0:27:09significance in the election whereas the report said the opposite.I do
0:27:09 > 0:27:16not want to talk much more about Russia but how much did it play in
0:27:16 > 0:27:20the sacking of Rex Tillerson?We do not know the answer to that because
0:27:20 > 0:27:25we do not know exactly when Rex Tillerson was fired. The president
0:27:25 > 0:27:28clearly has been on his way to this decision for some time for Doctor
0:27:28 > 0:27:35John Kelly the. As said to reporters, that he had indicated to
0:27:35 > 0:27:38Rex Tillerson on Friday to be braced for bad news. But the actual firing
0:27:38 > 0:27:43happened today, the day after Rex Tillerson gave support to the UK in
0:27:43 > 0:27:47a way that is more forthright than the president has yet done. He has
0:27:47 > 0:27:53not yet agreed that Theresa May was correct in what she said to the
0:27:53 > 0:27:57House of Commons. In any normal administration the US and the UK
0:27:57 > 0:27:59would have worked out their statement in advance. In private
0:27:59 > 0:28:04agreement before either country made a public statement on the matter so
0:28:04 > 0:28:10serious. So if he has undercut Theresa May and that is quite
0:28:10 > 0:28:14troubling and troubled Rex Tillerson.
0:28:14 > 0:28:16In the end, international news completely overshadowed the first
0:28:16 > 0:28:17ever Chancellor's Spring Statement.
0:28:17 > 0:28:20On this day in years past we would have had a full-on Budget,
0:28:20 > 0:28:23but Philip Hammond has moved that to the autumn, so today
0:28:23 > 0:28:25we had a slimmed down update on where we are.
0:28:25 > 0:28:28The Chancellor's central thought was that the economic news
0:28:28 > 0:28:30is marginally better - spring is in the air, but the long
0:28:30 > 0:28:33term projections have not changed, and so only if things continue
0:28:33 > 0:28:37to improve will there be extra money to spend.
0:28:37 > 0:28:40Nevertheless, the Chancellor was in an upbeat form,
0:28:40 > 0:28:44eschewing his traditional role as the gloomy one in the cabinet.
0:28:44 > 0:28:47And if, in the autumn, the public finances continue
0:28:47 > 0:28:51to reflect the improvements that today's report hints at,
0:28:51 > 0:28:54then in accordance with our balanced approach and using the flexibility
0:28:54 > 0:28:59provided by the fiscal rules, I would have capacity to enable
0:28:59 > 0:29:05further increases in public spending and investment in the years ahead.
0:29:05 > 0:29:08While continuing to drive value for money to ensure that not
0:29:08 > 0:29:16a single penny of precious taxpayers' money is wasted.
0:29:22 > 0:29:27He even likened himself to Tigger. Now he had to offer a more
0:29:27 > 0:29:32optimistic outlook.
0:29:32 > 0:29:35With hope of more spending later, but not so optimistic that people
0:29:35 > 0:29:36could demand extra spending NOW.
0:29:36 > 0:29:37And here's a graph to show why.
0:29:37 > 0:29:39This is the OBR graph on borrowing.
0:29:39 > 0:29:41That's the Office for Budget Responsibility -
0:29:41 > 0:29:42the official forecaster.
0:29:42 > 0:29:43This goes back over a decade.
0:29:43 > 0:29:46So this is what has happened over the last decade -
0:29:46 > 0:29:48you see borrowing soar, and now, the government
0:29:48 > 0:29:51has got it right down.
0:29:51 > 0:29:55It's a huge adjustment.
0:29:55 > 0:29:57So are we there yet, as every impatient child asks
0:29:57 > 0:29:59on a long car journey?
0:29:59 > 0:30:03Can we relax now?
0:30:03 > 0:30:06This is what the OBR did think would happen to borrowing over
0:30:06 > 0:30:08the next five years; this is what they projected
0:30:08 > 0:30:09back in November.
0:30:09 > 0:30:11Borrowing falling, but still not disappearing.
0:30:11 > 0:30:14So that's the old forecast, And then we got the new,
0:30:14 > 0:30:15more optimistic one today.
0:30:15 > 0:30:20Here it is - and you see that not much has changed.
0:30:20 > 0:30:22Borrowing comes down, but is not eliminated.
0:30:22 > 0:30:30Well, I'm joined by Nick Watt.
0:30:30 > 0:30:34What were your impressions of this statement?Against the backdrop you
0:30:34 > 0:30:40were talking about, the dour Spreadsheet Phil macro became de
0:30:40 > 0:30:46rigueur Phil and indeed liberated Phil. He gave a much stronger
0:30:46 > 0:30:51indication of spending in the November Budget, but said no, I do
0:30:51 > 0:30:56have my fiscal head room, but November is a long way off, so let's
0:30:56 > 0:31:00be cautious about that. And to other things he will do in November is
0:31:00 > 0:31:04that he will use that headroom to keep taxes low and to keep paying
0:31:04 > 0:31:09down the deficit. But we also saw liberated Phil, and the Chancellor
0:31:09 > 0:31:13was able to make arguments against labour that he was not allowed to
0:31:13 > 0:31:15make in the general election. He is essentially going to say the choice
0:31:15 > 0:31:22now between vote Conservatives and you will get spending up and get
0:31:22 > 0:31:26down, vote Labour and you will get spending up and that up, to which
0:31:26 > 0:31:29Labour will no doubt say, if used in the late and economy, you can expand
0:31:29 > 0:31:36an economy.One eye-catching thing not so much obvious from the speech
0:31:36 > 0:31:41but from the documentation of the OBR - about Brexit.That's right, a
0:31:41 > 0:31:46very striking graph in the OBR book, saying that the UK will be paying
0:31:46 > 0:31:51its Brexit divorce bill up until 2064. It's important to say that the
0:31:51 > 0:31:59OBR is mapping out the Treasury plan. That means it will take 48
0:31:59 > 0:32:03years after the referendum for the UK to finally settle its accounts.
0:32:03 > 0:32:07The Treasury is very relaxed about this. They are saying two key things
0:32:07 > 0:32:13which you should be able to see from that graph. 75% of that will be paid
0:32:13 > 0:32:16off by 2022, which coincidentally will be the next general election.
0:32:16 > 0:32:21The other thing they are saying is that this was actually a UK idea, to
0:32:21 > 0:32:26ensure that the UK doesn't make any payments earlier than if it had been
0:32:26 > 0:32:30a member state of the European Union. And obviously, the crucial
0:32:30 > 0:32:34thing is pensions and if the UK wanted to change the profile of
0:32:34 > 0:32:38those payments, we could negotiate it.Thank you.
0:32:38 > 0:32:40Mel Stride is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and Peter Dowd
0:32:40 > 0:32:47is Shadow Chief Sectary to the Treasury.
0:32:48 > 0:32:52Mel, are you happy with the level of public services and how much we are
0:32:52 > 0:32:56spending on them?Well, we always want to do more and we have done a
0:32:56 > 0:33:03great deal.So you must be happy.We have spent over £60 billion on
0:33:03 > 0:33:08additional public expenditure. In the last Budget, we put an extra 6.3
0:33:08 > 0:33:13billion into the National Health Service.You are quoting all these
0:33:13 > 0:33:17numbers, but are you happy with the level of public services at the
0:33:17 > 0:33:25moment?Going forward...Are you happy?It has to be seen in the
0:33:25 > 0:33:29context of taking a balanced approach.So are you happy?What I
0:33:29 > 0:33:33am happy is that the Chancellor's sense of direction is that we need
0:33:33 > 0:33:38to keep bearing down on the deficit, and the OBR says we are successfully
0:33:38 > 0:33:44doing that. At the same time, we look to invest in public services.
0:33:44 > 0:33:48So obviously, you are unable to say you are happy with the level of
0:33:48 > 0:33:53public services at the moment, and yet your policy is to cut them by
0:33:53 > 0:33:58another 1% in 2019, another 1% on top of that in 2020 and another 1%
0:33:58 > 0:34:02in real terms per capita. The day-to-day spending on public
0:34:02 > 0:34:07services still has to be cut year after year. So you must be pretty
0:34:07 > 0:34:11unhappy. You can't say you are happy with them at the moment, and you are
0:34:11 > 0:34:15planning another three years of cuts.We have to look at the whole
0:34:15 > 0:34:20picture, which is firstly being a responsible government that takes a
0:34:20 > 0:34:27sensible approach to bringing down the deficit.You could put up taxes.
0:34:27 > 0:34:33Well, this comes to my other point. Firstly, we need to bear down on the
0:34:33 > 0:34:36deficit, or we will leave ourselves vulnerable to external economic
0:34:36 > 0:34:40shocks. Secondly, we want to invest in public services and we have done
0:34:40 > 0:34:46a huge amount of that.Prior to cutting them.Thirdly, we do want to
0:34:46 > 0:34:50make sure we do whatever we can to alleviate the financial pressures on
0:34:50 > 0:34:56a hard-working family.
0:34:57 > 0:34:58a hard-working family.You are outlining a big group of
0:34:58 > 0:35:03incompatible objectives. You are not giving me a policy. We would all
0:35:03 > 0:35:09love lower taxes, better public spending and less borrowing.
0:35:09 > 0:35:13Stewardship of the economy is of course about choices.Petered out,
0:35:13 > 0:35:20your choices are to spend more and tax more, correct?To tax more in
0:35:20 > 0:35:26relation to the top 5%, yes.The Conservative Party are saying you
0:35:26 > 0:35:30can have all the welfare state you like and pay no more tax, which
0:35:30 > 0:35:35isn't true. On the other side, Labour are saying we can levy more
0:35:35 > 0:35:37tax but someone else will pay because it will come from the rich,
0:35:37 > 0:35:43which also isn't true.Well, it is true. I have spoken to you before
0:35:43 > 0:35:48about funding Britain's future. We set out in the manifesto £46 billion
0:35:48 > 0:35:54worth of expenditure and £48.6 billion.Paul Johnson went on to say
0:35:54 > 0:35:57Labour's manifesto had a lot of overestimates on what you can get
0:35:57 > 0:36:08from the rich and it did not balance out.Yes, it did.
0:36:08 > 0:36:13out.Yes, it did.Do you take expert advice?Of course we do.And is
0:36:13 > 0:36:16there any group of experts better than the Institute for Fiscal
0:36:16 > 0:36:19Studies on making these kinds of financial conjecture?Of course they
0:36:19 > 0:36:24are entitled to their view, but we do take advice.But their view is a
0:36:24 > 0:36:29pretty good view. They have a good overview of the tax system.But that
0:36:29 > 0:36:36is not the only view.But should the public believe them, who have no
0:36:36 > 0:36:41agenda, or you, who are trying to sell us better public services
0:36:41 > 0:36:49without having to pay for them's well, the government refused access
0:36:49 > 0:36:54to the OBR. The guy running the OBR used to run the IFS. You would get
0:36:54 > 0:37:00the same answer from the OBR, I suspect.Maybe a at least we could
0:37:00 > 0:37:04have the opportunity to test that out.Isn't the truth that both of
0:37:04 > 0:37:08you are trying to infantilise the nation and denied the nation a
0:37:08 > 0:37:11sensible decision we have to make, that if we want better social care
0:37:11 > 0:37:15and they better NHS, we probably have to spend another £15 billion on
0:37:15 > 0:37:20public services? Borrowing is not too low, so we have two tax more,
0:37:20 > 0:37:25and we have to tax real people more to pay for extra public spending. Do
0:37:25 > 0:37:30you have any agreement with that? And my Justin Tucker Ghulam?It is
0:37:30 > 0:37:33not about being in cloud cuckoo land. We are trying to set out
0:37:33 > 0:37:38spending plans in our document.So you are against straightforward
0:37:38 > 0:37:45increases in spending?At the end of the day, we would not start from
0:37:45 > 0:37:51where we are now. The point I was making before is the question of
0:37:51 > 0:37:54investment. We are not getting the investment in the economy that we
0:37:54 > 0:38:02need.Do you ever think that maybe we just need a bit more tax to pay
0:38:02 > 0:38:07for social care? You are from Devon. What do your local Conservative
0:38:07 > 0:38:13council say about funding in their backyard?We recognise that there
0:38:13 > 0:38:18are precious out there.If the vulnerable and elderly of Devon are
0:38:18 > 0:38:22to be supported, it is essential that additional funding is secured.
0:38:22 > 0:38:27That is your local Conservative. There is no way of my taking up the
0:38:27 > 0:38:34money.There is, put up taxes.Some will say that that is possible, but
0:38:34 > 0:38:40we know from history that it is not possible.It's not possible to raise
0:38:40 > 0:38:46taxes for better public services? What are you talking about?Because
0:38:46 > 0:38:50we take a balanced approach to the economy, which means we have to get
0:38:50 > 0:38:55on top of the debt. Equally, we want to take the pressure of hard-pressed
0:38:55 > 0:38:59households. That doesn't mean overburdening them with additional
0:38:59 > 0:39:03taxes, the kind of spending policy that the Labour Party will pursue
0:39:03 > 0:39:07will not leave people feeling better off. It will make them worse off and
0:39:07 > 0:39:11in the long term would derail the hard work we have done.The
0:39:11 > 0:39:15government have their own fantasy figures in their Budget and to make
0:39:15 > 0:39:19up fantasy figures for Labour is ridiculous. We have set up our
0:39:19 > 0:39:27spending plans.And the IFS say they are not credible.People have
0:39:27 > 0:39:31different opinions, but the bottom line is that the nation is in a mess
0:39:31 > 0:39:37in terms of economic growth, productivity. Schools are having
0:39:37 > 0:39:45cuts to their budget. And people out there recognise that. People out
0:39:45 > 0:39:52there who can't get social care recognise that.He says he is not
0:39:52 > 0:39:58happy with public services as they are.I didn't say that.You didn't
0:39:58 > 0:40:02say you were happy.I don't agree with Peter's characterisation of our
0:40:02 > 0:40:09country and our economy.Half your cabinet are arguing the same thing.
0:40:09 > 0:40:12This is an economy with a near-record level of employment.
0:40:12 > 0:40:22Then why is it not possible... If it is going well, as
0:40:23 > 0:40:27is going well, as you say, why do we not have social care that is
0:40:27 > 0:40:31adequately funded?We will have a green paper on social care. We have
0:40:31 > 0:40:34already put £2 billion into social care. And the reason we have been
0:40:34 > 0:40:38able to do those things is that our stewardship of the economy has been
0:40:38 > 0:40:41responsible. If you go for this tax and spend and spray the money
0:40:41 > 0:40:52around, it ends up in disaster. We end up back where we were in 2010.
0:40:52 > 0:40:59You keep saying tax and spend. You have gone from a strong and stable
0:40:59 > 0:41:03economy to the magic money tree. You gave the DUP £1 billion, which
0:41:03 > 0:41:07suddenly was found. The magic monetary analogy went. The bottom
0:41:07 > 0:41:11line is that the country is in need of investment and we are not getting
0:41:11 > 0:41:16it from the government.And that, gentlemen, is where we have to leave
0:41:16 > 0:41:21it. It was a good discussion. Thank you both. That is all we have time
0:41:21 > 0:41:28for. I will be here tomorrow. Until then, good night.