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