Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by guests including Lord Charles Falconer and Angela Rayner MP.
Browse content similar to 10/07/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Jeremy Corbyn will be challenged for the Labour Party leadership
by his former shadow cabinet colleague, Angela Eagle.
So what makes her so sure she can win?
She's the favoured candidate of Tory MPs, but will Theresa May win over
the party's grassroots to become the next Prime Minister?
And if she makes it to Number 10, what will her premiership be like?
We'll hear from May-supporter, Chris Grayling.
And after two tumultuous weeks following the referendum result,
a leading Remain campaign insider gives us her candid account
Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland, I'll be talking to former
Also on the programme, coming to terms with Brexonomics.
Golden opportunity or economic meltdown?
And with me - Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Isabel Oakeshott to
help guide us through the political maelstrom - they'll be tweeting
throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp.
The battle to take over from David Cameron as Conservative Party
leader and Prime Minister has rapidly moved into its final phase
- a vote of Conservative Party members who must choose
between the Home Secretary and remain supporter Theresa May,
and the business minister and Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom.
Speaking at the launch of her campaign, Theresa May said
she wanted to unite the Conservative Party - and the country.
If ever there was a time for a Prime Minister who is ready
and able to do the job from day one, this is it.
We have immediate work to do, to restore political stability
To bring together the party and the country.
And to negotiate a sensible and orderly departure
But more than that, we have a mission to make Britain
a country that works, not for the privileged and not
for the few, but for every one of our citizens.
I've been joined by the leader of the commons, Chris Grayling,
who was one of four cabinet ministers to campaign to leave
the EU but who is now supporting Theresa May -
Why are you supporting Mrs May as a Leaver? The key thing is having a
person who is right for the job. David Cameron chose to step aside, I
regret that. We need someone to step into his shoes in whom I have
confidence that they will deliver Brexit. I have known Theresa for a
long time. She is a determined politician. Having got a mandate
from the public to deliver Brexit, she will do that. What assurances
have you sought from her? I have sought assurances that she means
Brexit is Brexit. The country has spoken. The country has given us a
clear direction to follow. The next Prime Minister has to follow that
Matt and I am confident that Theresa May is committed to that. But Brexit
can mean one of several things. They're of a. So what do you say to
Tory twos, who were on your side, that she will water down the Brexit
terms? That is not right. It is not just me, we have a range of Tory
Leavers who are backing her, because we think she has the weight and
experience to deliver. But I am not sure what assurances you have got
that she will deliver as you would want her to. For example, can you
guarantee to our viewers that she will not settle for a British
version of Norway's relationship with the EU, or Switzerland's
relationship? We have said all along that we want a UK solution. It is
not about trying to replicate someone else. We have a clear
mandate to end the principle of unfettered free movement in the UK
from elsewhere in the European Union. We saw Lily 200,000 people
arrive in the UK last year. The British public want that to change.
Theresa May palmist "Control of free movement. That needn't be the same
as the end of free movement. What does she mean? That is what we
campaigned on for four and a half months, taking back control. What I
find unacceptable is that we cannot control the flow of people into the
country. There will be times when we need to recruit particular skills
and we need to allow people to move within businesses. We need to have a
managed system. It is all about control. It is about our government
being able to decide when, how and where the number of people who can
come and live and work in the UK. But for some EU citizens, would
there still be an automatic right to compare? It will depend on what our
rules are. The whole point is that it is about control. At the moment,
we cannot set limits on the number of people who live and work here.
The clear mandate from the British public, something that Theresa
recognised and said so in her opening speech last week we have to
take back control of our migration. But we don't know what that means.
It means our parliament being able to set limits on the number of
people who can live and work here. What sort of limits? That will be
decided depending on whether we have skills needs, housing shortages and
circumstances. None of us think we will erect barricades at Dover and
nobody can ever live and work in the UK. But it is fundamental that
ultimate control should reside with our government. Why do you trust has
me on free movement when after six years at the Home Office, she
couldn't even get non-EU debt migration below 100,000, which was
the promise, never mind overall net migration? First of all, we spent
five of those six years in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. She was
not stopped from doing anything. We have just passed our first
conservative only immigration act that will allow us to close the bank
accounts and taking away the driving licences of people who overstate.
One of the problems is people who come here legitimately for a short
time, but never go. But she was so far out. Net migration was three
times the target she agreed to six years ago. Why would you trust her
to get it right when so far, she's got it wrong? If you look at the
flow of migrants from inside the European Union, she had no ability
to control that. But she has not controlled those from outside. We
have just passed our first Conservative only immigration act.
There have been limits to what we could do in coalition. As Theresa
May herself said the other day, it is difficult because people are
constantly looking for new ways around our system. I believe the
acts we past two months ago will make a difference. Were our borders
safer under Mrs May than they were in 2010? Our borders are safe in
terms of counterterrorism. What has she done to make us safer? A huge
amount has been done to protect our borders. In Calais, we now have a
much better system of border control. We have been able to resist
enormous pressure from people who want to come in illegally. What has
she done to make British borders safer? She'd traduced new measures
on the immigration front -- introduced new measures. She
negotiated international agreements so that Abu Qatada was ported to
Jordan. In my view, she has done a huge amount to improve the security
services. As Home Secretary, she is responsible for MI5. They have done
a fantastic job protecting us. Will she rule out a second referendum?
There is no question of a second referendum. One of her supporters,
Dominic Grieve, says people can change their minds. We are all clear
that there is not going to be a second referendum. We can't just say
to the British public, we don't like what you said, so we are going to
ask again. Those of us who campaigned for Leave would not serve
in a government that chucked away the first result and decided to have
another go. Speaking of the campaign, do you regard the promises
vote leaves made during the referendum as sacrosanct? I said to
you that a campaign group can only make recommendations. But you made a
number of promises. You promised explicitly that the status of EU
citizens already here would not change. Mrs May is not promising
that. I cannot conceive of a situation where we want to end the
rights of EU citizens who are here to not remain. There are always
individual circumstances... But she is talking about them being a
bargaining chip. You said during the campaign, there will be no change
for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. Mrs May is not
saying that. For those who have been more than five years in the UK, that
is legally the case. But we want to make sure we can protect our own
citizens in other EU countries. It is right that a UK Government should
have its own system. But during the campaign, you never said there will
be no change to EU citizens here, provided the EU looks after our
citizens over there. That was never a condition. Now are you saying it
is? I don't think there will be any change on either side. Everyone will
take a grown-up approach might it would be too damaging to do
otherwise. But we must look after the interests of our own citizens.
So why doesn't she say that? She says she doesn't want to agree
anything until she sees how they treat our citizens. Are you
comfortable with the line she has taken? The only people who support
her on this are the BNP. She has said what I have said. I am
expecting all it is except those who have committed criminal offences to
be able to stay -- all EU citizens. That is right and proper, but we
must make sure we can look after the rights of new cases and is. Has Mrs
May guaranteed to you that we will be out of the EU by the next general
election? She has said we will trigger article 50 around the end of
this year. There is then a two-year time frame and the next general
election is 2020. So I can't see any circumstance in which we would not
leave by then. Gone by 2020. Chris Grayling, thank you.
After a protracted campaign of resignations, a massive vote
of no confidence from his MPs, and an attempt by his deputy
to negotiate some sort of compromise deal with the unions,
it's now clear the Jeremy Corbyn will face a leadership challenge.
Some suspected it might fizzle out, but Angela Eagle has finally
announced she will go for the top job after all, saying she wants to
explain her vision for the country. It comes after Labour's deputy
leader Tom Watson called off a debate over Jeremy Corbyn's future,
saying there was no realistic prospect of reaching a compromise
because of this to Corbyn's refusal to stand down. That provoked an
angry response from Unite leader Len McCluskey, who said Tom Watson's
actions today can only look like an act of sabotage, fraught with peril
for the future of the Labour Party. So what happens now? Angela Eagle
needs to get the backing of 20% of MPs and MEPs. The magic and Amber is
currently 51. There is also the prospect of another senior Labour
figure like Owen Smith throwing his hat into the ring. The big question
remains over whether Jeremy Corbyn automatically gets onto the ballot,
or whether he needs to get 51 nominations himself, a difficult
task, given that the Labour leader lost the vote of no-confidence among
his MPs by 172 votes to 40. But if he does get on the ballot paper, it
is Angela Eagle who has the difficult job. Over a quarter of a
million people voted for Mr Corbyn in the last Labour leadership
election. Nearly 60% of the vote. Since the EU referendum, nearly
130,000 people have joined the Labour Party. But it is unclear how
many of them want to help or hinder Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
Jeremy Corbyn appeared on the Andrew Marr programme
a little earlier on BBC One - and was in no mood
Why time-limit a leadership when I've been elected
by a very large number of members and supporters
an election somewhere results in a different leader,
But I would be irresponsible if I walked away
from a mandate that I was given and a responsibility I was given.
I ask colleagues to respect that as well.
Why are you challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership? I
think it's clear that he has lost the confidence of MPs in the
parliamentary party. Tom Watson, Howard deputy leader, who has his
own mandate Rosie Winterton, the Chief Whip, John Quire, the chair of
the Parliamentary Labour Party and a friend of Jeremy's, have been going
to try to say to him that he needs the confidence of the Parliamentary
party to continue. He's not listening. You can't leave behind an
office door. Maybe he is not listening because he has a huge
mandate from the party membership. As Labour leader, he has won every
by-election and he has won the London mayoral election, the largest
party in the local governor elections. Why wouldn't he carry on?
We lost seats in the local government elections when we have a
Conservative government. We should be doing better. Polling shows that
we are 7% behind the Conservatives, even after all the tumult they have
been through and more importantly, we lost the EU referendum.
That was not his fault. No, but he wasn't connecting with Labour voters
and he did not put the argument across, and so I think we need a
strengthened Labour Party and an opposition which can unite so we can
heal the country. Unfortunately I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can do
that job. Other than Trident, what are the major policy differences?
I'm on the left, any party IDs will be anti-austerity, what has happened
in our heartlands, they have been hit by six years of Conservative
cuts -- any party I lead. That is Jeremy Corbyn, that is his position,
as well, what are the differences? I want to be a strong united
opposition to get into government. Jeremy was asked in that interview
three times whether he thought he could win a general election and he
did not say yes. For our supporters and for the people we came into
politics to represent, we need a Labour Party that can position
itself as a strong united opposition and win a general election. In your
view that is having a leader as a winner, but what are the major
policy differences? I don't think Jeremy has managed to get across a
strategy for winning. I'm on the left and my politics came out of
what happened when I was growing up when my parents, they were prevented
from fulfilling their opportunities because we had Labour governments I
was able to fulfil mind, and I want a Labour Party that can deliver
that. Jeremy does not talk about that. We will move on. He is the
incumbent leader, should he not be on the ballot against you as a
right? The Labour Party rules and the way it is done, and Jeremy
Chardy know this, Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock in 1988 --
Jeremy should know this. It is not clear he had to do this. Neil
Kinnock can't remember if he had to do this, or whether he did it to
show the strength. Putting aside the roles, most people watching this
programme, not just Jeremy Corbyn fans, they will find it strange that
the man who won the leadership fairly and decisively, now
challenged by you, is not automatically allowed to defend his
title? That is not clear from the Labour Party rules, the National
executive committee will make a decision on that. Anyone who aspires
to lead the Parliamentary party who can't get 51 members, 20% of the
Parliamentary party, to back them, they are not going to be able to do
the job properly and we are in challenging times, the Brexit vote,
a government which has gone missing in action. We need a strong lead
from the Labour Party if we are going to protect our communities who
are going to be the hardest hit. Nothing of that lead is coming from
Jeremy at the moment. You are the self-styled party of fairness, don't
you think it will offend against natural justice against most
people's idea of fairness if the incumbent who is challenged by you
is not allowed to fight you in an election? Work that seem incredible?
Forget the rules, just offends against fairness. I don't know what
the outcome is going to be of the decision-making process. I'm ready
to fight a leadership challenge and have debates about the future of our
party with anyone, Jeremy or anyone else who seeks to stand. Len
McCluskey, the most important person in the Labour Party, perhaps. Not
say that. I have a lot of respect him, but that is a big perhaps. He
says keeping Jeremy Corbyn of the ballot would cause lasting division
in the party. It would. This is not about the Labour Party being split,
this is about it being an effective and united opposition to make our
democracy work so we can challenge is Conservative government which has
done such damage with the Brexit vote. I want to say that if you
think we should have a strong and effective Labour Party and a strong
democracy, challenging the Conservatives, join the Labour Party
now. Do it today, you can do it online. 130,000 new members have
joined Labour since the referendum. Who are they? The Labour Party
nationally knows who they are. Have they been vetted? I have no idea at
what the Labour Party office are doing about the new members. But it
is important that people who think that we need a strong opposition,
jaundiced battle now, joined the Labour Party, make us stronger --
join this battle now. The 130,000 people who have joined already, they
should be allowed to vote? That is a matter for the National if sect of
committee to decide, they were in the past. -- National executive
committee. There is no point in them joining if they can't. We opened up
the ?3 membership which was a feature the last campaign. 150,000
people are going to be picking the next Conservative Prime Minister, we
have had nearly that number joining in the last week. Jeremy Corbyn
would say he won by over 235,000 voting for him. You expect to be the
only challenger? I have no idea. What about Owen Smith? We have
spoken, but not recently, I've got no idea, I'm concentrating on
launching my campaign which I will be doing tomorrow. It would be
absurd for you and Owen Smith or someone else from the middle of the
party, the moderate left, to split the anti-Corbyn vote? We have got to
get on with doing our planning and see what happens in the future. I'm
concentrating on getting my campaign up and running, launching it
tomorrow, and joining a battle to have a stronger and united Labour
Party which can give hope back to our country. You voted for the Iraq
war. Do you regret that? I do, and if I had known what I know now, I
would not have supported it. The important thing from the Chilcot
Report is that we learn the lessons of that so those mistakes can never
be made again in the future. John Prescott this morning, he also voted
for it, he says he now regards the war as illegal. Chilcot has not said
that. I'm asking you. It is important that we learn the lessons.
Do you think it was illegal? The evidence at the time and the
Attorney General's opinion at the time was not to that effect and it
is no good trying to second-guess what happened subsequently. We need
to learn the lessons and we need to make sure that if anything like that
happens in the future we have more robust ways of testing these
assertions, but I also think we have a country divided at the moment. You
have said that. Very uncertain about the future. You have said that. We
have got to address those problems. I understand that. But forgive me,
we have not got much time, they will be a motion before Parliament next
week holding Tony Blair for contempt of Parliament because of Iraq, how
will you vote? I have not seen the motion yet. We have got to make
certain that we don't spend our time in Parliament exacting revenge and I
think Tony Blair has been put rightly through the mill about the
decisions he took, the Chilcot Report did that, and I think we
should... We would be far better at learning the lessons and making
certain that we don't fall into the same mistakes if God forbid they
should be a future occasion where these decisions are made. -- there.
Final question, you talk about uniting Labour and the country,
taking on the Tories, but if you lose and Jeremy Corbyn wins or the
reverse, isn't there a clear indication that your party could be
heading for a serious schism? Either way. We need to heal the party under
effective leadership, so we can have a chance of winning the general
election which might come much sooner than we all think. And that
is my main aim with launching this leadership campaign. If he wins, you
will accept the result? You have to accept the result of any... You
would go back into the Shadow Cabinet? You have to accept the
result of any democratic process but I'm focused on winning this and I'm
not going to speculate about what happens afterwards. Angela Eagle,
busy summer head, thank you. It's clear the battle inside Labour
is about to get nasty - in the last hour, the MP
who initiated the vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn,
Margaret Hodge, had this to say I'm beginning to think he's
actually a devious man, who is more concerned
with destroying the Labour Party than he is with creating a force
that can win an election in such difficult times and which
will unite the party. There we are. We have heard from
Chris Grayling and Angela Eagle and Jeremy Corbyn this morning. Helen,
whatever the outcome, it looks like this ends badly for Labour. It is
very interesting. In the new statesman we did an issue about
whether Labour should split, and we said, no, but are now talking to
Labour MPs who are openly talking about this, people who are tribally
Labour and are not metropolitan, they are saying this cannot be sewn
back together. The big question, if Jeremy Corbyn gets on the ballot and
gets 50 MPs, I think he will win, but if he doesn't get on, that
becomes a case of his faction splitting off, so the battle is...
Everyone is imagining a split, but it is who gets left with custody of
the party. Control of the Labour brand, which is powerful. The union
funding is on a downward slope, already, the trade union is going to
reduce that further, Labour have had very little success with big donors
under Jeremy Corbyn. There is a fundamental force at work. The
party's grassroots once a different Labour Parliamentary party and the
Parliamentary Labour Party would like a different grassroots. One or
the other has to go its own way. You can't reconcile them. The texture of
the grassroots has changed in the past year, since the party was
opened up by Ed Miliband to new members. It might be changing in the
other direction even as we speak 130,000 new members since June, the
equivalent of the size of the Tory party, it is possible the bulk of
those people are people that might be, since the referendum campaign,
might want a party that is moderate. We don't know that. Angela Eagle is
taking a punt on the idea that those are relatively centrist voters, but
what I'd take from her and Owen Smith, is not a massive amount of
enthusiasm for running for this big ship, they don't radiate glee at the
prospect of becoming leader, so I wonder if the idea is to have an
interim leader who is moderate and then before 2020 and onto someone
who they think can win a general election. It is a big part on her
part. She sounded so miserable. -- punt. She sounded very depressed
about the idea of launching aided ship contest and that is because
there is no resolution to this. -- launching a leadership contest. If
she wins it is a pyrrhic victory, but if she loses, it won't be
resolved, and it feels like it will not be resolved until the next
general election, when the public and determine what kind of Labour
MPs they both like to fight for that election. It could be a bloodbath.
Last year it was quite lively, and this year, there might be a lot of
screaming at the Labour Party conference. It would be worth the
price of admission to both party conferences this autumn.
The referendum result came as a shock to many, not least those
Lucy Thomas was deputy director of Britain Stronger In.
In an exclusive for the Sunday Politics, she talks to fellow
campaign insiders about how the referendum was lost.
We are absolutely clear now that there is no way
Right up until the end, we thought Remain could win.
I'm Lucy Thomas, and I was deputy director of that campaign,
and one of those that was there from the beginning.
This is the story of what we did and why,
but why, in the end, it wasn't enough.
So let's go back to where it started.
We launched Britain Stronger In Europe on a cold October morning
Cue the usual jokes about our organisation.
We set out to persuade people that Britain was stronger,
safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own,
and that leaving was a leap in the dark, a risk
As a nation of Eurosceptics, we always knew it would be tough,
but I'm not sure we were prepared for what the early research showed.
When we presented that and we discussed it
with you and the team, I think everybody sort
God, this is going to be harder than we thought.
So we built a campaign based on numbers.
It's the economy, stupid, and it had been proven to work
in the Scottish referendum and the general election.
One of the reasons why some of the specific warnings
would have bounced off people was because it sounded
like scaremongering, because it wasn't evidence.
It was just saying, if we vote to leave,
it will cost this many jobs or this much growth
And people said they were crying out to hear from the experts.
to economists, scientists to defence chiefs, they all spoke
for themselves, and the weight of expert opinion was overwhelming.
if the UK was to leave the European Union.
Material slowdown in growth, notable increase in inflation.
In a sense, we were the victims of our own success in the early
part of the campaign, because we landed our economic
We pushed the Leave campaign from Norway to Canada to Albania,
and then finally pushed them entirely off the single market.
Of course, what it meant was that that was the moment
Nigel Farage's approach to this referendum, and to make it
Imagine what will happen to public services...
When I first saw their PPB, the one with all the arrows
implying that millions of people from all sorts of countries
including Turkey and possibly other countries that aren't in the EU
are going to come and move to Britain, and I showed
that to focus groups, it was very powerful,
because it captured the anxiety and fear and emotion
people have at the prospect of being overwhelmed
and these are all terms I would hear in the focus groups.
and the literature that was used off the back of it was very powerful.
I also knew, of course, that it was purposefully choosing
So we always knew that immigration was a problem,
around this table, that lots of the discussions were heard.
Some wondered, was there more we could do to get EU leaders
to show more flexibility on free movement, maybe?
But to others, that meant fighting the rest of the campaign
on immigration, when we needed for it to be back on the economy.
If you could solve the problem of free movement, it would have been
If you can't solve the problem of immigration, moving
on to immigration might make things worse, not better.
But given what we did know, it made sense to stick to the economy.
But it became clear that for some people,
that economic risk didn't mean anything.
I spoke to one man in my constituency who was out one day,
He was voting to leave because of all those concerns
"I understand your concerns about that.
What do you think about the argument that leaving would be
he said, "What do I care about the economy?
There are lots of people in Britain who do feel passed over,
They don't see what the future could hold for them or their children,
This referendum was a chance to attach that anger to the EU.
Shouldn't Labour have been able to reach out to those voters?
The brutal truth is that the leader of the Labour Party did not
campaign with authenticity, passion, conviction
He said he was for Remain, but it was on quite a narrow basis,
in terms of what the broader argument could be.
Polling took place during the campaign that showed half
that our official position was for Remain.
So I think more could have been done, yes.
And whether it was true or not, the Leave campaign was determined
The power of the 350 million a week can't be overstated.
In focus groups, it is quite unusual for floating voters who aren't
interested in politics to have internalised a campaign fact
or number so that it comes out spontaneously, and it did.
When we would say, have you noticed that some people are saying that
isn't actually true, people would say, "Vaguely,
but it's still a very big number, isn't it?"
In the final debate, just days before the vote,
the Leave campaign came armed with their catch-all phrase
Taking back control of our country and our system.
We can take back control over our laws.
We can take back control over our taxes.
We can take back control over our borders,
They were being presented with a simple solution, which was,
if you think this is a problem and migration is putting pressures
on our public services and jobs, we can take back control.
The way I would put it was that we had a complex truth
up against a simple lie, and we see what happened.
And what happened will be talked about for decades.
Though we built the biggest ever cross-party, cross-sector campaign
with over 40,000 volunteers, we didn't win the day.
This was a campaign where experts were dismissed
and conventional wisdom thrown out of the window.
Many doubt if campaigns will ever be the same again.
And Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave will be looking at how their
campaign won the referendum on the Daily Politics. Isabel, having
looked at that and seen what they are now saying, I now find myself
surprised that Remain lost by only four percentage points. Right. The
bottom line is that their big argument on the economy, they went
grossly over the top at the beginning. They tried to create what
pollsters call a settled view, which then becomes difficult to dislodge.
But in doing so, they went so far over the top that their claims
became unbelievable, and simply adding more experts to its got no
response from the electorate. Secondly, and more importantly, they
had no answer on the immigration question. I think the majority of
people who voted Leave, whether or not they would admit it, well, in
their heart of hearts, voting so because of immigration, and Remain
had no answer on that. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist or
even a psephologists work-out that immigration was going to be the big
issue. We have spoken about it on this programme months before the
campaign began, and yet even by the end of the campaign, they still had
no answer to the immigration issue. That is the legacy of years of
British politics, when no one will make a positive case for
immigration, or a case for the trade-off, where you say we accept
immigration, or a case for the immigration because of the economic
benefits. The economic argument failed because people didn't feel
that all these years of prosperity in the City of London had any
translation to the real economy. So when we said it would be terrible
for the City of London, people thought, what has that got to do
with me? Was there anything Remain could have done to have won? I think
a different renegotiation in January could have done to have won? I think
or February by the Prime Minister Cold War which secured some tangible
concession on -- by the Prime Minister, some negotiation which
achieved a concession on immigration would have done it. People didn't
feel they were getting that, and therefore, it was very interesting.
It wasn't the internal dynamics of the campaign that was at fault. The
reason they didn't have a answer was because Cameron didn't come back
with something solid. So it was Angela Merkel what lost it? Yes, and
I am sure she is now bitterly regretting not giving Cameron
something. The other thing is that I know that when the Britain Stronger
In Europe campaign had their early meetings before the campaign
officially began, they had a discussion about identifying five
positive things about being in the EU that we can sell to voters, and
they couldn't come up with any. That was again part of the problem. They
failed to put a positive case, it was just Project Fear. It was also
David Cameron what lost it, because for years, to get selected in the
Tory party, you had to be Eurosceptic. He then had a career
saying it would not be a problem if we leave, and then pivoted to say
the sky would fall in. A lot of voters concluded, that is typical of
the political elite. Making it up as you go along.
It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
Coming up in the programme, after another packed week
in politics, we'll be trying to make sense of the latest political
Chilcot finally delivered his damning report, leading some critics
to call for Tony Blair's legal action.
I'll be speaking to one of them shortly.
Also, after criticising the SNP's economic plans
during the referendum, a former permanent secretary
to the Treasury now says the case for Scottish Independence
And, after two of the three people running the inquiry
into child abuse quit, citing Government interference,
how can the education secretary John Swinney restore confidence?
Anyone expecting an establishment whitewash was in for a surprise
when Sir John Chilcot finally delivered his 2.6
Flawed intelligence combined with a legal case for going to war
with Iraq that was far from satisfactory and little or no
plan for what happened after the invasion.
Despite all this, in a marathon and at times emotional press
conference, Tony Blair expressed regret but insisted that he'd made
With me now is the former Labour MP Tom Harris who himself voted
And? I've think if these same circumstances presented themselves.
Everywhere presented with the same intelligence we were in 2003 I would
have voted in exactly the same way. If you knew then what you know now?
If we knew then the intelligence was flawed there would never have been a
vote. We would not have asked to go to war if we knew it did not exist.
There is the issue of whether governments was undermined in the UK
with what happened in Iraq. Would you accept the Chilcot report
findings that Cabinet governance was undermined and that, Chilcott does
not quite say this, but Tony Blair was out of control. I think what
Chilcott and some of the commentators miss is that Tony Blair
was in the position that he was Prime Minister and had to make
was in the position that he was decisions. Sometimes politicians
have to make decisions that are neither easy or popular. Tony Blair
rose to that occasion. He built his reputation on the line. He did not
keep his cabinet on board? That is not true, there were only two
resignations. I mean he did not inform them at all times what she
was doing. If used it to any of the Cabinet at the time they will not
tell you they felt excluded. It Cabinet at the time they will not
a remarkably unified cabinet at the time that that decision and took us
into war. The other side is what happened in Iraq. On balance a good
thing on a bad thing? Obviously getting rid of Saddam was a good
thing. Anyone who needs fascism will celebrate we got rid of him but the
aftermath has been truly appalling. Written has today it's clear share
of responsibility on that but America has today the larger sheet
of responsibility. What happened in the aftermath of Iraq was very
similar to what happened in the aftermath of the Afghanistan war
back when the Soviets left. When the Americans supported resistance
against the Soviets but when the Soviets left so did the Americans
and America has the look to its long-term interests and the like
that it is going to make interventions then I hope that
intervention is still a part of western democracy agenda, they have
got to see through the commitments which they did not do in Afghanistan
or Iraq. You were leading the Brexit campaign in Scotland. You got 30%.
Were you expecting more on less? I was hoping for 40% but I was happy
with 38. None of the opinions polls showed we got anywhere near that.
The First Minister says there is a case for a second independence
referendum given the results, would you accept that? Firstly I don't.
When the 2014 referendum happened the Scottish Government White Paper
made the explicit threat or promise that if you vote now you could end
up being taken out of the EU against our will. Scott is understood that
threat and understood what it meant and they still voted no. I do not
think what we have got is any kind of change of circumstance at all. If
think what we have got is any kind there is another independence
referendum it will be specifically those by the Scottish National party
and the Scottish Government as the result of the referendum. Even the
SMP who claim it is a point of runcible are not claiming it a point
of sensible. They claim it depends on how the balls are looking. --
SNP. You must accept some responsibility given the role you
played in the referendum. I am all for politicians taking
responsibility but I still think independence would be a very bad
idea. Even more so once the UK is out of the EU. Thank you for joining
us. Joining me now from
Inverness is the former We have heard from yourself and
David Davies this morning this idea of tabling a motion about Tony Blair
in the houses of parliament. The consequences of that is that he
could in theory be called to the bar of the House but would not
necessarily have to turn up, is that right? He could be summoned before
the buyer of the House. That would be likely. He could refuse to come
but people have refused to come before House of Commons select
committees and that has turned out very badly for them. Refusing to go
before the ban of the House would be even worse. The sort of penalties
could be being banned from public office ever again. It is not an
incarceration as many people would like but it is a strong form of
Parliamentary accountability. Just from what you have said their many
people would think OK, fine, but this is all largely symbolic.
Symbolism can be important in terms of parliament's role. This does not
be judge legal action from the authorities or several from the
service families. This is all about what Parliament doesn't fit leaves
that was misled over a huge issue or systematically misled over a
lead-off kind. We have had the inquiry, the trial if you like, know
what we are doing is moving to the verdict. Any parliament worth its
salt would accept responsibility to make that judgment. Do you see any
other avenues or are you involved in any other avenues of legal action
against Tony Blair? I support legal action. I think it is a primer fussy
case that this is a crime of aggression. The difficulty is the
criminal international court is about to get Robin and saw the
crimes of aggression but has not got it yet. The domestic courts in
England and Wales have been unwilling to take international
crimes like kinds of aggression into domestic law. That makes the
criminal proceedings very difficult. Perhaps not possible but very
criminal proceedings very difficult. difficult. A civil action has been
considered by the service families. That would have to come from those
who were directly affected, had the loss of a loved one for example. I
support all of these initiatives as they can be made at the not under my
control or influence. What is under my influences as a member of
Parliament I have a right to bring a motion to enforce Parliamentary
Parliament I have a right to bring a accountability and that is what I
intend to do. You had previously suggested the Scottish Parliament
could prosecute Tony Blair. Do you accept that as matters stand that
will not be possible? What I suggested, I saw the report in the
Herald, at least the daily Herald does not always bother to consult
the person they are writing about. What I pointed out was the English
and Welsh High Court decided without a specific entry instrument they
Wilmot not hear an international crying like a crime of aggression.
The Scottish courts have made no such ruling. It may be the Court of
Session would come to the same conclusion. There is a possibility
in Scotland but I am not a member of the Scottish Parliament, I am a
member of the Westminster Parliament. It parliament can
enforce accountability and it should. We also have the support of
members of Parliament across six political parties which makes it a
cross-party move, not a party political move. A movement of
cross-party accountability certainly has a very good chance of being
recalled in the House of Commons over the next few weeks and I hope
it has a chance of being passed. Jim Sillars has suggested the Scottish
Parliament could bring in a law which would allow Mr Blair to be
prosecuted. Does that seem to you to be a runner? There is a precedent.
The Westminster Parliament brought in a specific instrument to allow
prosecution of people for Nathalie offences concerning the Holocaust
and other matters some years ago. There is a precedent for doing that.
Nazi -- offences. It is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is not
clear if the Scottish courts would be amenable to that. What is clear
is the opportunity to enforce Parliamentary accountability. We
have had the trial if you like it is now time to pass the verdict. What
do you think Mr Blair himself should do in light of the inquiry? I think
if he spoke at last Wednesday he should have made a full and frank
apology. I thought, looking as I did at the keep the other day, his
performance was delusional. He clearly has not come to terms with
the extent of the indictment that has been laid out in such detail by
John Chilcot. What we have the forerunners and the key thing is
revealed in the Chilcot report are the secret memos, Private memos
being sent to the American President George W Bush. All you have to do to
establish the case of misleading Parliament over the course of a year
is to juxtapose the private memos against the public statements to
Parliament and people. They then lies the heart of the case for
Parliament and people. They then contempt of Parliament. I noted that
the faltering voice and the awareness of the consequences. The
consequences are horrific. Then there was the declaration that I
would do the same thing again. I doubt if that satisfied anyone.
Certainly not those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. In another
enormous issue, many enormous issues at the moment but Brexit. Nicholas
MacPherson who was one of your sparring partners during the
referendum campaign. His article suggesting there was a good chance
for Scottish independence but that Scotland would have to commit to
setting up its own currency. What do you make of that? I notice in John
Harris was my interview he has been deserted by John Prescott. Tom has
been deserted by Sir Nicholas MacPherson as fun as the
advisability of cottage independence is concerned but Tom is still there
on the rock by himself. On war and anti-Scottish independence. I think
Sir Nicholas MacPherson's article was remarkable and I suppose he
might argue he is no longer acting under the orders of George Osborne.
Yet able to act as an independent political commentator. In terms of
the currency issue itself that is correct. You would devise your
currency policy that best suits the new circumstances and I am sure that
is exactly what Nicola Sturgeon will do. What in your view would be the
best currency policy every they'd is going to be another independence
referendum campaign? I support what going to be another independence
Nicola has said in this matter. She is reviewing that matter and will
bring forward proposals. I have made a public statement saying that is
the best way to approach things and I would approach it in the same way
we did before the white paper. That is consulting the best experts.
Perhaps Sir Nicholas might be among them, who knows? That would be
changed circumstances. Then bring forward that committee of experts
with the correct currency of Scotland under the new circumstances
we face and put that forward as part of the overall prospectus for
Scottish independence. The remarkable contrast in preparation
that went into the referendum on Scottish independence as to what we
would do if we won. As opposed to the zero preparation in the EU
referendum is marked and telling. What he will say is you cannot go
again with the idea of keeping the pound in an independent Scotland but
particularly if Scotland were to be in the European Union and the rest
of Britain was not. Would you accept that? If you remember the second
debate, the BBC debate, let's call it the big debate with Alistair
Darling during the referendum campaign. I laid out in that beat a
range of currency options that Scotland could follow. These are
still the range of currency options. What Nicola Sturgeon would do, I am
sure, is pick the best of these with the greatest experts she can muster,
with or without Sir Nicholas MacPherson, and then present the
best policy of that range of options to take Scotland forward. Certainly,
absolutely, I think we can all conclude over the past two weeks,
the remarkable two weeks, the cluster gin has been the only
politician has risen to the challenge of leadership.
Is the game to get a commitment from the EU that should Britain leave,
Scotland, could stay in? Is that the logic of having a referendum within
two years? The logic of the talks and discussions that Nicola has been
pursuing with the EU institutions and individual European politicians,
and although we haven't had a statement from the institutions as
yet, nor would you expect one as yet, it would have indications from
the leadership of the political parties in the EU Parliament very
favourable indeed to Scotland position, and I think these have
been significant. If you don't get a commitment, it doesn't matter
whether or not you have a referendum within two years, we could wait for
the eventual agreement with Britain. If you'll allow me, I'll follow the
leadership of Nicola Sturgeon as opposed to the hypothesis of Gordon
Brewer. All right! We will have to leave it there.
Since voters opted for Brexit, the pound along with consumer
and business confidence has been falling.
This week also saw several UK commercial property funds move
to stem the rush of investors trying to get their money out.
Meanwhile the cost of imports and commodities traded in dollars
That's bad news for lovers of petrol, coffee and chocolate.
But what does all this actually mean for the bigger economic picture?
After all, for the time being, the UK is still a full member
of the EU and some Brexiteers claim the declining value of the pound
will help exports, thus mitigating any other difficulties.
Well, shortly before we came on air, in an attempt to get
to grips with Brexonomics, I spoke to the economist
First of all, let's look at what's happened in the media at aftermath
of Brexit. It was supposed to be Apocalypse now. And it seems to be
may be Apocalypse sometime in the future but we are not quite sure
when. Yes. There is a certain amount of land. We are only going to get
hard economic statistics, the earliest probably in September, and
what we have is a huge period of uncertainty. The indicator that
looks bad is the currency. So, the Stirling dollar rate has gone down
by around 12%. So that will make an impact over the next few months. It
is somewhat of a double-edged sword. It is not so good for people all
going away to the continent, but quite good for exporters but it'll
take some time for the benefits of the currency to feed through. It is
also ambiguous because while the pound against the dollar is down to
a 30 year low, the pound against a basket of currency of our trading
partners is down a little bit. That's true. A lot of the goods that
we buy Ardagh nominated in dollars. So, you know, we will feel the
effect on petrol quite soon, probably quite a lot on food prices,
coffee. The overall impact on trade may not be as great as that might be
implied by the pound dollar rate, but we will start to see the effects
feed through over the next few months. And those could include
things like higher petrol prices because oil is to nominated in
dollars, and so on. Sure. I mean, on the sorts of devaluation against the
dollar that we have seen so far, the Bank of England's rough guess I
would estimate around 3% increase in prices. That is a rate of inflation
that is within the Bank of England's target, but not like one we have
seen for a long time because inflation has been quite slow for
the last few years. It also has indications for living standards,
doesn't it? We were just getting into a situation where, finally,
since after the financial crash, real earnings were starting to go
up, people were getting more in their pay packets and they were
losing three inflation. It could stop that happening. What we will
see is a bit of an impact for the new living wage. That will help
people at the bottom somewhat. And people whose incomes are protected
against inflation, who have got people whose incomes are protected
something linked to inflation, they will be all right. But those people
will maybe just above the national living wage, who had started to see
some increase in the earnings, I suspect, especially if the economy
slows down, that movement will be put into reverse. What we are
sometimes tending to forget a little bit in this debate about the
economic effect is that nothing has actually happened. We are still in
the European Union. If you are a factory somewhere in Britain where
your products go to Europe, nothing has changed. The real economic
impact will presumably come when we actually leave. Well, I do think
that actually uncertainty is building up. And that can have real
economic effects. You do hear there may be apocryphal stories of
investment being delayed, and that will take some time to feed through
to the economic statistics but it is around decisions that are being laid
now which arise because of the uncertainty, because no one really
knows what the outcome of these negotiations, whether they be with
the EU or the broader trade negotiations, where these are going
to go. And that makes the UK's somewhat less of an attractive
investment destination. Perhaps the most concerning thing that happened
this week, rather than what has happened to the currency or markets,
is that survey that was done of the German Chambers of Commerce, where
German companies were saying either we will rethink investment in
Britain or we will make no decision on investment in Britain. I think
that's true. And I think one of the most important things and one of the
benefits of EU has been technology transfer, so, you've got a lot of
companies that work across the EU, manufacturing partly in Britain but
partly in Germany, partly in France, and I think the companies that do
that kind of work, it seems, are thinking very carefully because they
don't know what is going to happen in relation to trade barriers or
whatever, as far as the UK is concerned, so they are, I think,
holding back for the moment. Different but related subject, a
possible second independence referendum because of Brexit. What
did you make of Nicola MacPherson's comments that this was a great
chance for the SNP to get independence, but they would have to
rethink the issue of currency and go for an independent currency? Well, I
saw his article in the financial Times, and he argues the Treasury
won't accept the trade union because they are being burned by that kind
of arrangement in the past. That means effectively Scotland would
have to go for its own currency. Well, I mean... That seems to me to
be a logical argument. Where it might lead, not quite clear. Quite a
lot of unknown is around it, but, certainly, a possible argument
towards independence. All right, we will have to leave it there. Thank
you very much indeed. The Education Secretary
and Deputy First Minister has promised that he'll consider
revising the remit of the government's
inquiry into child abuse. John Swinney gave the commitment
after meeting survivors' He'd been hoping to reassure them
after two controversial resignations from the panel
conducting the inquiry. Campaigners hope Mr Swinney
will take this opportunity to widen the scope of the investigation,
to include abuse out-with residential settings and to allow
the award of recompense Did something bad happened here?
When you were in care? Sometimes, a soap can help you
understand something more than the bare facts in a news bulletin. There
are always talking about historical abuse cases. Historical... You said
historical. It's not historical. abuse cases. Historical... You said
never ends. The writers and cast of River City heard first hand of abuse
as they rehearsed Patrick's story. Drama of a different kind at the
historic abuse inquiry. The chair Drama of a different kind at the
and another panel member resigned, Drama of a different kind at the
leaving just one in post. So, the education Secretary met survivors
and support groups on Thursday, seeking to reassure them that the
inquiry will be free from government interference. Afterwards, a welcome
for John Swinney's commitment to look again at the inquiry's raiment.
What we ask is to ensure the children of tomorrow are safe in
this country, so you need to look at where the abuses in disease-mac
occurred. If it is in guides, scouts, look at every institution,
not just care homes. The process of evidence gathering is under way, and
that is in no way in Pete by the events we have had to deal with in
the course of the last couple of weeks. What I want to do is take
time to isn't carefully to the survivors, which I have done today,
and I will do so over the summer, reflect on the issues they've raised
with me and take the necessary steps to appoint a new personal to lead
the inquiry and also to consider the issues that have been raised.
Survivors say they want the inquiry to tell the truth about what
happened to them and to give them justice. If John Swinney looks at
the remote and includes free dress, the same as they had an island, it
means the two can run parallel. Some can speak about their performance,
speak about the abuse they suffered. The panel of the inquiry would then
have the power to include free dress for that individual. So, it could
run parallel alongside, so it isn't a case of going forward, waiting for
my gears, then going to court, then to try to get the justice. Redress
means more than just giving survivors cash as compensation. As
means more than just giving part of that whole concept of
re-dress, that is about working to ensure that insofar as it is
possible, we will restore people to the place they would have been in
their lives if the abuse didn't take place. Sometimes insuring that you
have appropriate medical services to refer people onto. In my experience,
working with victims of abuse, it is often these unseen support services
that are really important. We have already had a report into historic
abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Can that experience
teach us anything about what success looks like for inquiry, or what we
should be looking for? Any inquiry, you can't judge the success of it at
the end of it. It will be in the years to come, the inquiry will make
their recommendations, the ways in which we should handle allegations,
the ways in which we should try to engage with and help survivors, so
you need to make those recommendations at the end of the
inquiry and then revisit them. And there needs to be processed that in
three or five years when you look at those recommendations and look at
them, you say they were put into practice. Or not. And if not, what
is the recourse than. The sad truth is that no inquiry can guarantee
that abuse will not happen again. None of us know what the next abuser
will look like. You can't tell. It is what human beings are capable of.
Human beings are capable of doing that to children and that will
always be the case as long as there are human beings in the world.
It's time to look back at the events of the past week and see what's
and the political commentator Hamish Macdonell.
Let's start with Labour. Could not make it up. You couldn't, no. Angela
Ingle and Jeremy Corbyn talking about their respective it's for
leadership. Jeremy Corbyn looking to get on the ballot paper again but
Angela Eagle is saying it is time for him to step back and she should
take the leadership. She didn't look particularly happy to be putting
herself forward for the leadership on Monday. It is a depressing
situation in labour all around. And a possible split. It's difficult to
see anything but a split. The basic point seems to be here that the
Parliamentary Labour Party believes one thing, and the vast majority of
the membership seems to believe another. The two are separate.
However this goes, if the vote goes another. The two are separate.
away in which one side doesn't like, it's difficult to see the party
coming out of this in any form as a unified party. And also it is very
difficult politically. If you have proportional representation, you can
have these sorts of things but in a first past the post system,
have these sorts of things but in a ever one ends up being the Labour
Party... Is going to have the advantage. History tells us if you
have any kind of breakaway party, it takes a long time for that party to
get anywhere in terms of representational politics. The SDP
suffered. They had a large number of people supporting them but they
could make the breakthrough which is what the first past the persistent
does. It we trenches two big parties, some if the big party
splits, it's going to be difficult for both parts of that party to
fight on and try to become an opposition. And to stop that
happening, Lynsey, one side has to give on something. There isn't much
sign of either side being prepared to. There doesn't. And this morning
both Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Eagle were talking about saying to each
other, it is time to take a step back to unify the party, to bring it
together and to prevent the split from happening. But it really looks
like it is too late for that now. This is gone too far, and it is very
difficult to see the two sides reconciling, no matter what happens,
if Jeremy Corbyn does get on the ballot paper and he wins, there is
going to be resentment among the Parliamentary group, they are not
going to accept that. We should point out they could even be a legal
battle over whether or not Jeremy Corbyn gets to be on the ballot.
That's right. It's not clear. Neil Kinnock was saying that when this
happened to him, he had to get the signatures to get on the ballot
paper and German Corbyn was saying he expects, as the incumbent leader,
to automatically get on the ballot paper, said there is going to be a
row over that. Len McCluskey warned that if he doesn't get on the ballot
paper, you're going to be facing a split anyway because of the huge
revolt from Jeremy Corbyn's supporters. It is the point Andrew
Neil was putting too Angela Eagle, isn't it? It is ridiculous to have
someone who was elected by 60% of the membership not allow to stand
again after less than a year. That is the big weakness of the
Jeremy Corbyn position. If Angela Eagle is seen to be a stalking horse
and she stands to force an election and then somebody comes through on
the left is acceptable to both sides but is not Jeremy Corbyn, that is a
possible way of uniting the party but even that it is difficult to see
how it might work. That would but even that it is difficult to see
reasonably require Jeremy Corbyn Wai but even that it is difficult to see
Phyo OK the game is up but perhaps I could be in the Shadow Cabinet.
Someone close someone close good say he could stand on so long as he is
given his way. It is difficult to see how he could possibly back down
now. Tories, leadership contest, that one is getting nasty by the
minute as well? Indeed it is. Andrea led some in trouble over some
comments she has been making. She denies they were made in the way the
Times newspaper has said they have reported them. It is not a great
start for Andrea led some but I wonder if it is because this is how
the will be decided by the Tory membership it is not going to
matter. It will not be the rest of us who get to decide, it is those
Tory members and perhaps they like Andrea led some. I am not say the
decision not to have children is not important to some people but it is
quite extraordinary that this Tory leadership contest has turned into a
debate about someone having not having children rather than the fact
they will have to negotiate an exit when they come into office. I think
what it showed is the inexperience of Andrea Leadsom. When the comments
came out she should have had a measured response to them rather
than flying off the handle and accusing the times of this, that and
the next thing. It shows a gulf of experience between Theresa May and
Andrea Leadsom. My feeling is with all the people we have had over the
past couple of weeks that those Tory members will want safety and
security and stability. For that reason they will want probably to
vote for Theresa May go the way things are at the moment who knows.
We will hold you to that! I'll be back at the
same time next week.
Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by guests including Labour's Lord Falconer and shadow education secretary Angela Rayner MP. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Isabel Oakeshott.