17/01/2013 This Week

Tonight on This Week, as temperatures fall below zero and

snow spreads across the country, join us for Westminster Winter

Watch. The Prime Minister postpones his eagerly-awaited speech on

Europe as the scale of the hostage crisis in Algeria unfolds. I think

we have to prepare ourselves for the possibility of bad news ahead.

The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, will be

joining us live in the studio. Back in the Westminster village,

former Prime Minister Gordon Brown came out of hibernation and made a

rare appearance. The Economist's Anne McElvoy has been studying the

political wildlife. A big beast usually surrounded by the Labour

herd was a strange sight speaking alone from the backbenches.

And will Oprah Winfrey make Lance Armstrong melt under the TV lights

and confess all? Coming in from the cold, and

telling all, former model Paula Hamilton, and TV Presenter Richard

Madeley. Getting people to come on television and tell the truth, make

a confession, is an art in itself. And I'm looking forward to meeting

you, Andrew. Wrap up and we'll keep you warm.

Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week. On a night when our normally

jocular disposition isn't appropriate for grim events. A mix

you ture of speculation and grim news is emerging from the hostage

crisis in Algeria, centred on a BP compound. Algerian forces launched

an attack on the compound. The British Prime Minister and other

western leaders were not informed ahead of the operation despite the

risk to their nationals. It appears that a number of hostages, perhaps

as many as 30 or even more have also their lives during the

fighting. As well as a number of Islamist militants and no doubt

some Algerian security forces too. This evening David Cameron

announced he was postponing his long awaiting speech on Europe, and

more warned that bad news on the assault is possible. It is widely

thought that this is linked to France's crackdown on the militants

in neighbouring Mali. The eyes of the world are now turning to the

vast expanses of north Africa. The true extent of Al-Qaeda and

jihadist influence control and military capability in the region.

Joining they on the sofa is former Prime Minister Tony Blair's

Director of Communications Alastair Campbell, and the former Secretary-

General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Welcome to you all and a

special welcome to you Kofi Annan. We face a very bad situation at

this BP gas compound in Algeria. A number of British citizens have

been taken hostage. Already we know of one who has died. The Algerian

armed forces have now attacked this compound. It is a very dangerous

and very uncertain, a very fluid situation, and I think we have to

prepare ourselves for the possibility of bad news ahead.

COBRA officials here are working around the clock to do everything

we can to keep in contact with the families, to build the fullest

possible picture of the information and the intelligence that we have.

I've chaired meetings of COBRA today and I will continue to do so.

I will do everything I can to update people on what's a difficult

and dangerous and potentially very bad situation. A sombre Prime

Minister in Downing Street a few hours ago.

Kofi Annan, let me start with Mali. How serious was the Islamist threat

developing there and in other parts of the Maghreb? I think that Mali

became, if I may put it this way, collateral damage of Libya. Quite a

lot of the soldiers, Malian soldiers, working and fighting for

Gaddafi went back home where they had the weapons and they are

trading. There was already a revolution and rebellion in the

north. By the Tuareg group and the Islamist group also joined in. When

these people returned with their heavy weapons, some of the Malian

troops of the same tribe also teamed up with them. So they left

the Government Army and joined the rebels? And it was also at a time

when a coup had taken place and there were political tensions in

the capital. And, of course, given what was happening in the north and

the speed with which the rebellion was moving south, and particularly

the last few days, I could understand why France would act.

Because the West African forces were supposed to go in but they

needed time and indicated it would take a couple of months for them to

get ready. So there was a danger that the French saw, and in your

view they were right, that Islamist and Al-Qaeda-backed militants in

the north were in danger of taking over the whole of Mali? They had

already taken the north but they could have moved further south, so

they had to be stopped. And in the meantime the West African forces

had decided to accelerate their deployment, which I hope would make

a difference. I think given the fact that Mali was a collateral

damage of an international action in Libya, I hope the international

community will stand firmly by Libya and, firmly by Mali and help

Mali liberate its territory. Do you think French were right to

intervene? I think they were right to intervene and, of course, when

you take this sort of action, in that sort of a region, with the

parties and the groups we are dealing with, there is always a

backlash. There is always a push- back, so we shouldn't be too

surprised that it happened. But I think nobody had perhaps expected

that it will happen in that particular location. Now, given

what had happened in Mali with the French troops there waiting on the

West African troops to join them, and then this developing hostage

situation in Algeria, in the south- east on the way to Mali in a sense

and on the border with Libya too, are you in any doubt that the

events in Mali and the hostage situation in wraur are connected?

have no doubt - in Algeria are connect? I have no doubt that they

are connected. We should always be aware that we had a very volatile

situation. They've taken lots of hostages, from Niger to Mali to

Mauritania there's been quite a bit of traffic there. We've been

worried about developments not only with the question of hostage taking,

the question of drug smuggling, where the Latin American drug

barons are using West Africa, particularly Guinea-Bissau, to move

drugs to Europe. So the drugs are coming through the north African

desert? They come by plane and by ship. Any route that will get them

to Europe. In fact we are launching a West African Drug Commission

looking at itsle pact on degreesy and governance at the end of the

month. Given the hostage situation at this BP compound in a pretty

remote part of the world, are you surprised that the Algerian

Government decided to go it alone, not to involve maybe better-trained

special forces from Britain or France or whatever? Is this in

keeping with the Algerian way of doing things? I think the Algerians

have had a fairly competent Army. They also believe they know the

environment. And I suspect they know the groups that operate in

that region. And probably felt very confident that they would be able

to deal with it, and that speed was of the essence, and decided to move

very quickly. Unfortunately things have gone wrong and we should send

our sympathies and condolences to the families who've lost loved ones

and those who've been wounded. But I think the Algerian action was

well intended. They may have been set back and gone wrong but I think

it was a sort of action that I would have expected them to take.

Michael? Well, first of all, I don't disagree with anything that I

have heard at all, but to think about what the situation begins to

tell us. Mali is yet another area in which the West has been

compelled to intervene. It is not place where you might say we've put

our arm in the mangle, a my metaphor meaning that you intend to

go in for a limited time but get drawn in more and warm. It

exercises our extreme vol toilet the a symmetrical war.

-- our extreme volatility. There was talk they were moving the

hostages out, that there was talk they were threatening to blow the

hostages up. I can see the Algerians might have been impatient.

They might recognise that British and French forces might do a better

job but it takes a while to reconnoitre. That takes time. And

this terrorist group includes some very important militants. You mean

enemies? For a long time. In a much broader sprifrbgs it is worth

taking a snapshot of -- broader perspective. It is worth taking a

snapshot of where we are. We've seen Gaddafi removed from Libya.

We've connived at removing Mubarak from Egypt and have little idea

about the future of that country. We are conniving with the removal

of al-Assad, and we have little idea of the future of Syria. We are

withdrawing from Iraq, where the situation is very unstable. Even in

Turkey we are losing ground to Islamist forces. And of course Iran,

which used to be medal in check by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is now in a

rampant situation and moves towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile Israel has fallen out of favour with most of its erstwhile

allies. Pakistan is extraordinarily unstable and elements in Pakistan

are feeding the militancy and instability of other areas. This is

a very complicated conflict we are involved in and I have to say right

now it is not going well. You sound very gloomy. Given that we have

unfinished business in other parts of the world, are we right in

seeing what we used to call the Maghreb, the part of North Africa,

is this the new front on what people, some people called the war

on terror? I'm not sure I would put that way, but I agree with what the

Minister said. Particularly his review of the broader Middle East,

starting from North Africa, stretching to Afghanistan.

you're gloomy too? And even to Pakistan. We've lots of work to do

it's a very messy world we are living in. I think when it comes to

North Africa, I hope the Egyptians and the Tunisians over time will be

able to manage the situation better. But we all have to work together.

It is not just an issue for Mali or France or Algeria. We need a much

broader international effort. Including the West African forces?

Including the West African force which is are going in. If I may add

to what Minister from till o said, we tend to -- Minister Portillo

said, we tend to ignore failed states. We ignored Afghanistan when

the Russians left until they we were hit in... We ignored Mali. And

we are seeing another development in the West African region which we

need to tackle ruz lootly and firmly before we confront. You are

saying this has been firsting for a while, that we should have seen

this coming. Alastair? What Michael is doing in a sense is explaining

why the Russians and the Chinese tend to try to ride out of these

situations. You mentioned Egypt. And Mubarak. People are saying

what's going to come, and Libya is partly the same. We tend to judge

these countries by our own standards and values. Michael is

also right about what the terrorists can do. There is Mali

doing. Assuming that Sophie is right and it is linked, they pick a

place that's probably not that well protected, that is probably easy to

get in and make the initial attack. They probably know that there are

people there from some of the major countries of the world. It is not

only David Cameron looking sombre on the television tonight. The

pressure is then on our leaders to get in and sort it out. Operating

probably in pretty much the same information as we have. And Michael

is right that you've got to feel for the Algerians if they do think

suddenly they've got this crisis on their doorstep, they have got to

deal with it, and how long would it take to get enough British, French,

Australian Special Forces out there? So I suspect the Algerians

are perhaps pressed the panic button and gone in and sorted it

out. It appears, we don't know, The interesting thing here is that

some of these terrorists also batch - watch the news. I remember once

something happened in Congo and immediately after the Black Hawk

down in Somalia said why did you do this and they said "We also watch

CNN". You said that our friends should not be left alone to do this

and that it will be hoping that the west African forces will arrive -

they've been a long time coming haven't they? Where are all the

Americans in all this, because in news gone by, the Americans would

have been taking the lead in something like this? We know that

Mr Obama sees himself as the Pacific President, he wants to face

that way, rather than our way, but from what you say, at some stage,

the Americans will get involved? think they will have a role to play

and they have assets that other countries may not have. If this is

going to be a real international effort, we are going to try and

contain or nip the problem in the bud before we have another Somalia

or Afghanistan on our hands, then we have to have all hands on deck.

Those with assets will have to participate. I'm sure there are

discussions going on in Washington as to what role they can play. They

may not want to be upfront leading and pushing, but they can make very

useful contributions. You mentioned Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan

really just started after 9/11. What should have been done by the

big powers and international community before that? What could

have happened that could have prevented this? Before the Russians

left, it was becoming almost a failed state, an ungovernable

situation. What could have been done then? If one tried to help

improve governance and tried to work with them on economic and

social issues, and to strengthen the institutions, we may have been

able to avoid the Taliban coming. This is going back in history. We

had President Clinton at the time which was weakened because of the

Monica Lewinsky business. When the provinces in eastern Africa were

attacked, he limited himself in military responses. Let me finish

our response - discussion. Am I right in thinking the world is more

dangerous than it was a couple of days ago today? It's been a messy

place and a messy world for a long time and this has added another

complicated twist. Got a bit more messy? Yes, it's a really messy

world when you look around. I mean, Michael gave us a tour of them.

That is only a part of the world, the Middle East, you have other

regions. We could be here all night going around every country of the

organisation you used to run? Exactly. It's been a pleasure to

have you on the programme tonight. Thank you very much.

In three hours' time, Oprah Winfrey's interview with Lance

Armstrong will be broadcast across the globe. Ahead of the television

confessional, waiting in the wings, we'll be joined on the sofa by

Paula Hamilton and Richard Madeley preparing to come clean and tell us

all. If you feel the need to divulge your thoughts, you can join

in the discussion on the Twitter, Fleecebook and geed good old

interweb. Before the escalation of the hostage situation in Algeria

today, Westminster was poised to here hugely anticipated much-

discussed speech by the Prime Minister on Britain's relationship

with the European Union. Now, it's always been a tricksy topic for

Tory leaders, for David Cameron it's proving no different, as we

know, the Prime Minister made daesition to cancel the speech just

a few hours ago -- decision. This week, we turn to the economist Anne

McElvoy for her round-up of the Hello and welcome to Anne's big

bite, a very classy burger joint where we serve only the most

delicious fare to Westminster's finest with all the trimmings and

not an equine in sight - nay! The week we discovered that Tescos had

unwittingly included horse meat in its burgers, Mr Cameron served up

red meat to Tories with a referendum pledge on Europe.

That was something for Ed Miliband to get his teeth into and the

atmosphere at PMQs was as hot as one of my sizzling supersized

chilli burgers. When the Prime Minister first became leader to

have Conservative Party, he said their biggest problem was that they

spent far too much of their time banging on about Europe. Is he glad

those days are over? Do we look at these changes and see what we can

do to maximise Britain's national interests and do we consult the

public about that or do we sit back, do nothing and tell the public to

go hang. I know where I stand, I know where this party stands, and

that's in the national interest. a time when there are one million

young people out of work and we have businesses going to the wall,

what is he doing? He's spent six months preparing a speech to create

five years of uncertainty for Britain. When it comes to Europe,

it's the same old Tories - a divided party and a weak Prime

Minister. There will be a very simple choice at the next election.

If you want to stay out of the Single Currency, you vote

Conservative, if you want to join it, you vote Labour. If you want to

take power back from Britain, you vote Conservative, if you want to

give power to Brussels, you vote Labour. That is the truth. What we

see from his position, he wants absolutely no change in the

relationship between Britain and Europe and he doesn't believe the

British people should be given a choice.

Dave does believe we should have a choice, just not until 2018. By

putting it all on the back burner, he hopes that he'll buy himself

time if he gets re-elect to Number Ten. There are some problems with

that. For a start, getting a renegotiation of powers to put to

the voters is a bit complicated and he doesn't know whether his present

allies like the Dutch will still be backing him by then.

Dave's not exactly got a big dollop of support from other European

leaders either and at time, the business is unsettled at the idea

of its relationships with trading partners being uncertain for years

to come. Mr Clegg's been warning that the

referendum on Europe would bring a period of instability. If you

create years and years of uncertainty about whether we'll be

in the European Union or not, I think that creates a degree of

uncertainty when what we desperately need at the moment is

more stability in the British economy. Same again, love. You've

already had four. Are you sure? The Liberal Democrats meanwhile in the

Lord's have been accused of flipping their support on boundary

changes after their Tory coalition partners refused to support Lord's

reform. The truth is, that this is solely, sadly and cynically because

the Deputy Prime Minister didn't get his way on Lord's reform. Now

he wants to exact a little retribution.

It's nothing less than a great political sulk. With the so-called

pay role vote approaching half o membership of the Government's side

of the House of Commons, the power of Government to control Parliament

is effectively increased when I believe my Lords the opposite

should be the case. This is therefore not the right time to

reduce the ability of the House of Commons to hold executive to

account by reducing its membership. The peers have less reason to do

deals than mere MPs. I get the impression they are enjoying

turning the heat up on the Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown, the big Labour beast that was returned to the green

benches this week. He hasn't been seen in these parts since 2011 when

he returned to roast Rupert Murdoch and it still felt odd seeing the

ex-Prime Minister on sparsely populated Labour benches where once

there would have been a doughnut of cheesy support. He spoke rather

well, but surely he should just turn up a bit more often or change

the day job. I rise on behalf of myself and also my two honourable

friends to urge the Government to save the jobs, the work programme

and the marine business of the Remploy factories in Cowdenbeath in

Fife. It's nice to take the weight off my feet after a long shift.

Weapon, both the main party leaders have used the dramas to show off

their skills in the Westminster food fight -- well, both the main

party leaders. This is the starter and the main course could be bloody.

Still, it's something for us political hacks to feast on.

Mm, I'm good at this... Very big thank you goes to Tom and

Terry, they let us take over their fabulous and very popular snack van

on Clapham Common. Anne McElvoy, welcome to the programme. We've

talked earlier with the Secretary- General about the international

situation. Let's talk domestic policies. The Prime Minister

postponed his speech in Amsterdam tomorrow. Would it be too

mischievous to say this speech might never happen? I think at this

point the speech has to happenment it's been put off in circumstances

which even Nigel Farage understood, the man who cares more about this

than anything else in the world did understand why because of the

situation in Algeria. The problem he has with the speech, which you

do reflect in your question, is that they built it up into the all-

or-nothing this is going to be the answer and trying to build one up

into, this is the Oracle, all been relieved will end up with a lot of

people saying, that wasn't up to much and wasn't what I wanted to

hear. They've made an expectation which is too high. Does the

postponement only increase the tension or take it out of the

situation? No. It's somewhat increasing the tension. We have got

to go through it all again. There's more time for groups within the

Conservative Party to agitate, for example. Broadly speaking, I think

we are on our way to a car crash. Yes. Multiple? Youth I don't see

why our European partners would be willing to negotiate powers away

because anything that we get is something that they lose and

something that they care about. Secondly, the Prime Minister's made

it clear he wants to remain within the European Union, therefore you

can't take seriously the threat he might withdraw from the European

Union. Thirdly, our European partners will have a very clear

view as to the likelihood of the Conservatives winning a majority in

the next Parliament. That likelihood is low.

Were he to have a renegotiation, whether successful or not, I find

it absolutely implausible that the Prime Minister would hold a

referendum. This would be a referendum, since he says he wants

to be in the European Union, in which he was recommending the

answer yes. But people would tend to vote no, firstly because any

question with the word Europe in it would invite the answer no.

Secondly, any Government asking a question in mid term would invite

the answer no. And any loss of a referendum would be absolutely

destructive of the authority of the Prime Minister. It would be a

calamity. So no renegotiation and no referendum, so this all strikes

me as a load of huey. The car crashes happen when the

driver's not got a clue where he or she is heading and that is his

problem. I think David Cameron's being defined as someone who's

utterly defined by tactics, rather than strategy. He's only making the

speech at all because of an interview that he cocked up to the

Sunday Telegraph. He's been picked apart by his backbenchers. UKIP

have ran an effective campaign and he's being driven step by step. The

management of this event has just been... I mean I completely agree

it's understandable that he cancelled the trip but before that,

the management of this has been a catastrophe of somebody he doesn't

know what he was trying to do. very fixateed on this date. It's

fascinating, you know, why is it 2018? It's as far back as you could

go assuming he wins the next election. Basically he'd get one

term and a good half-term as Prime Minister. He's well aware he could

lose it. I don't think he thinks it's going to happen. What can he

do? If he says it's not going to happen, he's finished, he has UKIP

at his heels, he's got to say it's going to happen, just not now.

reality is, it's worth observing he's been forced into this position

of apparently promising a referendum over quite a short time.

Until recently, the formula was that whatever any arrangement with

Europe was, it had to get the ascent of the British people, were

they in a referendum or a general election. So this idea that we have

to have a referendum is very, very new and it's a position that's led

to it. You know better than most. You know this is where the heart of

the party is and therefore whatever you say, we can all pick apart what

he's doing. Why isn't that challenged? Michael, you know they

don't want to challenge that. You didn't want to challenge that, in

fact. So you can see the problem. How do you say, I am Euro-Sceptic

but I'm reasonable and I'm trying Euro-sceptic. I can even envisage

the circumstances in which I could see Britain leaving the European

Union. Although I don't think any party leader will offer a

referendum to the British people, I can see that happening. What would

the referendum be on then Hang on. What I wouldn't do is say I want to

be in the European Union but I will give the British people the

opportunity to kick me in the teeth. That would be daft. Do you have any

idea what the referendum would be about? No more than anybody else.

What I think he is trying to do, as I understand it, what I'm basically

saying is don't come back to me if it turns out not to be right.

Things can change in Europe, things are changing in Europe. There'll be

a German election, lots of things can change. He could say he gets

back for it and he will settle for that. You don't negotiate and have

a bit of this and that and have a referendum on it. That's absurd.

This is highly academic and it assumes so many things, after what

we are talking about with the Secretary-General who knows what

world we'll be in after 2018. Let's assume he does repatriate powers

back to London and says, I'm going to put this to be people. If he

votes yes, we stay in on this new arrangement. If we vote know, what?

ALL TALK AT ONCE If you have won song on renegotiation would have to

swing your party behind it. A biggive but that's what you have to

do. Remember that history and precedent goes with a "yes" vote

having started with a strong anti- feeling in the country. I do

believe you could win a "yes" vote on in or out. And that's what he is

banking on as well. But that won't be the question. Let's get on to

the important question, Gordon Brown. What's his stit status in

the Labour Party today? It is very difficult being a former Prime

Minister when you are relatively young. I was watching Gordon there,

the first time I've seen that clip. He is on the backbenches, he didn't

quite to know what to do with his hands. I think Gordon is popular in

the party. I think he is somebody for whom there is still a lot of

respect, not least the way in which he handled the crash on behalf of

the global financial community. Should he stay in the Commons?

was difficulty for Tony, because he stepped down midterm and left the

Commons straight away. Gordon had just been elected as an MP when he

lost the electionment for him then to say, "I'm not going to hang

around the Commons" that would be terrible. But he doesn't hang

around the Commons. He's never there! He is not Maggie or Ted

Heath chuntering on all the time. The way Tony Blair behaved was

disgraceful, because he showed he was using the House of Commons as a

sort of public convenience so he could be Prime Minister. The moment

he was not Prime Minister he left the place. He had contempt for his

constituents and for Parliament, he called a by-election. At least

Gordon Brown has appears in the House of Commons. He does the

humble thing, he stands on the backbenches and looks uncomfortable,

and talks about disabled people who are going to lose their jobs. A lot

of Remploy offices closed when he was Chancellor and Prime Minister.

I want to give you the final word on this segment and on the Gordon

Brown situation. I think he spoke rather well in the Commons. If he

could put his pride aside and come back to the common s he could do a

lot of good. They can't treat it like a gentlemen's club and turn up

a couple of time as year. With great pain I advised Margaret

Thatcher, because she asked my advice, she asked whether she

should stand at the following election. I said it would be better

for her not to stand. Some people have dissident, Churchill did it.

He is not going to stand again is he? Gordon? I would be surprised.

Thank you. Now, regular viewers will know

we're not exactly on the best of terms with the rather vague concept

of "truth" here on This Week. Why do you think Alastair looks so at

ease and at home on our sofa? But with cyclist Lance Armstrong's

much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey about to be broadcast

in the early hours, we've decided it's finally time fess up and put

"coming clean" in this week's I guess I have a sudden tourge say

something that I have never really been able to say in public. When

actress Jody Foster used the Golden Globes to speak publicly about her

sexuality, Hollywood and the world applauded her honesty. Whether

drugs cheat and cyclist Lance Armstrong will be so canny remains

to be seen. I would say he did not come clean in the manner that I

expected. It was surprising to me. Former Number Ten policy guru Steve

Hilton admitted that the PM sometimes reads about Government

policy in the papers, and often doesn't even agree with it. And

supermarkets have been forced to own up that customers were getting

more than they bargained for in their bargain beef burgers, with

horsemeat and pork adding to the flavour.

So when it comes to coming clean, should we keep ourselves to

ourselves or tell the world what's really going on and just deal with

the consequences? Move We are joined by Paula Hamilton and

Richard Madeley. Welcome to you both. Richard, is TV the right

place to make a confession? It can be. It depends how you play it. As

the interviewer I always favour the oblique approach. He had an

exclusive with OJ Simpson just before he was acquitted of murder.

We had a lot of advice. They all said, "I would ask him but kill

your wife? "Kpwhgs was stupid. He is not going to drop to his knees

and say yes, you've got me, I did. In the end the channel lost their

bottle and trunkated it by many minutes. In the end you Question

Time a confession which isn't expected. We were interviewing

years ago Keith Chegwin and there were lots of rumours in the press

he had a drink problem. He was denying them. He said he was

suffering from stress. A min into it this interview where we were

being soft and gentle, he said, "I can't lie, I'm an alcoholic" and he

gave us the interview. At the end of it Judy said, "Keith, that took

a lot of bottle." Seriously. Celebrity Big Brother, is that

confessing on camera? No, it is deflecting yourself. So it's the

opposite. Did you know that before you went in to do it or did you

discover that on doing it? I have a fantastic TV psychologist and also

I've been on Andrew's show - sorry, my darling. Richard. Andrew is my

psychologist. I went on Richard & Judy. They asked me when I was

coming out about being an alcoholic, I was candid. You were one of the

frankest interviews... Do you think if you do a TV confession that's

the way to relatively speedy forgiveness? It depends what the

confession is and if you readily give it. I remember police

vigorously questioned a man they were sure killed his wife and

disposed of the body. They couldn't persistent it on him. They sort of

connived with us to help, with a live interview. It was a disastrous

decision for him to make. He gave a terrible performance. It was clear

that he was hiding something. It was clear he was guilty as sin and

they rearrested him. He broke. thing about Lance Armstrong, a lot

of lawyers are going to be watching what he says, because he's got all

these contracts. And the Sunday Times lawyers who lost a libel case.

She's hyped it to my mind way over the top. I suspect there'll be a

lot of disappointment. She hasn't said that. You interviewed him and

you fell for him. I fell for the whole package. I did. I thought he

was a great guy. Oprah used the word mesmerising and he is. He

convinced me that he worked hard or trained harder, that he was a

fitter, better, stronger and more focused cyclist and that's why he

won. He said, "I've had more urine samples tested than anyone on the

planet and never tested positive." I remember the famous interview

with Richard Nixon about which a movie has been made. David Frost

had an instinct that Richard Nixon was dying a making a confession

that. There was a dam holding back a lot of water. That's why Frost

went ahead with those interviews. There is a moment where suddenly

head says, I let down the American people, I confess. But find the TV

confession a cleansing experience? Yes. I think I also wanted to allow

other people to get rid of the stigma of drugs and alcohol. But

the nub of the question which you are all missing is, who is the

pharmaceutical company that's making the drug and giving it to

our Olympic people? Our team players. Who is the pharmaceutical

company? And you are the most good looking and most intelligent man on

television and I sincerely know that you will get to the bottom of

it. So let's stop picking on the individuals and go to the

pharmaceutical companies. You can make drugs by some purpose which

are then misused by individuals for other purposes. Some people are

suspicious that too many of these confessions are stage managed. Are

they? I think you can tempt I can't call to mind those which I thought

afterwards we had been had, been used. That's basically because Judy

and I were both journalists and tended to go for the story rather

than the performance. Can you think of any? I can't. Not stage managed

but in a sense Diana's, there were three of us in this marriage, was

if not stage managed was certainly pre-planned and was part of her PR

strategy against Charles. Oprah Winfrey has taken control of this

thing. The clips they've put out after Lance, he doesn't come out

well. I've seen the one of him rubbing his ear 100 times. She is

in control. And he is a control freak but has lost control of this

interview. Did you ever advise a politician the only way out of this

is to confess? I think there were certainly situations where, well,

Peter Mandelson was one when the heat was really up on him... A very

recent example, I do fear that if Andrew Mitchell two days after his

Downing Street incident had said looks di use the F word but I

certainly didn't say pleb, he might have made it. On the paper

interviews he never said he didn't use the word pleb. Any were to

confess would be deafened by the sound of skeletons coming out of

cupboards. No, I'm clean. That's your lot for tonight, folks.

Thanks to all our guests this evening. We're giving Annabel's a

miss tonight, having a quiet one, and heading straight to bed, so I