:00:07. > :00:17.And It's great to be back in business. Bring it on.
:00:17. > :00:23.Yes, we're back. And as the much anticipated Grand Theft Auto five
:00:23. > :00:25.hits the streets, This Week returns to the meaner, darker streets of Los
:00:25. > :00:36.Westminster. A diplomatic deal over Syria's
:00:36. > :00:40.chemical weapons, but the war goes on and it won't stop the violence in
:00:40. > :00:43.downtown Damascus. Two leading world commentators, historian Simon Schama
:00:43. > :00:56.and star CNN reporter, Christiane Amanpour, grab the This Week joy
:00:56. > :01:01.stick. I have covered the war all my career, terrible, horrifying
:01:01. > :01:05.experiences. But did the credible threat of force at least brings
:01:05. > :01:08.Syria to the table to try to destroy its chemical weapons?
:01:08. > :01:10.Not much violence at the Lib Dem Conference in Glasgow, as Nick Clegg
:01:10. > :01:13.flexes his middle-ground muscles. Commentator and journalist Mary Ann
:01:13. > :01:27.Sieghart assesses the political game-play. I've been watching Nick
:01:27. > :01:31.Clegg and Vince Cable nearly come to blows at Clegg definitely won a
:01:31. > :01:35.victory over his party. And fighting over the right to wear
:01:35. > :01:43.a veil. Glamour model and body-builder Jodie Marsh talks about
:01:43. > :01:48.the power of the face. Would I be brave enough to appear on TV without
:01:48. > :01:52.my make up? Sometimes we all need a mask to hide behind, especially on
:01:52. > :01:56.TV. Now lock up your car, lie back on
:01:56. > :02:03.the sofa and pour yourself a glass of the blue stuff.
:02:03. > :02:06.Evenin' all. Welcome back to a new and unimproved series of This Week,
:02:06. > :02:09.the late-night drunk tank of BBC current affairs, for lightweights
:02:09. > :02:19.who can't handle their politics or their Blue Nun. And who wouldn't be
:02:19. > :02:23.feeling a bit unsteady at this hour? After downing a full week of Lib Dem
:02:23. > :02:26.conference debate, intoxicated on a heady brew of real power, like a
:02:26. > :02:28.socially inept teenager given the keys to the electoral drinks
:02:28. > :02:31.cabinet, "Cocky" Clegg's been wearing his Deputy PM beer goggles
:02:31. > :02:34.all week, labouring under the illusion he's now politically
:02:34. > :02:38.irresistible, despite being told by poll after poll to just go home,
:02:38. > :02:47.sober up and stop making such a fool of himself. But "Cocky's" on a
:02:47. > :02:50.drunken roll. He spent the entire week trying to chat us all up,
:02:50. > :02:54.boasting of his success in government, his ability to
:02:54. > :02:56.sweet-talk the Tories, the Dr No of the Coalition, stopping the Tories
:02:57. > :03:00.from getting their way, even taking all the credit for the first signs
:03:00. > :03:07.of growth rather than the blame for it turning up so late. The only man
:03:07. > :03:10.to embarrass himself more was boy minister Jeremy Brown, who called
:03:10. > :03:13.for a national debate on what was doing more damage to the cause of
:03:13. > :03:16.female emancipation, Saudia Arabian face veils or Lib Dem parliamentary
:03:17. > :03:27.selection panels to whom women are invisible? I think we all know the
:03:27. > :03:30.answer to that one, Jezza. Speaking of silly questions, I'm joined on
:03:31. > :03:34.the sofa tonight by two very silly answers, the real boring and snoring
:03:34. > :03:36.of late night political chat. I speak, of course, of
:03:36. > :03:52.#sadmanonasunbed Peter Hain, and #sadmanonatrain Michael "Choo Choo"
:03:52. > :03:57.Portillo. I have missed doing that over the summer, although I think I
:03:57. > :04:04.need some practice. Your moment of the recess? It has to be the Syrian
:04:04. > :04:09.vote in parliament. I believe David Cameron was saved by being defeated,
:04:09. > :04:12.because he -- had he gone on to be the Prime Minister who attacked
:04:12. > :04:17.Syria, I do not think his reputation would have recovered. Very rarely in
:04:17. > :04:19.history has lead of the opposition controlled foreign policy in
:04:19. > :04:23.history has lead of the opposition Britain, which Ed Miliband did. Ed
:04:23. > :04:30.Miliband came out of it looking indecisive and shifty. You have to
:04:30. > :04:32.say, David Cameron is a lucky man. And international ramifications,
:04:32. > :04:42.which we will talk about. Peter, your moment? I had a great family
:04:42. > :04:46.break. But there has been a dampener over Nelson Mandela's ill-health,
:04:46. > :04:53.which has gone on for nearly four months, his critical condition. He
:04:53. > :04:56.is back home. But he has not been the person we know and who has been
:04:56. > :04:59.loved across the world for a long time, and he has not been the person
:04:59. > :05:00.we know and who has been loved across the world for a long time,
:05:00. > :05:03.we know and who has been loved and he's not going to be. Very
:05:03. > :05:06.difficult for his family, to whom I have spoken, and they are having to
:05:06. > :05:11.grapple with the media intrusion. At the same time, everybody wants to
:05:11. > :05:17.know how he is. I had almost thought he has gone home to die. Is that not
:05:17. > :05:22.the harsh reality? Somebody very close to him said to me, I never
:05:22. > :05:25.want to grow old like that. I can understand that.
:05:25. > :05:27.Nothing much happens here in Westminster during the summer
:05:27. > :05:33.recess. But things were different this year. In August, chemical
:05:33. > :05:35.weapons were used in the suburbs of Syria's capital, Damascus. America's
:05:35. > :05:38.President and Britain's Prime Minister were keen to respond with
:05:38. > :05:41.force but found themselves outflanked by political and
:05:41. > :05:44.diplomatic opponents, not to mention public opinion. This week the UN
:05:44. > :05:47.described the use of the weapons as a war crime and said the
:05:47. > :05:50.international community has a moral responsibility to hold those
:05:50. > :05:54.responsible accountable. But where now for a Western foreign policy
:05:54. > :05:57.seemingly in disarray? We turned to CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour. This
:05:57. > :06:27.is her take of the week. This summer has brought Syria to a
:06:27. > :06:32.head. For two and a half years, civil war has been waging and the
:06:32. > :06:34.West has not wanted to intervene, particularly President Obama, and he
:06:34. > :06:39.has now been brought literally kicking and screaming into having to
:06:39. > :06:40.do something because of the use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass
:06:40. > :06:42.destruction, which are prohibited by chemical weapons, weapons of mass
:06:42. > :06:48.international law. Our world exists chemical weapons, weapons of mass
:06:48. > :06:54.based on laws and norms that have to be enforced, otherwise we exist in a
:06:54. > :07:00.state of panic key. Just like Libya, it was Europe which
:07:00. > :07:05.was dressing the agenda on Syria. It was Britain and France. So I was
:07:05. > :07:09.stunned when I was in London covering the fact that Parliament
:07:09. > :07:14.voted down David Cameron's desire to take action over Syria. It is the
:07:14. > :07:19.first time in modern memory that Britain would not have been part of
:07:20. > :07:25.a coalition to actually enforce international law and strategic
:07:25. > :07:29.necessities. Having covered walls, I also know that limited, targeted
:07:29. > :07:32.strikes, no boots on the ground, are sometimes really necessary to end
:07:32. > :07:38.terrible, terrible, terrible, in sometimes really necessary to end
:07:38. > :07:42.human suffering. The only reason Vladimir Putin, president of
:07:42. > :07:46.Russia, and Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, have come to the
:07:46. > :07:51.table now and agreed, at least verbally, to destroy and account for
:07:51. > :07:55.the chemical weapons there, having by the way lied about them, not
:07:55. > :07:59.admitted they even existed, the only reason for this development is
:07:59. > :08:10.because of the credible threat of US force that was on the table, and
:08:10. > :08:15.hopefully will stay on the table. From her state-of-the-art studio to
:08:15. > :08:20.our shabby little BBC broom cupboard. Now she sees what it is
:08:20. > :08:24.really like on the licence fee. Christiane Amanpour joins us, and so
:08:24. > :08:34.does Simon Schama, who has a new book out, story of the Jews.
:08:34. > :08:37.Wellcome. Simon, let me start with you. The path that we are on now,
:08:37. > :08:44.the West, is it a sensible solution, or are we being put -- played like a
:08:44. > :08:48.fiddle by Moscow and Damascus? It is certain we are being played by a fit
:08:48. > :08:52.Ashgrove like a fiddle but there may be good music nonetheless. It
:08:52. > :08:55.depends on whether the United Nations Security Council can be made
:08:55. > :09:14.to be serious. It will be an epic conversion. If Vladimir Putin
:09:14. > :09:18.actually does, if having been in a position where he was protecting
:09:18. > :09:23.Assad and preventing him from being defeated, if he is actually prepared
:09:23. > :09:29.to clobber him, to do what is necessary to bring about a proper
:09:29. > :09:32.solution. I just want to say one little thing. If the United Nations
:09:32. > :09:38.is really going to do its job, it should begin with the chemical
:09:38. > :09:43.weapons issue, not end with it. Has President Obama been weakened? Many
:09:43. > :09:48.people are talking about precisely that. The people of the United
:09:48. > :09:52.States are behind his policy, and what he has done has caused a lot of
:09:52. > :09:59.thanks to, left, right, all around the world. If it works, and this
:09:59. > :10:06.chemical weapons arsenal is to stride, it could be a game changer.
:10:06. > :10:09.But, as Simon says, several thousand people have been killed by chemical
:10:09. > :10:15.weapons, these are weapons of mass destruction. But over 100,000 have
:10:15. > :10:20.been killed by Assad's conventional weapons, and they continue to be
:10:20. > :10:22.killed. This is the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second
:10:22. > :10:27.World War. There are 6 million refugees. The world food programme
:10:27. > :10:33.cannot feed people. The world is weary. You know what is really sad
:10:33. > :10:38.about this? Two and a half years ago ordinary people, men, women and
:10:38. > :10:42.children went out on the streets in Damascus and said, we just want some
:10:43. > :10:47.change, reform, freedom. What is wrong with that? Assad and his
:10:47. > :10:50.henchmen arrested these kids, pulled out their fingernails, tortured them
:10:50. > :10:57.to death and were then surprised there was an uprising against them.
:10:57. > :11:00.And by its continued inaction, the West has created a self-fulfilling
:11:00. > :11:02.prophecy. Everybody was so worried about what would happen if we
:11:02. > :11:05.prophecy. Everybody was so worried intervened, by leaving it like
:11:05. > :11:10.this, as President Clinton said two years ago, the longer you leave it,
:11:10. > :11:16.the more space to give the bad actors, and that has happened.
:11:16. > :11:22.President Obama was being urged by his aides and advisers in July 2012
:11:22. > :11:26.to start arming the rebels. Even this week, his two former defence
:11:26. > :11:32.ministers said they were absolutely stunned that he thought to go to
:11:32. > :11:37.Congress. They disagreed on whether he should intervene or not, but in
:11:38. > :11:41.any event, do not go to Congress. You are the President. You have set
:11:41. > :11:46.the red line. This is a violation of international law, a major
:11:46. > :11:49.geopolitical and strategic disaster for the US and its allies in the
:11:49. > :12:01.region. You need to take action. Now, where is the credibility of the
:12:01. > :12:05.United States. What did you make of David Cameron's haste to call-back
:12:05. > :12:11.Parliament and push for a quick involvement? At the time, I was not
:12:11. > :12:16.in favour of intervention by Britain or America. But at the time I did
:12:16. > :12:18.not realise what a foolish move it was by David Cameron. As it turned
:12:18. > :12:23.out, it was a catastrophe in the was by David Cameron. As it turned
:12:23. > :12:28.short term, inasmuch as he called a vote which he lost. The thing was
:12:28. > :12:32.badly handled. In the fullness of time, it also looked foolish
:12:32. > :12:37.because, as it turned out, the United States was not going to take
:12:37. > :12:42.action anyway. So it was not a well judged move at all. But as I said, I
:12:42. > :12:48.think David Cameron was saved from himself by the boat that happened in
:12:48. > :12:56.the House of Commons. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan hangs over
:12:56. > :12:59.public opinion, over Congress and the British Parliament, and you can
:12:59. > :13:07.understand that. But neither might be the right way to view future
:13:07. > :13:10.events. I agree. I was in the Cabinet that took the decision to go
:13:10. > :13:16.to war in Iraq, and we have to live with that. I agree with Michael on
:13:16. > :13:20.the Commons vote and where it left the Prime Minister. I agree with
:13:20. > :13:25.Christina and up to a point, but I do not think, the reason why Obama
:13:25. > :13:29.went to Capitol Hill and Cameron came to Parliament is that actually
:13:29. > :13:34.the public of both countries do not want us to rush in there. And they
:13:34. > :13:41.are right. Although this has been a catastrophe, this is a civil war.
:13:41. > :13:45.What does the public want instead? The public does not want to be
:13:45. > :13:49.bothered, particularly. The public feel they are all as bad as one
:13:50. > :13:54.another. I do not care how many Al-Qaeda fighters are doing ugly
:13:54. > :14:00.things, there is not a moral equivalence between the sides. The
:14:00. > :14:02.public wants it all to go away. This is a civil war between Shia and
:14:02. > :14:07.Sunni, Iran and Saudi, a proxy is a civil war between Shia and
:14:07. > :14:12.battle in there, with Assad hated by the people, but actually most of the
:14:12. > :14:14.Christians and other minorities who support Assad support him, although
:14:14. > :14:24.they hate him, because they fear genocide. Turning your back on the
:14:24. > :14:29.situation is not going to help that. I think there are two things.
:14:29. > :14:33.Firstly, it is a major geopolitical and strategic catastrophe. It is not
:14:33. > :14:38.just a bleeding heart situation. It is a big trouble for Britain,
:14:38. > :14:43.France, the United States, and for its allies and the stability of the
:14:43. > :14:46.region. No matter how much the US president says he wants to pivot to
:14:46. > :14:54.Asia, the Middle East is still a big deal. He has cast himself as the
:14:54. > :14:58.Pacific president. And he seems to want to do everything in his power
:14:58. > :15:03.not to be dragged back to the Middle East. That is true. He said
:15:03. > :15:09.specifically - listen to his body language - I was elected to end
:15:09. > :15:14.wars, not to start them. He had said Assad must go, and that there were
:15:14. > :15:20.red lines. When a superpower says that, they have to do something
:15:20. > :15:26.about it. It was a foolish thing to say. He has been hanging by it ever
:15:26. > :15:30.since. He never looked as though he had any convention. He was only
:15:30. > :15:35.doing it because he said it was a red line. Normally, when you get
:15:35. > :15:38.into these situations, you are very doubtful about where it will end. I
:15:38. > :15:44.have never been in a situation where we did not know how it would begin.
:15:44. > :15:48.The inconsistency of what Obama has been saying from day to day, one day
:15:48. > :15:53.saying he would fire a shot across the bow was, a shot that does not
:15:53. > :15:56.hit. The next day saying he would weaken the regime until the point
:15:56. > :16:01.where it turned the balance of the civil war. Meanwhile David Cameron,
:16:01. > :16:04.assuring the House of Commons and sounding like Tony Blair ten years
:16:04. > :16:08.ago, assuring the House of Commons this was nothing to do with regime
:16:08. > :16:18.change, not intervening in a civil war, only about chemical weapons.
:16:18. > :16:22.Secretary of State Kerry said any aattack would be "unbelievable
:16:23. > :16:27.small." People thought - what's the point? The point, there are several
:16:27. > :16:31.points. In 1998 Britain and America took part in what was called
:16:31. > :16:35.Operation Desert Fox against Iraq, Saddam Hussein when he was in power
:16:35. > :16:38.and when he did have chemical weapons. According to the
:16:38. > :16:43.inspectors, after that very limited attack, they said that that put paid
:16:43. > :16:46.to his ability to actually want to go-ahead with doing chemical
:16:46. > :16:51.weapons. We know that there were no chemical weapons because when people
:16:51. > :16:55.went in in 2003, there were no chemical weapons. Partly because of
:16:56. > :17:00.the limited targeted attacks, no boots on the ground, that Clinton
:17:00. > :17:04.and Blair and whoever else was in power in 98 took. Also, we have a
:17:04. > :17:08.and Blair and whoever else was in humanitarian imperative. We in the
:17:08. > :17:13.West, who believe in values in the moral and imperative, I covered
:17:13. > :17:17.Bosnia for years, nobody intervened, it was a genocide unfolding in our
:17:17. > :17:23.backyard. With no boots on the ground... We should have intervened
:17:23. > :17:32.there. With no boots on the ground you changed it. With Bosnia, we had
:17:32. > :17:37.a 78-day bombing campaign. Kosovo. No-one is talking about that in
:17:38. > :17:44.Syria? No boots on the ground, Kosovo free and independent. I agree
:17:44. > :17:47.with Michael you could possibly explain the incoherence about how it
:17:47. > :17:53.would begin and the unbelievable... It US m be the only, kind of,
:17:53. > :17:55.military statement where you reassure those on the end it isn't
:17:55. > :18:01.going to hurt one bit. What the hell reassure those on the end it isn't
:18:01. > :18:05.is the point! Failure of policy? With any luck we won't have to find
:18:05. > :18:12.out whether or not a targeted attack, say, on command and control
:18:12. > :18:17.of the air force. I these are horribly vague things that got us
:18:17. > :18:20.into trouble before. It seems not inconceivable that an intelligently
:18:20. > :18:27.limited carefully worked out strategy might have had the same
:18:27. > :18:31.effect that Desert Fox had. Obama is like Neville Chamberlain if you
:18:31. > :18:37.believe it's a horrific situation you need to sort out at the first
:18:37. > :18:41.whisper from Russia you ought to put it off for a year to have
:18:42. > :18:47.discussions. You back and wave a bit of paper saying it is all over you
:18:47. > :18:51.are in effect Neville Chamberlain. I don't believe of an intervention at
:18:51. > :18:57.all. If you settle for what Russia has given you, you are then Neville
:18:57. > :19:00.Chamberlain. They talked it up, the Holocaust was dragged in at one
:19:01. > :19:04.stage. The Battle of Britain was dragged in the President yet the
:19:04. > :19:12.response would be unbelievable small. I don't understand it. The
:19:12. > :19:21.default Hitler rhetoric. Margaret Thatcher did it. George Bush did it.
:19:21. > :19:24.Leave Hitler out of it. In a year's time will Syria have chemical
:19:24. > :19:28.weapons? It might have a bit. A few. They will probably have got rid of
:19:29. > :19:32.most of them. You think it would be successful? ? No, the killing will
:19:32. > :19:36.go on. The killing will certainly go on. That wasn't the question. The
:19:36. > :19:41.question was, will it still have chemical weapons? I really don't
:19:41. > :19:46.know. I really don't know. Yes. It will, won't it. Assad himself said
:19:46. > :19:50.it will have chemical weapons in a year. They will keep it going
:19:50. > :19:58.forever. That is correct. Thank you. That was great. So much better than
:19:58. > :20:01.what I'm used to! Now it may be late, but pour
:20:01. > :20:05.yourself another three fingers and get ready to stick it out like Miley
:20:05. > :20:08.Cyrus's tongue, it'll be worth it, because waiting in the wings,
:20:08. > :20:12.glamour model and bodybuilder Jodie Marsh is here to talk about why the
:20:12. > :20:18.face is a window into the soul. She's obviously never met George
:20:18. > :20:21.Osborne! And for those of you poised to
:20:21. > :20:25.register their offence at tonight's show, get ready to charge up your
:20:25. > :20:28.Amstrad, you never know one day it might work, and log onto the
:20:28. > :20:34.Twitter, the fleecebook and the good old interweb.
:20:34. > :20:40.We await your complaints with total indifference.
:20:40. > :20:42.The Lib Dems spent the past week basking in their own magnificence up
:20:42. > :20:45.in Glasgow, congratulating themselves on providing the moral
:20:45. > :20:53.sunlight around which we all now orbit.
:20:53. > :20:56.It's thought "cocky" Clegg had a pretty good conference, announcing a
:20:56. > :21:00.tax-payer funded school lunch subsidy of over a £400 a year for
:21:00. > :21:02.every infant child, even if mummy and daddy could afford a daily
:21:02. > :21:07.hamper from Harrods. No doubt they'll put it in the kitty
:21:07. > :21:10.to pay off the £9,000 a year tuition fees the little darlings face when
:21:10. > :21:13.they reach university, thanks to the very same Liberal Democrats.
:21:13. > :21:15.So with nothing much happening here in Westminster we asked Mary Ann
:21:15. > :21:27.Seighart for her conference round-up of the week.
:21:27. > :21:38.Hard work on the thigh. Yes. Dancing like politics is all about
:21:38. > :21:41.partnership. At the Lib Dem conference this week, the question
:21:41. > :21:47.was - who were they going to Tango with?
:21:47. > :22:01.No, not them. They are talking about those a little closer to home.
:22:01. > :22:10.Yes, d was Vince Cable flirting with Labour this week. If he shouted,
:22:10. > :22:13."can you hear me Ed" at the end of his speech I wouldn't have
:22:13. > :22:19.surprised. He threatened not to support his own leader on the
:22:19. > :22:24.economy. Come on. Oh, no, this is tiring. Before you could say
:22:24. > :22:29."collective responsibility" he backed off from treading on Nick
:22:29. > :22:36.Clegg's toes. Clegg was trying to persuade his party into coming into
:22:36. > :22:41.line over spend. We will go into the next election, we will go into the
:22:41. > :22:46.next election in favour of more fair taxes and not follow George
:22:46. > :22:50.Osborne's plan, such as it might be, to only make further savings out of
:22:50. > :22:55.spending cuts. We will not do that. That is not Liberal Democrat. It
:22:55. > :23:00.won't happen under my watch. Vince is a passionate ballroom dancer
:23:00. > :23:05.himself. Is he setting himself up for a celebrity come leading contest
:23:05. > :23:11.with all his Tory bashing The list of people the Tories disapprove of
:23:11. > :23:15.is even longer than that. Public sector workers, especially teachers,
:23:15. > :23:21.the unmarried, people who don't own property. I suspect that their core
:23:21. > :23:26.democratic excludes pretty much anybody who wouldn't have qualified
:23:26. > :23:35.for a vote before the 18 67 reformle act. That is not our kind of
:23:35. > :23:45.politics. It is ugly we will not be dragged down by it. The speech was
:23:45. > :23:49.aimed at lefties both inside his party and out. Most Lib Dem
:23:49. > :23:53.activists would much rather form a coalition with Labour after the next
:23:53. > :24:01.election. Their leader insists that is up to the voters. Could you, Nick
:24:01. > :24:04.Clegg, comfortably, after the next election say, bye-bye David Cameron,
:24:04. > :24:11.hello Ed, I will be your deputy now? I can tell you why I could, it isn't
:24:11. > :24:14.actually about my personal pre-renlss it isn't about whether
:24:14. > :24:19.this person likes that person or more, it's about following the
:24:19. > :24:24.infrastructureses the infrastructures manual handed to us.
:24:24. > :24:29.In the run-up to the last general election, I will always seek to do
:24:29. > :24:34.what the British people have said to us politicians they want us to do.
:24:34. > :24:39.The Lib Dems could easily partner up us politicians they want us to do.
:24:39. > :24:43.with Labour. In fact, they find it smoother than another two step with
:24:43. > :24:50.the Tories. Labour would love the mansion tax and their pro-EUstance.
:24:50. > :24:55.There is not that much to choose between them. Clegg was boasting
:24:55. > :25:00.about how much he had said no to the Tories. Would would he say no to
:25:00. > :25:06.Labour? Tax cuts for millionaires. No. Bringing back O-levels an a two
:25:06. > :25:13.tier education system, no. Profit making in state schools. That will
:25:13. > :25:22.be a no. New childcare ratios. No Firing workers at will without any
:25:22. > :25:26.reasons given. No! Broadly it has been a pretty good week for the Lib
:25:27. > :25:30.Dems. A tasty new free school meals polypropylene Sid. His party coming
:25:30. > :25:34.into line. The economic recovery has put a spring back in Clegg's step.
:25:34. > :25:38.If you are going to praise the merits of coalition, does it really
:25:38. > :25:44.make sense to keep boasting about how many times you tripped your
:25:44. > :25:56.partner up? I don't think so. Can't compete with that. The Dance Lab in
:25:56. > :26:05.put any. We are now joined by Miranda Green at our little dance
:26:05. > :26:12.lab here in Westminster. Gave us a quick pao doble. Right here, right
:26:12. > :26:22.now? What will he do to convince the voters? It was a very... It did have
:26:22. > :26:27.a very inward looking feel about it, the conference, you know, it was
:26:27. > :26:31.seen as a success. There weren't any great rebellions. People were, sort
:26:31. > :26:37.of, confirmed in their view that the party has grownup and is getting
:26:37. > :26:42.used to the idea of power. It was inward looking actually. Even the
:26:42. > :26:43.leader's speech was very much talking to the party and keeping
:26:43. > :26:48.leader's speech was very much them happy. I didn't understand
:26:48. > :26:52.that. He had won the faithful by then. They were on his side. They
:26:52. > :26:54.voted every way that he wanted them to. Surely he should have spoken out
:26:54. > :26:58.to the rest of us, the troops to. Surely he should have spoken out
:26:58. > :27:04.on side? It's an interesting point this. I mean, back in the 2010
:27:04. > :27:08.election, when the TV debates were such a success for him, it was this
:27:08. > :27:12.feeling he had got the attention of the country. I think the Lib Dems,
:27:12. > :27:17.you know, they are trying to talk about being newly self-confident,
:27:17. > :27:21.but what they have to do, they have to work out the next stage of
:27:21. > :27:26.talking confidently to the nation. There is a real danger of getting to
:27:26. > :27:30.a point where you put the defensiveness behind you. You put
:27:30. > :27:34.the disaster behind you. You have to lay out a positive platform in a
:27:34. > :27:38.confident way to the broadest audience. I'm not sure they quite
:27:38. > :27:44.got there yet. What would be a good result for the Lib Dems at the next
:27:44. > :27:48.election, the loss of 10 seats, 20 seats lost? They are very confident
:27:48. > :27:52.in a lot of current Lib Dem seats they can hold on there. They don't
:27:52. > :27:56.think they will gain any? No. They will definitely lose seats. There
:27:56. > :28:00.are other seats they have their eye on to gain. What would be a bad
:28:00. > :28:03.result? How many to lose and we say, that is a bad result? How many to
:28:03. > :28:08.lose and we say, not a bad result? that is a bad result? How many to
:28:08. > :28:13.Losing more than half would be pretty bad. Yes. That would be "c"
:28:13. > :28:17.Losing more than half would be for catastrophe. You have to have a
:28:17. > :28:21.respectable number to be in a hung parliament To make a difference to
:28:21. > :28:24.the vote. They will hold on to their seats where they are incumbent
:28:24. > :28:31.against Tories in contest with Labour I think they will lose. Yes.
:28:31. > :28:36.Far fewer seats. Left of the Lib Dem will go to Labour. He said he could
:28:36. > :28:42.work with Ed Miliband and Labour if there was a hung parliament. Could
:28:42. > :28:47.you see that? Can you see Ed and Nick getting together in the Rose
:28:47. > :28:50.Garden press conference? They did on media regulation, didn't they? And,
:28:50. > :28:57.I could. I don't know that it will be another Rose Garden. We don't
:28:57. > :29:02.want it to be. Count that out. I think they could. I mean, most
:29:02. > :29:05.Liberal Democrats don't actually agree with the right-wing agenda
:29:05. > :29:10.that this Government is following. They would be far happier with us.
:29:10. > :29:14.There is another thing, I think British politics is in the mode now
:29:14. > :29:18.where you are more likely to get hung parliament's than not. The
:29:18. > :29:23.Liberal Democrats national vote will fall, but they will hold on to quite
:29:23. > :29:29.a lot of their seats, UKIP will do well. The party, the electorate have
:29:29. > :29:36.given up on majority government from the two older parties, ourselves and
:29:36. > :29:39.the Tories. In that situation we are in for a period until that culture
:29:39. > :29:43.is broken. I don't see it being broken for a while. The implication
:29:43. > :29:47.for that is that Ed Miliband, although he will fight to win an
:29:47. > :29:50.overall majority, obviously, he should be behind closed doors
:29:50. > :29:54.preparing for a hung parliament in which he is the largest party We
:29:54. > :29:57.were badly prepared last time. The Conservatives and the Liberal
:29:57. > :30:03.Democrats were well-prepared. That lesson has to be learnt. You know, I
:30:03. > :30:07.think that... Lord Ashcroft had a poll today saying there are huge
:30:07. > :30:11.swings from the Tories to Labour in the marginal seats that could propel
:30:11. > :30:14.Ed Miliband into Number Ten. I think Ed is more likely to be Prime
:30:14. > :30:18.Minister than anybody else. Whether we can achieve a majority government
:30:18. > :30:22.is a different matter. The logic of Mr Clegg's position is that the Lib
:30:22. > :30:26.Dems would always be in power. He is hoping for a hung parliament and he
:30:26. > :30:32.will always hold the balance of power. Isn't it a long-term risk,
:30:32. > :30:36.even if you lose seats, he could be in power there is a danger of a
:30:36. > :30:40.backlash in the longer term for that. People won't understand, how
:30:40. > :30:44.come he did so badly and the Lib Dems are still in ministerial cars?
:30:44. > :30:47.I think the backlash is there in the sense that lots of people who voted
:30:47. > :30:50.Liberal Democrat on the strict understanding the party would never
:30:50. > :30:54.be on power. He had a problem with those people. They have now moved
:30:54. > :30:59.off. They don't like the reality of that. Vince Cable said that once,
:30:59. > :31:03.didn't he? He has done a good job Nick Clegg in convincing people this
:31:03. > :31:08.is a party that can hold power. Indeed, actually speaking they may
:31:08. > :31:12.have the best chance of the three parties of being in power. They may
:31:12. > :31:16.have a high higher certainty of being in power. Secondly, I want to
:31:16. > :31:19.go back to Syria on the Lib Dem point. Something that really
:31:19. > :31:22.instruct me about Syria was that the Government was defeated not because
:31:23. > :31:25.the coalition fell apart. The Lib Dems and the Tories stuck together
:31:25. > :31:29.the coalition fell apart. The Lib on Syria. The Lib Dems and the
:31:29. > :31:32.Tories have stuck together on austerity. The two most difficult
:31:32. > :31:36.things the coalition had to do, the two parties have been together. In
:31:36. > :31:44.terms of the leadership? Is Yes. That goes a long way down. Quite a
:31:44. > :31:48.few Lib Dems... J r Backbenchers a huge po portion of Conservative
:31:48. > :31:52.backbenchers revolted. Miranda and I have been talking over the weekses
:31:52. > :31:56.with about how there is a growing feeling among the Liberal Democrats
:31:56. > :32:00.and the Conservatives that a coalition between the two of them is
:32:00. > :32:05.a strong possibilities. I perfectly understand they can work with Ed
:32:05. > :32:09.Miliband, if that is what happens, Ed Miliband is not looking
:32:09. > :32:13.competent. He has not had a good summer. Someone like Danny
:32:13. > :32:18.Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, would he happily
:32:18. > :32:20.exchange Osborne and Kamran for Miliband and Balls. I absolutely
:32:20. > :32:34.exchange Osborne and Kamran for doubt it. Interesting.
:32:34. > :32:44.This was not Vince Cable's strongest hour. It is really crucial for the
:32:44. > :32:47.Lib Dems, having suffered the pain and the kicking of the first two and
:32:47. > :32:52.Lib Dems, having suffered the pain a half years of the coalition over
:32:52. > :32:56.austerity, now that the economy has started to turn the corner, it would
:32:56. > :33:03.be utter madness. That would be madness. Briefly, if it is not a
:33:03. > :33:07.hung parliament, if we are wrong, if either Tory or Labour form an
:33:07. > :33:11.overall majority and they are in power for five years, does Nick
:33:12. > :33:15.Clegg step down? It is interesting. One thing that did occur to me,
:33:15. > :33:23.watching the Lib Dems, that leaked briefing note saying they were in
:33:23. > :33:28.buoyant mood. They actually were. If they are not able to participate in
:33:28. > :33:32.government again it will be a big psychological blow. I do not think
:33:32. > :33:37.he would hang on. He would be gone. The Labour conference is coming up
:33:37. > :33:40.in Brighton. It is a grim run-up to the conference. In the Guardian we
:33:40. > :33:42.have e-mails being published about that Tony Blair- Gordon Brown
:33:42. > :33:47.battles of 2006. The Daily Mail has that Tony Blair- Gordon Brown
:33:47. > :33:53.brought forward its serialisation of Damien pride to be serialise to in
:33:53. > :33:58.the Daily Mail, which is quite devastating. Terrible polling for
:33:58. > :34:02.Labour at this stage in the political cycle, and the economy
:34:02. > :34:10.showing signs of life. You could call it a shambles. We have Damien
:34:10. > :34:17.McBride milking the moment for his book, getting a serialisation in a
:34:17. > :34:21.way that undermines the party. This is all about factional staffer years
:34:21. > :34:30.ago which Ed Miliband has turned his back on, and it is not there. --
:34:30. > :34:35.factional staff. But look at the factional things in his party over
:34:35. > :34:42.Maastricht. It continues to be a shadow over the Tories, poisoning
:34:42. > :34:47.the well, still. He has a mountain to climb, I would suggest, Mr
:34:47. > :34:50.Miliband. He needs to make a big speech. We need to get beyond a very
:34:50. > :34:57.poor summer, no question about that. For the leadership and for the
:34:57. > :35:00.party, generally. You have the Ashcroft marginal seats poll, and
:35:00. > :35:09.some polls are showing us six or seven points ahead. Not many. It is
:35:09. > :35:13.a volatile situation. I think it is fair to say that at the moment, and
:35:13. > :35:19.it has been through the summer and was not derailed by Syria, that the
:35:19. > :35:22.political weather is now with Mr Cameron and the Tories, but the
:35:22. > :35:30.electoral arithmetic is still with Mr Miliband. It is not with David
:35:30. > :35:35.Cameron because, as I have said countless times, he only got 37%
:35:35. > :35:36.last time, not enough to win, and the governing party never improves
:35:36. > :35:41.its share of the vote. Whether it is the governing party never improves
:35:41. > :35:48.with Mr Miliband, we still do not know. Labour got 31% last time, a
:35:48. > :35:55.very poor result. It was actually 29. For a party to put on five, six
:35:55. > :36:00.or seven points between one election and another is also pretty unusual.
:36:00. > :36:06.He only needs 35 for an overall majority. He needs much less than
:36:06. > :36:10.the Tories, but at the moment Ed Miliband is in what I call the
:36:10. > :36:17.leader of the opposition nosedive, which is set meal Kinnock, William
:36:17. > :36:20.Hague, Iain Duncan Smith. -- Neil Kinnock. We are running out of time
:36:20. > :36:23.but I get the point. Now, a political riddle for you.
:36:23. > :36:27.I've got just the one. Peter's got just the one. But if you've read
:36:27. > :36:30.John Major's memoirs, fat chance, it turns out Michael's actually got
:36:30. > :36:34.two. What am I talking about? That's right, faces. So, with this in mind,
:36:34. > :36:36.and after a week of argument over whether we should have the right to
:36:36. > :36:38.see them, we've decided to put faces whether we should have the right to
:36:38. > :36:55.in this week's Spotlight. Female celebrities faced their fear
:36:55. > :37:01.of being naked this week by appearing without make up for
:37:01. > :37:05.children in need, proving the human face takes many forms, all of them
:37:05. > :37:09.beautiful in their own unique way. 26 years since becoming the first
:37:10. > :37:14.black model on the cover of Vogue magazine, Naomi Campbell this week
:37:14. > :37:18.raised her own angry eyebrows and question the lack of faces of colour
:37:18. > :37:21.in the fashion industry. Meanwhile, the argument over the rights to
:37:21. > :37:25.cover your face reared its head again, causing controversy in
:37:26. > :37:29.cover your face reared its head schools, colleges, chords and
:37:29. > :37:33.hospitals, with politicians forced to lift the veil on their own
:37:34. > :37:37.feelings. I do not think government should tell women what they should
:37:37. > :37:43.be wearing. Women should make a choice about what they wish to wear.
:37:43. > :37:46.As a patient, I would want to be able to see the face of the doctor
:37:46. > :37:53.or nurse who was treating me, so I have sympathy for people who are
:37:53. > :37:57.worried about that. So just how important is your expression when it
:37:57. > :38:02.comes to expressing yourself, and is a first impression all it is cracked
:38:02. > :38:09.up to be, or do our faces sometimes mask our true feelings and sparkling
:38:09. > :38:14.personalities? Jodie Marsh is with us. Has anybody
:38:14. > :38:19.got the right to tell a woman what to wear or how they should look
:38:19. > :38:26.first remark no, I don't think so. In this day and age we should be
:38:26. > :38:33.allowed to wear whatever we like. Talking about the veil, I think
:38:33. > :38:38.there are separate issues at hand which are, I think, a matter of,
:38:38. > :38:42.say, security. Talking about the courtroom, if you are in court
:38:42. > :38:45.giving evidence I do not think you should be allowed to wear a veil, in
:38:45. > :38:50.the same way you would not be allowed to wear a balaclava or a
:38:50. > :38:56.helmet in court. So there are times when we need to see somebody's face?
:38:56. > :39:00.Absolutely. One, to gauge how genuine they are, whether they are
:39:00. > :39:06.telling the truth, what range of emotion they are displaying. And
:39:06. > :39:11.obviously for security purposes, in airports, maybe schools and
:39:11. > :39:19.colleges. Banks, places that are at risk of things happening. I think we
:39:19. > :39:22.do need to see people's faces. People are judged by their faces but
:39:22. > :39:29.I would suggest women probably judged more than men by their faces.
:39:29. > :39:34.Yes, I think so. I have been judged all my life by my face. I have been
:39:34. > :39:41.through every range of emotions on this possible. I am finally at the
:39:41. > :39:44.point where I do not care. I was bullied at school for being ugly and
:39:44. > :39:50.then made a career from modelling, in the beginning. I have made a
:39:50. > :39:54.living out of my face and body, but I have also been told I am hideously
:39:54. > :40:00.ugly by many people, and I am still told that by patrols on Twitter. You
:40:01. > :40:07.do not want to take any notice of them. I do not. Why are we unnerved
:40:08. > :40:11.by women covering their faces? I think we would be under I meant
:40:11. > :40:18.covering their faces, probably even more. -- probably be unnerved by men
:40:18. > :40:21.covering their faces, probably even covering their faces. Of course,
:40:21. > :40:25.people can do what they want in a private capacity but in a public
:40:25. > :40:29.role it is different. There are many examples where we tell people what
:40:29. > :40:35.they can wear. We all have to appear decently in public, for a start. But
:40:35. > :40:39.even beyond that, many employers require employees to be smartly
:40:39. > :40:43.turned out. They might require them to wear a suit or a uniform. There
:40:43. > :40:46.are no hard and fast rules. There are all sorts of cases where,
:40:46. > :40:50.although we have the right to wear what we like, when we are in some
:40:50. > :40:56.public capacity that is no longer the case. And I think the veil is
:40:56. > :41:01.just a subset of that. I agree with both points. But I think modern
:41:02. > :41:07.women, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, having to cover
:41:07. > :41:13.their faces, for me it takes you back to a reactionary era, the
:41:13. > :41:16.Victorian era, when women had to be completely covered up in our own
:41:16. > :41:24.country. If you displayed your ankle, you were virtually lynched.
:41:24. > :41:29.That is where I come from. I feel uncomfortable about it in today's
:41:29. > :41:34.age. I have been to Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to
:41:34. > :41:36.drive. I have been to offices, where there is a segregated office for the
:41:36. > :41:41.women compared with the men working on the same staff. I am
:41:41. > :41:43.uncomfortable with that but on the other hand I do not think it is for
:41:43. > :41:49.uncomfortable with that but on the government to say. Is it for
:41:49. > :41:54.government to say, if you are going into a bank, you take the veil off?
:41:54. > :41:59.That is for the banks to impose rules. I do not think government
:41:59. > :42:06.should lay that down. What about the NHS? Would you like to be looked
:42:06. > :42:13.after by a nurse with a veil? It depends what was going on. If it was
:42:13. > :42:16.a sensitive situation... I was interested in seeing earlier this
:42:16. > :42:21.evening two muslin doctors in a hospital in the Midlands saying, we
:42:21. > :42:26.take a face veil off when we are treating patients. -- Muslim. They
:42:26. > :42:30.also said, we do not know of any nurse, consultant or doctor in
:42:30. > :42:35.hospital who wears the veil. So it has got exaggerated. The answer is,
:42:35. > :42:39.I would prefer to be treated, if I was being prescribed a pill, it does
:42:39. > :42:45.not matter, but if I was having something being done to me, or being
:42:45. > :42:50.told something bad, yes. To my knowledge, I think there are
:42:50. > :42:54.something like 17 hospitals that have privately imposed a ban anyway
:42:54. > :43:01.on face veils, and have set that as a rule. Rather than government doing
:43:01. > :43:06.it. Very briefly, yourself excluded, do you think this would have been a
:43:06. > :43:13.better programme if we had won the veil? Absolutely! Only joking!
:43:13. > :43:16.Thanks for coming. That's your lot for tonight, folks.
:43:16. > :43:20.But not for us, because Peter's brought along his loyalty card to
:43:20. > :43:24.the Bronze Age, the most popular tanning salon on the Old Kent Road.
:43:24. > :43:28.So we're all off for a free top up. Well, if Obama can have his red
:43:28. > :43:31.lines, so can we! But we leave you tonight with a Lib Dem political
:43:31. > :43:37.martyr, whose sacrifice on the altar of political comedy we may never see
:43:37. > :43:46.the like of again. Nighty-night. Don't let Sarah Tether ankle-bite.
:43:46. > :43:52.I thought I would not keep you for too long tonight as I want to get
:43:52. > :44:00.back to my hotel room to watch strict glee. Do you watch it? Of
:44:00. > :44:04.course you do. -- strictly. The problem with this series is that
:44:04. > :44:10.Edwina Currie is not a patch on Vince Cable, is she? I think we need
:44:10. > :44:17.him back on. I heard they have got Peter Hain booked for the next
:44:17. > :44:21.series. He is doing the tango. Or has he been tangoed?