Andrew Neil Interviews

[claretandy]

Start again tonight, get the popcorn ready, its Jezza's turn to be Brillo'd

[claretandy]

On now, currently getting Brillo'd on foreign policy.

[claretandy]

This is brutal, somebody save him and throw in the towel.

[Bordeauxclaret]

It's a good job you didn't watch Mondays then.

[claretandy]

this IRA stuff is damning.

[claretandy]

It's a good job you didn't watch Mondays then.

I did watch, she got a working over, but not for siding with terrorists.

[hampsteadclaret]

You embarrassed yourself mightily on the other thread, don't do it again have you no shame..?

It would help me assess JC properly, if Andrew Neil would stop interrupting his answers.

[ClaretAndJew]

Luckily Corbyn isn't siding with terrorists.

[joey13]

I did watch, she got a working over, but not for siding with terrorists.

Slanderous

[Bordeauxclaret]

Bloody hell, he's standing up for the poor now the animal.

[claretandy]

"I never met the IRA" he said

[dermotdermot]

Corbyn being taken apart. Such a phoney.

[ElectroClaret]

Complete car crash.

[Wile E Coyote]

he is principled and sounds decent, but is coming across as wishy washy. Not sure why neil is grilling him so much about ireland though ?
he offered nothing though to address terrorism in this era, apart from talking to some vague group somewhere or other.
Just sounds like a geography teacher who likes a cuppa. not good enough .

[claretandy]

You embarrassed yourself mightily on the other thread, don't do it again have you no shame..?

It would help me assess JC properly, if Andrew Neil would stop interrupting his answers.

You get interrupted when you don't answer the question, Brillo is the best in the business, and gives everyone a going over.

[hampsteadclaret]

- you must be a very wealthy individual, with profits and assets on four continents to keep defending the interests of the the Selfish Greedy Party..?

- somehow I doubt it though..

[thatdberight]

That interview should kill the 'Jeremy is a decent, principled man' BS that's peddled, usually just before criticism of him.

A decent, principled man of his view would say, "I will die trying to get rid of Trident and being PM would give me a great chance to do that."

A slimy career politician, just like most of the rest of them, would... well, if you've seen it, you'll know.

[dermotdermot]

Just let Paxman go for the jugular. The Two Jeremy's. I can't wait.

[hampsteadclaret]

Andrew Neil asks difficult questions and he lets no-one off the hook.

That was not an easy interview for JC - like ANY politician he will have his weak areas [say nuclear policy or foreign policy or Labour Party spending]* and someone as skilled as AN will home in on those issues.

Corbyn is having a very good campaign and the Labour manifesto [hopefully they could see that through] is impressive and batters the Tory equivalent.

Corbyn will be glad his 30 minutes with AN is done.

3,12,13 these comments are inaccurate and suggest who is really doing the panicking..


* I don't necessarily think that these are weak areas.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's a good job you didn't watch Mondays then.

No one remembers Mondays.

[mdd2]

Not JC fan and if he becomes PM his economics will fall apart imo (or more to the point the IFS), but I admired the way he behaved. Not once did he slag off Theresa or indeed the Tories. Compare that with Monday when every other word from TM was about Jeremy.
I admire the way he goes about his politics; just cannot trust his policies as I Have heard them mostly before.
The only thing I cannot understand is why when JC wants to reduce the IHT back to £325k he hasn't adopted one of the most socialist policies put forward albeit briefly namely the Dementia tax.

[thatdberight]

Not JC fan and if he becomes PM his economics will fall apart imo (or more to the point the IFS), but I admired the way he behaved. Not once did he slag off Theresa or indeed the Tories. Compare that with Monday when every other word from TM was about Jeremy.
I admire the way he goes about his politics; just cannot trust his policies as I Have heard them mostly before.
The only thing I cannot understand is why when JC wants to reduce the IHT back to £325k he hasn't adopted one of the most socialist policies put forward albeit briefly namely the Dementia tax.

Quite right. I've already voted (Tory) but there's no doubt he's at least talked about his agenda. I don't know who created the Conservativecampaign but it's been crap. I believe their approach is better than his; they should be talking about their vision not the only two lines we've heard so far; "strong and stable" and "We're not him".

[hampsteadclaret]

22... 'they should be talking about their vision'

That 'vision' is five more years of AUSTERITY...see the comments of the Institute of Fiscal Studies today.

That is why they aren't 'talking about their vision'....there is little new vision coming from them, trust me - simply five more years of the same.

They are sat on their hands, counting the days down, and the Election cannot come quickly enough for the Tories....say little do even less.


- sadly, when further extensions of Austerity are dumped on us, guess which groups in UK society are going to get it in the neck?


** not sure that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer totally buys into these exciting plans, so my hunch is that one Philip Hammond is going to be in a P45/ JobCentre situation in about three weeks time.

[gtclaret]

You embarrassed yourself mightily on the other thread, don't do it again have you no shame..?

It would help me assess JC properly, if Andrew Neil would stop interrupting his answers.

Answers?What answers.He never answered one question.AN was interrupting him for that very reason,to stop him wasting time making a speech about something he was not asked

[martin_p]

Answers?What answers.He never answered one question.AN was interrupting him for that very reason,to stop him wasting time making a speech about something he was not asked

Yet people say he's not Prime Ministerial!

[Imploding Turtle]

Answers?What answers.He never answered one question.AN was interrupting him for that very reason,to stop him wasting time making a speech about something he was not asked

Yeah, he's trying to avoid giving his opponents soundbites which they can take out of context. It's why Theresa May sticks to "Stong and Stable" so much and pretty much why every politician we have is like a ******* eel. And to be honest that's kind of our own fault. We're the idiots who allow ourselves to be taken in by out of context soundbites. Look at what happened when Corbyn became leader. He was torn apart because when he gave straight forward answers.

The best example of this was Tim Farron and homosexuality. He couldn't just come out immediately and say "My personal belief is that it's a sin but i don't allow my religious beliefs to affect my politics" because the only think the Daily Mail, and Theresa May would let anyone hear is "Tim Farron thinks homosexuality is a sin". The same with Corbyn. He couldn't outright say "I personally don't support Trident renewal but the party does and i will advocate the party's position on this issue" because again all anyone would be allowed to hear is "Corbyn still opposes our Trident".

It's ******* frustrating, but it's our fault. We vote based on soundbites, good and bad so we shouldn't be surprised when politicians bend over backwards to avoid negative soundbites, or constantly repeat "strong and stable".

[nil_desperandum]

I think Corbyn gave a pretty clear answer on Trident, and it seems a fairly honest and principled one. (Of course people there will be people who disagree with his party's position, [many are against Trident on principle] but that's politics).
On Trident nuclear weapons, he said: "I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision."
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
But he said that if Labour won power, there would be a defence review which would "look at the role of nuclear weapons".
"I want to achieve a nuclear-free world through multilateral disarmament, through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he told Andrew Neil.

[hampsteadclaret]

24..I agree with you to an extent..many politician's do this, it's not new.

There are some questions though for which there is more than one answer..ie...opinions are different with regard to the question.

Andrew Neil tonight though, having asked a particular question then WANTED a particular answer - when he didn't get it from JC, then he interrupted him even though the Labour leader was legitimately answering the question in his OWN way - he refused to have words put in his mouth.

[EarbyClaret]

Unless something unexpected happens that's likely to be the toughest 30 minutes of his election campaign.

Neil was bound to focus on his perceived weak points and he did give him a thorough grilling. He's about the best there is of the current crop post-Paxman.

Doubt there was anything there that would much alter people's views on JC, People who back him are already aware of his personal position on Trident and the Sinn Fein situation.

The problem the anti-Corbyn media have (not including either the BBC or Andrew Neil in that cohort) is that they used all of their ammunition when he became leader. The personal criticism now is rehashed material from less than two years ago so it's not going to have the impact (however great that was) second time around.

Teresa May's perceived strength was predominantly that she'd played it reasonably safe and never really stuck her head above the parapet. More importantly she wasn't Leadsom or Gove. Thrust into the spotlight she's been frighteningly underwhelming for someone tasked with leading the country through what looks like being a brutal Brexit process.

If the trend of the last couple of weeks continue Labour will be mightily encouraged.

All a far cry from the day the election was called.

[nil_desperandum]

Good perceptive post Earby, and - actually, one that people of all political persuasions could probably agree with.

[claretandy]

I think Corbyn gave a pretty clear answer on Trident, and it seems a fairly honest and principled one. (Of course people there will be people who disagree with his party's position, [many are against Trident on principle] but that's politics).
On Trident nuclear weapons, he said: "I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision."
He added: "It's there in the programme, it's there in the manifesto, it will be carried out... it's the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government."
But he said that if Labour won power, there would be a defence review which would "look at the role of nuclear weapons".
"I want to achieve a nuclear-free world through multilateral disarmament, through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he told Andrew Neil.

The problem with this is you can't have a situation where the party backs trident, but the would be prime minister doesn't, its a deterrent, if you're not prepared to use it then its pointless renewing it.

[Hipper]

What I got from this Corbyn interview was, as someone said above, JC trying to answer the questions in his way and Neil not accepting those answers. It's true there were difficulties Neil tried to exploit - the IRA, Trident (and I thought the IRA thing went on too long) - and JC did well in dealing with them.

At the end of this interview though what have we actually learned about Labour policy and the reasoning behind it, or Jeremy Corbyn himself? Practically nothing.

So what is the point of these interviews? They are actually the Andrew Neil Show and are about Andrew Neil.

[If it be your will]

.

[gtclaret]

Let's just sum up the Corbin interview. He claims that our foreign policy is the cause of terrorism,although even ISIS say it isn't. He claims some sort of credit for the NI piece process although those involved say he played no part in it.He claims he wanted piece and yet supporated the IRA.His economic policy is unaffordable according to the
IFS but seems to be in denial about this.I agree with all that has been said about T.May.What a choice we have

[taio]

22... 'they should be talking about their vision'

That 'vision' is five more years of AUSTERITY...see the comments of the Institute of Fiscal Studies today.

That is why they aren't 'talking about their vision'....there is little new vision coming from them, trust me - simply five more years of the same.

They are sat on their hands, counting the days down, and the Election cannot come quickly enough for the Tories....say little do even less.


- sadly, when further extensions of Austerity are dumped on us, guess which groups in UK society are going to get it in the neck?


** not sure that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer totally buys into these exciting plans, so my hunch is that one Philip Hammond is going to be in a P45/ JobCentre situation in about three weeks time.

You should check out what IFS said about Corbyn's inability to fund his promises without big taxation changes. Mind you some knob was recently suggesting on here that it's easy to spend £50b without the need for this.

Labour’s proposals would raise spending to its highest level since the mid-1980s and tax levels to record levels in peacetime, the thinktank said. But the party’s plans for tax hikes aimed at top earners and businesses may “not raise anything like” the £48.6bn claimed and its proposals could turn out to be economically damaging, it added. (Guardian)

You'd have to be pretty stupid to ignore this.

[nil_desperandum]

The problem with this is you can't have a situation where the party backs trident, but the would be prime minister doesn't, its a deterrent, if you're not prepared to use it then its pointless renewing it.

Fair point to a degree, but he was quite clear in saying that he fully accepted the party policy.
It's not a dictatorship, (though Theresa May often likes to think it is, by e.g. wanting to by-pass Parliament), and so he would have to go with the majority view. Don't forget the most recent vote in Parliament backed the renewal of Trident by a majority of 355. (in other words the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted for it).
Let's not forget that TM was a "remainer" but is going along with the majority view.

[TVC15]

I have checked out what the IFS have said about Corbyn and also what they said about the Tory Party and I'd say they are more critical of the latter.

IFS have questioned Labours tax figures and said that a more realistic figure of £40bn rather than Corbyns £49bn. That's not actually a million miles away.

IFS have also been wrong plenty of times - plus Labour have used many OBR assumptions.

The IFS have made it very clear that they think tax increases are necessary and think the Tory tax lock is wrong. They have also criticised a number of the other policies such as removing the triple lock on pensions and removing the winter fuel allowance.

[HatfieldClaret]

Just watched the interview. I didn't see the TM one but that sounds like it was a car crash in slow motion.

AN interrupted Corbyn, but rightly so as JC didn't answer the questions. (Though did we expect him to?)

What was evident to me from this interview is that 3 years ago Corbyn wanted to get rid of Nato. I can't see anything that's changed his mind since. His position on Trident is his view and so I respect that.

However, what really gets stuck in my craw is

In the 80's Corbyn was a supporter of the IRA. If he was pursuing a peace process then he would have not only attended IRA/SF support meetings. How many lives were lost because of those who supported the IRA.

He still believes that the UK intervention is the blame for terrorist attacks in the UK. So what was the reason for the Belgian atrocities. They didn't take part in either Gulf war and in the first Gulf war they even refused to supply bullets for our army's rifles (7.62mm for the FN SLR). Why has Sweden been attacked ? Christians and european tourists were being slaughtered and Bin Laden was planting bombs long before the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Obviously intervention in the middle east isn't the cause but he has to blame us because it fits in with his agenda.

Corbyn is a Marxist who loathes anything that isn't radical left. Human rights weren't a problem for him in Cuba or under Chavez etc. McDonnell is as dangerous as Corbyn, if not more so because he's brighter (apart from a few years declaring on camera that he was a Marxist, then trying to explain that he's a socialist. Suppose that's correct if Marx was a socialist.)

Despicable man.

[smudge]

What I got from this Corbyn interview was, as someone said above, JC trying to answer the questions in his way and Neil not accepting those answers. It's true there were difficulties Neil tried to exploit - the IRA, Trident (and I thought the IRA thing went on too long) - and JC did well in dealing with them.

At the end of this interview though what have we actually learned about Labour policy and the reasoning behind it, or Jeremy Corbyn himself? Practically nothing.

So what is the point of these interviews? They are actually the Andrew Neil Show and are about Andrew Neil.

Couldn't agree more.
I find theres always a feeling of a slight sneering nastiness about Neil and Paxman (especially Paxman).
An interview should be about those being interviewed not those doing the interview.

[taio]

I have checked out what the IFS have said about Corbyn and also what they said about the Tory Party and I'd say they are more critical of the latter.

IFS have questioned Labours tax figures and said that a more realistic figure of £40bn rather than Corbyns £49bn. That's not actually a million miles away.

IFS have also been wrong plenty of times - plus Labour have used many OBR assumptions.

The IFS have made it very clear that they think tax increases are necessary and think the Tory tax lock is wrong. They have also criticised a number of the other policies such as removing the triple lock on pensions and removing the winter fuel allowance.

Did they really say £40b was a more realistic figure, or did they say this as a maximum...and more significantly this level wouldn't be maintained?

[Imploding Turtle]

Did they really say £40b was a more realistic figure, or did they say this as a maximum...and more significantly this level wouldn't be maintained?

They said 'at most'. I don't know why TVC would think they said "more realistic".

[gtclaret]

But when those being interviewed do not answer any question being asked.They know there is a time limit,so they use up this time making an irrelevant speech.This interviewer has no choice but to interrupt. The interview is not for the benefit of the interviewed,it is to get answer's to questions that the public want to ask so they can make a decision on their vote.

[Imploding Turtle]

He still believes that the UK intervention is the blame for terrorist attacks in the UK.

Did you even pay attention to what he said, or are you only paying attention to what Theresa May said he said?

[THEWELLERNUT70]

As an aside I thought Andrew Neil was pretty poor on his This Week Show (Thursday evening),a show i watch on a weekly basis.He has been all bravado (and excellent tubthumping)when an incident of this nature happens in Europe as happened on Monday evening,yet his testicles appeared to have retreated to an area near his armpits when it's an incident on home soil

[taio]

They said 'at most'. I don't know why TVC would think they said "more realistic".

That was what I thought was said too. But at a peak also - projection was this would reduce, unsuprisngly - which is more significant. I said as soon as their manifesto was published that their revenue forecast on corporation tax was simply unrealistic

[TVC15]

They said 'at most'. I don't know why TVC would think they said "more realistic".

Because that's what the IFS spokesman said in an interview I saw yesterday. We are not talking an exact science here. The IFS have not articulated which of the OBR assumptions used by Labour they think is wrong.

The Labour Party responded by saying they disagree with the IFS numbers but that their is headroom in their own numbers as they realise that the numbers are estimates and based on a whole range of assumptions about the future - of which the only thing everybody knows from history that something will change.

This is more about direction and strategy than exact numbers. If Brexit taught the electorate anything it was to not put too much credibility on any numbers either party says.

Which of the Labour of Tory manifestos would you say the IFS are more supportive of in terms of the general economic strategy / direction of both parties ?

Because to me when they say raising taxes and investing more rather than 5 more years of austerity it seems pretty clear to me which they prefer.

[HatfieldClaret]

Did you even pay attention to what he said, or are you only paying attention to what Theresa May said he said?

He said it earlier in the day.

[taio]

I'm supportive of spreading or deferring net borrowing because it means less harsh spending reductions. What Labour is proposing is like getting a fixed mortgage beyond affordability and this getting worse once the variable rate kicks in.

[Imploding Turtle]

He said it earlier in the day.

So the answer is no, you weren't paying attention.

Here's the transcript. Please point to the objectionable part.
I've also highlighted some parts that i'm sure you "accidentally" missed.

Our whole nation has been united in shock and grief this week as a night out at a concert ended in horrific terror and the brutal slaughter of innocent people enjoying themselves. When I stood on Albert Square at the vigil in Manchester, there was a mood of unwavering defiance. The very act of thousands of people coming together sent a powerful message of solidarity and love. It was a profound human impulse to stand together, caring and strong. It was inspiring.

In the past few days, we have all perhaps thought a bit more about our country, our communities and our people. The people we have lost to atrocious violence or who have suffered grievous injury, so many of them heart-breakingly young .

The people who we ask to protect us and care for us in the emergency services, who yet again did our country proud: the police; firefighters and paramedics; the nurses and doctors; people who never let us down and deserve all the support we can give them. And the people who did their best to help on that dreadful Monday night – the homeless men who rushed towards the carnage to comfort the dying, the taxi drivers who took the stranded home for free, the local people who offered comfort, and even their homes, to the teenagers who couldn’t find their parents.

They are the people of Manchester. But we know that attacks, such as the one at the Manchester Arena, could have happened anywhere and that the people in any city, town or village in Britain would have responded in the same way.

It is these people who are the strength and the heart of our society. They are the country we love and the country we seek to serve. That is the solidarity that defines our United Kingdom. That is the country I meet on the streets every day; the human warmth, the basic decency and kindness.

It is our compassion that defines the Britain I love. And it is compassion that the bereaved families need most of all at this time. To them I say: the whole country reaches out its arms to you and will be here for you not just this week, but in the weeks and years to come. Terrorists and their atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity will never divide us and will never prevail.

They didn’t in Westminster two months ago. They didn’t when Jo Cox was murdered a year ago. They didn’t in London on 7/7. The awe-inspiring response of the people of Manchester, and their inspirational acts of heroism and kindness, are a living demonstration that they will fail again.

But these vicious and contemptible acts do cause profound pain and suffering, and, among a tiny minority, they are used as an opportunity to try to turn communities against each other.

So let us all be clear, the man who unleashed carnage on Manchester, targeting the young and many young girls in particular, is no more representative of Muslims, than the murderer of Jo Cox spoke for anyone else. Young people and especially young women must and will be free to enjoy themselves in our society.

I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. That will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. That’s what conflict resolution is all about. But do not doubt my determination to take whatever action is necessary to keep our country safe and to protect our people on our streets, in our towns and cities, at our borders.

There is no question about the seriousness of what we face. Over recent years, the threat of terrorism has continued to grow. You deserve to know what a Labour Government will do to keep you and your family safe. Our approach will involve change at home and change abroad.

At home, we will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us. Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap. There will be more police on the streets under a Labour Government. And if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.

We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform. And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre. But we must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism.

That’s why I set out Labour’s approach to foreign policy earlier this month. It is focused on strengthening our national security in an increasingly dangerous world.

We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security.

Seeing the army on our own streets today is a stark reminder that the current approach has failed. So, I would like to take a moment to speak to our soldiers on the streets of Britain. You are doing your duty as you have done so many times before.

I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.

That is my commitment to our armed services. This is my commitment to our country. I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people. No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance, to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away. Too often government has got it wrong on all three counts and insecurity is growing as a result. Whoever you decide should lead the next government must do better.

Today, we must stand united. United in our communities, united in our values and united in our determination to not let triumph those who would seek to divide us. So for the rest of this election campaign, we must be out there demonstrating what they would take away: our freedom; our democracy; our support for one another. Democracy will prevail. We must defend our democratic process, win our arguments by discussion and debate, and stand united against those who would seek to take our rights away, or who would divide us.

Last week, I said that the Labour Party was about bringing our country together. Today I do not want to make a narrow party political point. Because all of us now need to stand together. Stand together in memory of those who have lost their lives. Stand together in solidarity with the city of Manchester. And – stand together for democracy.

Because when we talk about British values, including tolerance and mutual support, democracy is at the very heart of them. And our General Election campaigns are the centrepieces of our democracy – the moment all our people get to exercise their sovereign authority over their representatives.

Rallies, debates, campaigning in the marketplaces, knocking on doors, listening to people on the streets, at their workplaces and in their homes – all the arts of peaceful persuasion and discussion – are the stuff of our campaigns.

They all remind us that our government is not chosen at an autocrats’ whim or by religious decree and never cowed by a terrorist’s bomb.

Indeed, carrying on as normal is an act of defiance – democratic defiance – of those who do reject our commitment to democratic freedoms.

But we cannot carry on as though nothing happened in Manchester this week.

So, let the quality of our debate, over the next fortnight, be worthy of the country we are proud to defend. Let’s have our arguments without impugning anyone’s patriotism and without diluting the unity with which we stand against terror.

Together, we will be stronger. Together we can build a Britain worthy of those who died and those who have inspired us all in Manchester this week. Thank you.

[HatfieldClaret]

Yes, he said it earlier in the day and he tried to qualify it.

Difficult to understand?

Or just being your usual difficult self ?