The Daily Politics Conference Special

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics Conference special

live from Manchester. The sun has made an appearance on the

penultimate day of the Conservative party conference, perhaps in

defiance of Chancellor George Osborne's gloomy prognostications

yesterday. But whether you're gloomy or chirpy, it's fair to say

this has been a pretty uneventful conference so far. Business-like,

serious. A little apprehensive about how it's all going. No major

announcements, like last year's child benefit bombshell, except

perhaps the Chancellor's plan for credit easing, which few understand

and even his aides are struggling to explain. The conference will

continue its sober course today. But there will be substance. This

morning, Home Secretary Teresa May will take centre stage. It's

expected she will outline plans to re-write the immigration rules to

try to stop foreigners who commit crimes in the UK using the Human

Rights Act to avoid deportation. We'll be talking to her later in

the programme. We'll be taking a look at how the

coalition is fairing with an undercover Liberal Democrat MP and

an unhappy Tory backbencher. Last year I was roll up -- well received

at the Tory party conference. I even got a bear hug from Eric

Pickles. But now many Tory backbenchers are getting rebellious

so this time, I am going undercover. And that is not all! Our very own

Jo is in London. Yes, hello, Andrews.

Here in the capital, all eyes were on this morning's star turn, the

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. A great favourite inside the hall and

already campaigning for re-election. But would the party turn to him if

ever Dave himself fell under the proverbial 88 from Clapham Common?

It is the halfway mark and I have had to get down on my hands and

knees because it was really close but now Boris is in the lead for of

We will talk about that later. We are nearly at the end of the

conference season. Three weeks of hard slog, hot rooms, overheating

white wine. Two days to go. But are we wilting? No! And look

we've found two fresh as a daisy journos to kick off the programme.

Back by popular demand... Their mothers have e-mailed me and asked

me to have them back on. Nick Watt from the Guardian and Sam Coates

from the Times. Welcome. Do you detect that this conference is flat

or am I imagining it? It is not surprised that people around David

Cameron say the Prime Minister would not be that upset if the

conference was reduced to one day, because really it is about one day,

his speech. Although there is the traditional parade of people

standing up to the podium behind me, not a lot of it matters. They don't

have debates, they don't have motions. I watched Jeremy Hunt

yesterday. It was like one of the programmes that will probably be on

his local TV! This whole conference season has been pretty dull. The

reason why it is that none of the party's have any leadership

challenges and although we have a coalition government, we know when

they let -- next election will be, spring 2015. But a dull conference

season. Out there, the world, the eurozone, is facing a very grave

crisis which could make the autumn of 2008 look like a party. They are

apprehensive about that. They are solidly behind George Osborne but

they have got both fingers crossed, probably their toes crossed as well,

because their political fate is in his hands. Absolutely. If you look

at the polling, eventually the public are stable and have not made

any big decisions. They are waiting to see whether the world ends, the

euro collapses, whether they will have jobs and money in two years,

or whether it will be fine. Yesterday you had George Osborne

who eventually gave a speech at Conservative Party conference aimed

primarily at the bond market, talking about securing money for

small firms, and that left a lot of people in the hall scratching their

heads. I was scratching my head as well! Dahl is good. We have just

had Boris Johnson. We were expecting a barnstorming

performance and it wasn't. It was not that exciting and it did not

set up the hall. He is looking to election in London next year and

possibly the leadership of the Conservative Party. Do you think

that Boris is a leadership contender? He is in his own mind.

Don't forget that he thinks that David Cameron is his intellectual

inferior. He would go around ten years ago saying, David Cameron is

just a PR man for Carlton TV, I and the classically educated editor of

the Spectator. Now we are 16 months into the government, it is quite

clear that George Osborne, the great rival, we think, for the

leadership, is slowly getting what could seem to be his team together.

He has a guard around him, a bunch of law real people. He is carving

out a distinctive personality. Disowning their early green stuff

that made David Cameron's name for him. You are starting to see the

early signs of a race between these two getting going, which is why it

watching one after the other is fascinating. I know the

Chancellor's speed got blown off because of all this Foxy Knoxy

business in Italy, but almost 24 hours after the speech, how does it

stand? Where does Mr Osborne's staters lie with his party?

great challenge could all -- a challenge for George Osborne was to

say he will promote growth for the economy but in a way that does not

involve moving from Plan A. That is difficult when you can no longer

control Monetary Policy. He has come up with credit easing that has

the flavour of a fiscal stimulus but does not involve spending money,

but also has the flavour of monetary activism. I was surprised

that the standing ovation was so short and lukewarm. He was barely

off the stage by the time they were filing out. It was not a speech for

the hall. It doesn't mean they don't like him but something did

not quite work. Either they just felt it was a serious speech for

series times and it was not designed to please them, but

alternatively there is a more worrying possibility. George

Osborne is the guy that must now protect Britain at one of the

biggest potential crisis, potentially, we have seen in the

last 30 years. I wonder whether people were thinking, crikey, is he

the man to do that? His strategy was to take the tough action, which

he did, and by now we should be seeing the beginnings of growth.

Hasn't happened. He is worried the economic cycle is going to be

longer than the political cycle. I heard on the radio this morning and

other European saying, we are not talking about a default on Greece,

that is not on the agenda. What plants are they on. We are running

out of time but I think that is what worries them. If the eurozone

does not get a grip, there is no way we can escape. When the finance

minister says there will not be a default, you can be pretty sure

there will be one. Thank you, gentlemen. Your parents will be

proud of you. They have not been behaving but I

will tell you about that later. The conference will not play a

formal role in developing party policy, so what is the point? What

does it do? Here is another conference jargon buster to find

out how the Conservatives run their The Conservative Party conference

is unlike its main rivals' party conferences in that in terms of

membership influence and policy- making, it has virtually no power

at all. Now it is all run by the conference committee, which is a

subsection of the party board, and though they have left the seaside

behind, it is more of an event for a gathering of like-minded souls

for things like contact building and big speeches. And as such, its

structure is far less rigid than other parties'. It can and has been

changed pretty much at whim, although the big final event is

usually fixed as the leader's speech. Although David Cameron has

also spoken at the beginning of conference when he felt like it.

Ordinary members to get to make their contributions, but they are

always drowned out. They do so by lining up next to the microphone on

a first-come first-served basis. But they do have to keep their

contributions short and they don't interestingly have a constitutional

right to have their voice heard. Housing minister, Grant Shapps, is

with us. Take these planning changes that the government wants

to put through. Very controversial. Not for me to say whether they are

right or wrong. There is a debate, even among people at conference,

but there has been no debate or vote. As with all conferences, the

best discussions take place in the fringes. That is where you find the

vibrant debate. Everyone agrees that planning needs to be faster

and less contradictory... There is a lot of country people here, a lot

of people living on the edge of the green belt, in villages, market

towns in the green belt. I think they would have liked it to be

debated properly. Yesterday I was doing question and answers about

growth and the economy... That was not a debate. There is no vote.

write. It doesn't matter in the end. We don't make those decisions on

the floor but yesterday, people were asking about planning reforms

and a lot of people backing the idea that it needs to be faster to

plan things. Do you think if you had a vote, you would have run?

Absolutely. We will never know. Are we seen evidence of backtracking on

your planning reforms? Are you wilting under the Daily Telegraph

campaign? No. I came from a conference fringe from one of the

Daily Telegraph writers who said they think the campaign itself is

rather misguided. The point is everyone agrees planning does not

work in this country so something has to be done. The document

reproduced is a draft and you want debate and, so in many ways, we

welcome the debate. Will there be substantive changes? We are clear

that what needs to come out is a faster and more efficient planning

system, where people get a sense of certainty and the debate has moved

from the planning inspectorate, which is what happens at the moment,

to the point where the local plan is put in place by local people, so

it shifts the debate. That is what we want to see happen. There is

some evidence you on the run. Bob meal, then local government and

planning minister, said their proposals will have to be improved

-- Bob Neill. He set me will be in a very different place by the end

of the year. There will be no point in sailing a draft cannot be

improved, by definition. -- in sailing. Bob meant that when all

sides sit down, and you look at the concerns put up by people like the

National Trust for example, you understand the relative positions

and everyone is in a different place... You have been criticised

in the letters column in the Telegraph and they are Tory voters.

I am pretty sure come the next election, the discussion of

conversation on the doorstep will not be a document which frankly

most people have never read called the national planning policy

framework. So "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" does not hold

sway? I think this great document we are talking about, I hope it

will be a significant as some people would have you believe. It

is important but it is one small element of the overall picture of

trying to improve efficiency of the planning system and create growth.

The and at the core of that is a presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Define sustainable development. That has

been define since 1974 and widely used in legal terminology -- has

been defined. Give us a two sentence definition. OK. In my

constituency... One sentence. wet areas where they were trying to

put homes that were inappropriate and where the local authority

thought were good. The sustainable ones were the ones where it should

go. I apologise for being flippant, it is important. I would give you a

second chance. Give us the definition in an easy to understand

way of sustainable. What I am saying is local people will

understand what is sustainable in there every year. That is as long

as a piece of string. It is an issue for proper debate at a local

level because in my patch, we knew that the old Aerospace site was the

sustainable area and we knew it was not, for example, the green belt

between the two towns I represent. So it will mean different things

were different people. It is meaningless. You should just be a

presumption in favour of development. No. Sustainability is

best judged when you know at the lay of the land and guess what, the

people who know they lay of the land live locally and understand

how the Community operates. Sustainability should be judged at

a local level. Let's go on to housing. The record of the last

government was criticised because they did not build enough houses.

At one stage, when Mr Prescott was in charge, they built a few houses

then since 1924. Do you have a target and figure for how many

houses a year in the public and the private sector we should be

Yob but it is many more than we are building at the moment. We know

building at the moment. We know that for example, one measure

indicates something like 200 and 1,000-230,000. That suggests that

if we're only building 100,000, we are a long way short. -- 200,000-

230,000. 3 million homes by 2020, that was a big target. I can

remember something from this party, targets for building houses, and

actually, in the 1950s, they met them. Determined by this conference,

in a power that it never has today. Harold Macmillan, who was doing

your job then, as the Housing Minister, was overruled by this

conference, who told him to build more. You're not doing that. I know

it was very different times. I was not around them, but let's not go

there. You could do things like put up a lot of prefabs, which then

have to be taken down again, and you could create a lot of housing

very quickly, a post war. We are in a different world now. Can you give

us a ballpark figure? I mean, combined, council, social housing,

private, a ballpark figure. I can tell you that we will be

disappointed if we are not building a lot more. On affordable housing,

we have just announced plans for of 270,000 affordable homes in the

next five years. And as many homes in general as we can possibly get

built, to the right standards, and good quality. Our viewers who are

mark will have noticed there is not a figure in there. I am not going

to say a figure. Would you like a badge? This one is, I love the

coalition. Can I get a collection, and a mug as well? No, the team

will get you. Have this one, I love the coalition. And you should

definitely have this one, when the housing figures do not quite

measure up - don't panic. Let's go back live to London now. I hope

Grant Shapps is not running off with that mug. The uncontested

highlight of this morning's conference in Manchester was the

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. He was first up this morning, always a

difficult slot, just as everyone was trickling into the hall. Behind

the scenes, the nerves were jangling. We're OK, I have just got

to concentrate on the very important message, for myself.

nerves at all, by the looks of it. He got a rapturous reception when

he came on stage, and he went straight into his theme, how to

prevent any repetition of this summer's riots across the capital.

I have spent a fair bit of the last two months travelling the streets

of London, talking to hundreds of people who were caught up in the

riots. People whose businesses were attacked, or who were just appalled

by what they saw. And I have got a pretty good idea of what Londoners

want. They want to make sure that nothing like it ever happens again.

So, I can tell you that as long as I am mayor, I will not allow police

numbers to fall below a level that I believe is safe or reasonable for

a great city like London. Police numbers are up by 1001 when I was

elected, and the number of special constables has doubled to more than

5,200. I pledge to you now that I am going to keep it that way. We

know that it is not all just about numbers, and the Londoners I have

spoken to also want the police to have the backing that they need to

deal with the thugs and the looters in the way that they need to be

dealt with. If you look at the record of the new commissioner,

Bernard Hogan-Howe, you can see how clearly he understands the

principal, that if you crack down on the small stuff, the big stuff

starts to take care of itself. 75% of the rioters and looters were

criminals. And lots of them, by the way, had 15 or more convictions. We

have got to recognise that 25% of them had no record, and I think

what Londoners want, talking to people, is for everyone together,

politicians, police, teachers, parents, to sort out the underlying

issues which encouraged these people to riot. One of the very

best things to have come out of this is the fierce desire of people

to help to bring communities together, and to show that those

looters and rioters do not stand for London. I can reveal today that

in the paddock Calais area of France, and the authorities have

decided that the region is to be re-baptised. Conference, I reckon

we have got a record to be proud of. We have effectively frozen the

council tax, we have effectively cut it, by 10% over three years. We

have delivered Oyster, we have delivered a 24-hour Freedom pass

for the people of London. The last bendy bus will leave our streets by

Christmas. In the new year you will see a new generation of

Routemasters-style buses, with an open platform, built in the UK,

with British Technology, the quickest, cleanest bus in London.

And after more than 450 years since it was lost, we have recaptured

Calais from the French, as the burghers of Calais have yielded to

the soft power of the Olympics. With me now, the Labour MP Stephen

pound. No wonder Boris is sounding confident, because despite the fact

that Labour is nearly 20 points ahead in the polls - Stephen Pound

- Boris Johnson is still eight points ahead of the Prime Minister,

why? One has a certain sympathy with the great Boris. That was a

pretty lacklustre performance, and received very poorly. Actually,

they seem to love Boris Johnson, as we will see. But first, let's just

look at his standing in London. If Labour is doing so well, why is

Boris Johnston outstripping Ken Livingstone by eight points? --

Boris Johnson. I would not have thought eight points was that much,

it can easily be caught up. At the moment, the glitz and the glamour,

he has even had a new haircut. The reality is that we have got a five-

day a-week Tube system which costs five times as much as it used to.

We have got major problems with the police. These numbers which Boris

talks about, what exactly does that mean? It is when Ken Livingstone

can actually show the substance, the real difference, and show that

London needs experience, but energy as well, and Ken Livingstone has

got both of those. Ken Livingstone has admitted that if it comes down

to confidence, he feels he would have a better chance, but at the

moment, it comes down to charisma, and that's the problem, Boris

Johnson is winning on personality. These polls also say that one in

five Labour voters say they will vote for Boris. You will not be

able to catch that up. I think we will. Last time, the polls were

wobbling around all over the place. It is a pretty volatile,

sophisticated city. But Labour are 20 points a head, the capital is

going your way. Labour on 51%, the Tories on 32%, but Ken Livingstone

is not translating that lead, so the problem is with him...

reality is that the volatility in London is so high, we are still a

fair way away from the election. Experience will start to tell. At

the moment, yes, gourami the marvellous bumbling person who

comes in and talks about playing with kids, throwers jelly around,

all of those things. But where is the District line on Saturday and

Sunday? Why are our fares going up? Those are the questions Londoners

asking. Did you agree with Ken Livingstone's response to the riots,

that it was all down to cuts, and therefore to some extent it was

going to happen? If he had said that, I would not have agreed.

you think that was right? No, I do not. Had he said that, I would have

disagreed. It was a whole multiplicity of things. 75% of

those people, as Boris said, had criminal records. We have got an

excellent opportunity in London to draw together some of the most

valuable empirical data we have ever had on this sort of activity,

which hopefully we can use to make sure it does not happen again. It

is all about giving people inspiration which will help. Back

to Manchester. Two weeks ago, at the Liberal Democrat Conference, we

got the Conservative MP and Sven lookalike Peter Bone to come along

and make a film for us. It was only fair that we brought the Lib Dem MP

here to see what he makes of his Conservative coalition partners.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds

Despite the colour, you would not see these in a Lib Dem conference.

I do not pretend to you that these are not difficult days, and that

there are not difficult days ahead. But together, we will ride out the

storm and we will move into calmer, brighter sees beyond. Thank you.

That was really strange. I actually agreed with nearly everything

George Osborne said, and yet, he was not assured in the way he

delivered it, and frankly, the audience did not seem to like much

of it. Well, I'm just doing a bit of homework at the moment. One year

on, what do you think about the role of the Liberal Democrats in

the coalition? They have been all right so far. They have been

working well with the Conservatives. There has not been anything that

major to disrupt anything. I think both parties are coming together.

think that as long as David Cameron is liberal and Nick Clegg is

Conservative, it will last. I think they have done a really good job in

terms of choking off the more right-wing Conservative elements,

so therefore, it is a benign effect. It is working particularly well. I

have got lots of admiration for many people in the Liberal

Democrats. The way that ministers talk about how they are working

together in teams seems very different from the impression that

we get when we read about it in the It is hypocrisy if the people who

can you to cut spending to get the deficit down are then imposing an

Rather amazing. The Labour Party says that the coalition government

is cutting too deep and too quickly. Now, we have got the right wing of

the Conservative Party saying we're doing it too slowly, and not deep

enough, which probably suggest we have got it about right. Boris

Taoiseach... I think not, but thank you. -- T-shirt. Well, it is the

end of the day, and they have all gone off to enjoy themselves in the

bar. I have certainly enjoyed myself. I had convinced myself that

I'm certainly not a Tory, but many of the Conservatives here seem to

think that the coalition is continuing to work well. So I did

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Isn't this a bit embarrassing?

Everyone is so nice to you here and you lot did nothing but slap of the

Tories at the Lib Dem conference. In fairness, I told lots of jokes,

both about the Tories and the Lib Dems, but certainly we have been

swamped in kindness while we have been here and even the whipped up

fury about the European Union doesn't seem to have actually

gathered the imagination of the delegates, so it is all going

rather well. Why are they so nice, Peter Bone? I have no idea. Look at

all the things they called you last week. They accused you of sticking

kids up chimneys, of being the ruthless and reactionary, you were

the tea-party tendency... Which I am very proud to be. But that is by

the by. It is a compliment. So why is everybody being so polite, not

just to Don Foster, but about the coalition? The only thing that

really matters is the economy and from that point of view, working

together to get the economy right is so important. I think we went

overboard, I was feeling slightly sick at times. How it is nice to

have rational discussions with people from the other side, rather

than if you have discussions within the party it is not rational. Those

sorts of things, rather strange. They are not from the other side,

they are you coalition partners. they are from the other side. This

is a temporary arrangement. Is it the dockside? Definitely.

dockside? It is interesting how the Conservatives have accepted some of

the things the Lib Dems have brought, raising the tax threshold,

taking nearly 1 million low-paid people out of income tax, and the

work on the green economy, these have been accepted by many

Conservatives as real benefits from the coalition. They have equally

had to accept that we have had to swallow things, look at the beating

we got on tuition fees, the problem we had trying to get people to

support the Tory proposal with elected police commissioners. We

have had to swallow things as well. The Conservative side of the

coalition has not had to go through anything like tuition fees of stock

I don't know about that. I think the Liberal tail is wagging the

Tory dog. We have had to go back on so many things, you look in

particular. The bizarre thing about the coalition is that we both agree

there should be a referendum on the EU. Parliament will bring that

forward and that will be a binding decision from the Government.

don't rethink the Lib Dems are that keen on a referendum. -- I don't

really think. Never on this programme has a Lib Dems said to me,

we must have a referendum. And it would be absolutely wrong to do it

now given the mess in the eurozone. I am not saying do it now. We have

been cleared, we have said if there is any significant change between

the relationship between this country and the rest of Europe, the

British people should have a decision on that. We would go

further and say not just a referendum on the changes but that

is the opportunity to have the in or out referendum. But Parliament

before Christmas will have a vote on whether there is such a

referendum and it doesn't matter how the Government's spin it, then

they will have to have that referendum so it is no good what

the government or opposition think, parliament will decide. Do you

agree? If parliament voted for that, would it have to happen? There has

been many occasions when Parliament has voted of things that have not

happened. This is a new regime now. Labour would not vote for it, would

they? Who knows? They are opportunists. If it was a free vote

across Parliament, I think we would win. Is the Prime Minister going to

whip Tories to vote against it? I can't believe that. People are

voting who have never had a say on our membership to the European

Union. Clearly we have to have the weight of giving them that

opportunity but I don't think the time is right and I don't think you

Engineer it at a random time. mean when you get the results you

want. You are getting no red meat, you are not going to get a

referendum properly, you are not going to get the repatriation of

powers, ministers have admitted that on this show, this side of the

next election, and you are not going to replace the existing Human

Rights Act with the new British one. Listening to the Home Secretary,

things are moving in the right direction. The she is changing

guidelines. But her personal view is quite clear. She is a superb

Home Secretary and moving in the right direction. Would you like "I

love the coalition". Yes please. have got, let's get rid of the 50

pence badge. No, that one says "I love the 50 pence tax"! I know, up

"I love deficit-reduction". I will have that one. I knew he would like

that! Now do you remember the days when

every Tory Party conference was plagued by a leadership crisis? Had

become a happy days. -- happy, happy days. They seem long gone now,

and it appears that David Cameron is as safe as houses. But let's

think the unthinkable. He resigns tomorrow and takes a new post as

head of PR for Sky TV. Yes, it's back to the future for Mr Cameron.

So who would take his place? We sent Adam out with some fantasy

balls. If David Cameron did stand down,

who would be the best replacement? Boris Johnson or George Osborne?

Why don't we let the balls decide? At the end of the day, you have to

vote with your head, not your heart. I think we know who you are backing.

He didn't try as hard as other politicians to hide who he is. He

is who he is. I think that is a trustworthy way of politics.

Boris? He is much more of a character than Osborne. And you

have gone for him as well? connects better with people. Boris

is a fantastic party member and he gets the crowd going but in terms

of the international stage and seriousness, George has the

experience and he is also doing a difficult job as Chancellor and

that will give him great experience for the future, if we ever lose the

Prime Minister. He has got a better reputation than Boris because most

people think Boris is an idiot. think Boris is wonderful but I

don't think he will be leader of the Conservative Party. I think he

is a bit too high risk to be a You are going into the coalition

with Boris Johnson's Conservatives. You did not ask me that! You ask me

who I wanted to be leader at... Neither of them well. Backing the

bag. What we need to do is get some DNA from him and injected into

Boris and then we might have someone. I think that might be

against the law. He is a stand- alone, different, people like him!

Who would be the better leader? Don't be silly! I would need to

take two! It was worth a try! It is the halfway mark and I have had to

get down on my hands and knees because it was really close but now

Boris is still in the lead. There might be another contender!

would you like the third man to be? Or woman? Who would that be?

think Theresa May has got increasing popularity in the party.

David Davies. Why? I worked for him before. He has a better

understanding of real life. He stood up for the miners in the

north. Financially illiterate. Maybe skip a generation, someone

like great -- Grant Shapps. I would like to see a return to Washington,

watching the primaries and the leadership candidates, I would like

to see a televised debate. So although potential leaders of the

Conservative Party line-up and have a debate and actually involve the

Boris, thank you. Do you think he is already thinking about it?

think that he would be stupid not to. Because politics is about

opportunity and he is an opportunist. Rather than plastic

balls, today we have had crystal balls, looking into a future

leadership contest, and it looks like Boris would be the winner,

although not by a huge majority. There is still all to play for. I'm

joined now by the author and journalist, Toby Young, who tells

us he has a �15,000 bet with Nigella Lawson on Boris becoming

the next tory leader. Of the musings of the idle rich. We

couldn't get Nigella on but we've got her lookalike, Danny

Finklestein from the Times. Welcome to you both. Why would you do this?

Someone said they could not think of a better argument for the 50

pence tax rate. It was in 2003, Boris was my then employee at the

Spectator, Nigella and other people were being dismissive. It was an

act of slightly inebriated bravado. I was like, put your money where

your mouth is. But you are sticking at it? It looked like a week bet

then when he was just elected but I think it is safe for now. When does

it expire? 2018. Leader of the party. Is he a serious contender to

be leader of the Conservative Party? I would be very surprised, I

have to say. It is not impossible but I think that her baby's bet is

much safer -- and that Toby Young's bed is much safer sailing leader of

the party rather than prime minister. So you think he could be

leader of the party but unlikely to be Prime Minister? You can lose a

lot of money underestimating Boris Johnson. He has a lot of charisma.

But I think people would expect from the Prime Minister a better

grasp of detail than he demonstrates. He is a political

star, he has got charisma, he is a proven vote-winner. I have known

him since 1983 and people do not think... We were at Oxford at the

same time. People didn't think he had a chance of becoming mayor or

MP and you underestimate him at your peril. Is he serious though?

He may not be in the conventional political mould but is that what we

want? I went to a fringe meeting yesterday for Boris and there were

500 people there. William Hague earlier, 150. What is the case of

George Osborne? I was just laughing that this is the sort of

speculation one makes before a celebrity chef but not one that MPs

make. But do you think he has leadership potential? He is very

capable. Potential leader? question over that would be what

the public think of that and I really don't know... What does

Danny Finkelstein think? I would be happy of him as leader of anything.

Did you see his speech? No. There have been rumours, a particular

blog... The last time I was on this programme you asked me if I was

leaving my job. You have an eccentric line in questions. If the

Conservatives lose the next election, George will have to take

his share of the blame. David will fall on his sword and George would

not be the heir to that. Are we right in keeping the conversation

to these two? Theresa May's name came up. Grant Shapps, who we just

had on the programme. Do you think of him as leadership material?

is not for me to say but you clearly don't. No, I thought he did

quite well. Even David Davies. of the thing for David Davis and Ed

Miliband, it illustrates there is quite a big gap between being a

capable senior minister and the election as Prime Minister. William

Hague demonstrated that. I have a lot of admiration for him but when

it came to being a prime ministerial candidate, he just

could not... He did not have the expected. Boris has the X-factor.

If David Cameron wins the next election, your bet is groat. He

will be prime minister until 2020. He doesn't seem to invest that much

in been Prime Minister. He likes spending time with his family, he

would like another life. Maybe he will resign towards the end of his

second term. He can stand as an MP even if he is mayor, Boris! Thank

Let's have a quick catch-up of events on the conference floor this

morning. The big theme has been home affairs. We heard Boris

Johnson, and next up was the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on crime

and immigration. The Government is looking at a British bill of Rights.

I can today announce that we will change the Immigration rules to

make sure that the misinterpretation of article 8, the

right to a family life, no longer prevents the deportation of people

who should not be here. The right to a family life is not an absolute

right, and it must not be used to drive a coach and horses through

our immigration system. Our opponents will say it cannot be

done, that they will fight us every step of the way. But they said that

about the cap on economic migration, and we did it. They said that about

our student visa reforms, and we are doing them. As Home Secretary,

I will do everything I can to restore sanity to our immigration

system, and get the numbers down. She sounded pretty bullish there.

Joining me now from Nottingham is the Labour home affairs spokesman.

Do you back those plans to change the immigration rules? I thought it

was interesting what she said when she actually read out the article,

which showed that it was possible to balance the law under the

current legislation. Of course, if there is a need for clarification,

then we would support that. But what we're actually saying is that

the law as it stands appears to give that balance, it is the

interpretation by the courts. It does well in the hall, but outside

there, we wonder whether in fact the reality will match that

reception in the hall. Just to be clear, do you back her call? Do you

accept that at the moment, those human rights arguments have been

perhaps abused, and they should be changed to stop that happening?

What we have said is that if there is a need for a clarification of

the law, then of course we would support that. But Theresa May

herself read out the actual article, but alongside that, there is the

matter of enforcing the law. Just looking at Labour's position on law

and order, last year, Ed Miliband said clearly, we're not going to

criticise Ken Clarke over short sentences, we're not going to

criticise Theresa May when she says we should review stop unchurched

powers, and yet last week, Yvette Cooper said that the Government's

counter terror legislation should be reviewed. Labour is the party of

law and order. Are you? Of course. We are progressive on crime. If

you're cutting 16,000 police officers, weakening the law with

respect to DNA, and with respect to CCTV, if you're preventing the

courts from excluding somebody from London, for example, where you

think they might be prone to terrorist offences, then I don't

think there is other -- any other phrase you can use, other than weak

on law and order. I'm joined now in The Daily Politics bubble at the

Tory conference by the Home Secretary, Theresa May,. What can

you do if the judges decide to ignore your guidance? I have every

expectation that the judges will not ignore what we are saying, that

they will actually listen to what we have put into the immigration

rules, in terms of making sure that there is that interpretation.

they are legally obliged to do that? Parliament will set its

wailjick down in the statutory instrument, what we expect judges

to do, and as I say, I have every expectation that when they see...

You have seen how they have ruled before. I would expect that when

Parliament gives a very clear message, by saying, we are

emphasising this point, and it is of course in Article 8 of the

Convention on Human Rights. I was looking at that, because what you

want and the caveats in Article 8 are not quite the same thing. You

want the judges to take into account criminal offences, breaches

of the immigration rules, living on welfare, not working. But the

caveats in clause 20 are about the interests of national security,

public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, those

are not the same thing? No, it is rather broader than that. As you

look at the end of that, it talks about the rights of others. It is

not just very specific categories. It is quite general, in terms of

the ability of a public authority to say, actually, we need to

balance the individual rights of this person to a family life

against the rights of others in a variety of ways. One problem is

that it has always been a relative right in Article 8, rather than an

absolute right. But it has been interpreted over the years in that

more absolute sense. If the judges continue to rule in the way they

have, there is not much you can do about it. Well, if they do, and I

have every expectation they will not, then we will look at further

measures. Is it true that you said that one judge had ruled that

somebody could not be deported because they had a cat? Yes, that

was a case that has been reported. We have had a statement from the

judiciary saying that is not true. Well, it was identified and

reported. Your researcher may have got that one wrong. I have not seen

the statement which has come to you from the judiciary. Obviously, I

will look at any statement. We will see if we will get it round to you,

while we are honoured. Boris Johnson has boasted of adding 1,000

extra police to the London constabulary, and then said, I can

tell you that as long as I am mayor, I will not allow police numbers to

fall below a level that I believe it is safe or reasonable - how can

that be true for London and not for the rest of the country? I don't

think it is the case that it is only true for London. But you're

cutting 16,000. I'm sure you know this very well, but central

government sets funding for the police, the police then have a

precept power, to raise extra money locally, and then chief constables

will decide within that budget how many police officers they wish to

have. Obviously, the Mayor of London is, if you like, almost a

crime commission. We have to take some measures to bring them into

line. But as Mayor, he is able to make decisions about how his budget

is spent. He thinks that to keep Londoners saved, he needs 1,000

extra police, and he's going to keep it that way. -- safe. But

there will be a reduction in the rest of police -- numbers of police

in the rest of the country - you cannot both be right. I'm not sure

I follow your point. Every chief constable will be making a decision

about how their budget will be spent, in discussion with their

police authority. In London, there's a Mayor as well as the

Metropolitan Police Authority. And Boris will be making decisions

about how the budget will be spent, and what he wishes to do in terms

of police numbers. There are chief constables elsewhere in the country

who, despite the budget cuts, are making sure they have got more

police on the streets by changes their making. There is a Chief

Constable who's looking at recruiting more officers, outside

London. So, people are looking within their budget at how they

deploy resources in terms of the number of officers. Is it your

contention that these cuts can be made without a reduction in the

number of police we will see on the streets? It is my contention that

the cuts can be made without affecting frontline services. We

have heard chief constables up and down the country showing that that

is where they are putting the focus, in terms of... But will there be

more or fewer police on the streets, after these cuts? People want to

see more... I'm getting rid of some of the bureaucracy which will allow

police to get on the streets. will there be more or fewer police

on the streets after these cuts? want to get rid of some other

things which are tying up the police and preventing them from

getting out on the streets. We saw the impact of police numbers on the

riots. Since the riots, there was some anecdotal evidence that crimes

in places like Croydon have drastically fallen - do you have

information on that? I have not seen the latest crime figures for

those areas. But of course, what happened during the riots was that

a number of people have been arrested following the riots, and

some of those were taken into custody. Does that not suggest that

contrary to Ken Clarke's assertions, short sentences work? Actually, Ken

Clarke has been saying that actually we need a variety of

sentences, which can be applicable at different times. But if crime

has fallen because the bad guys have been put away, that would

suggest that prison does work. all think, in government, that

prison must work better. Ken was talking here at conference today,

and as he was saying, there is a big issue about reoffending. About

three-quarters of those people who were arrested in the riots had a

previous criminal record. A quarter of them have more than 10 previous

offences. That tells us we're doing something wrong in terms of dealing

with reoffending, which is what Ken has been talking about. You say you

do not know what has happened to crime in those areas since the

riots. If you were in New York, you would have daily figures on the

spikes and falls in crime - do you not get that? You get that daily in

new no,... You're actually now arguing for our policies on crime

commissioners. In New York, there is one person job and responsible

for policing in New York, and the equivalent is Boris Johnson in

London. Police forces will have different systems, and chief

constables up and down the country will be looking on a daily basis at

figures for crime in their area. immigration, the party's policy in

the election was to get net immigration down into the tens of

thousands. In 2008, it was 163,000. In 2009, it was more than 109,000.

In 2010, it was more than 230,000. Will 2011 see a reverse in that

trend? As you will know, it takes time for any changes in the

immigration rules to work their way through in terms of numbers. This

is the first year from April that we have got the full figures with

the cap on migrants from outside the EU. It will be a long while

until we get to tens of thousands. We are putting in place the

measures which are necessary to bring down that migration. We have

got the statement from the judiciary, it says, the basis was