22/09/2014 Newsnight

Welcome to Manchester, four years ago in this place Ed Miliband saw

off his brother to become his party's leader. But this week he

must show he's ready to lead the country.

We're becoming a low-productivity, low-skill, low-wage economy, we need

to decisively break out of that. In Ed Miliband we have the first Labour

leader since John Smith with the strength of character to do that. Ed

Balls endeavoured to show the party's numbers add up. People are

relying on us to deliver, conference we will not let them down. But

constitutional wriggling after Scotland's vote has distracted minds

here. Energy concentrated not on the election, but the birth of so called

English Labour. We will talk to one of Labour's new generation, the

shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt.

Good evening, party conferences may sometimes be derided as insular

affairs. Not when there is a general election in a matter of months, and

not when there is a general election coming that is agonisingly hard to

predict. There are no bones about it. This week is one of Ed

Miliband's last big opportunities to explain who he is and what he offers

to make case, that for many members of the public has so far not

convinced. But many of his own MPs here have spent much of the day

tangling over whether their Scottish colleagues should be allowed to vote

on English-only issues. A headache Mr Miliband could probably do

without as he tries to explain what a Labour future would look like and

escape memories of the past. So keep on winning, and do it with

optimisim. I know what I believe, I know who I am, I know what I want to

do in this job (Voice of Gordon Brown) The big stage can be a lonely

place, but Labour's leader now, needs more than words. It is four

years since Ed Miliband won the leadership so dramatically from his

brother. Four years since he promise he had would take his party back to

power. But with seven months now just to go until the general

election there are still plenty of obstacles that stand in his way. Not

least his own appeal. Labour may be ahead in the poll, but as a leader

he's way behind. Labour in some ways has two main challenges, one is that

the Conservatives are actually extending their lead in terms of

their competence to run the economy. And the other is simply their

leader, who is currently about as unpopular as William Hague was in

the run-up to the 2001 general election, which you will remember

that he lost. It is Ed Balls who has to make all that add up. Freezing

child benefit for an extra year will help a little, not a lot. Yes, the

Tories are deeply unpopular, yes the country is crying out for change,

but even after the progress and successes of our last four years we

have more to do, to show Labour can deliver the change people want to

see, that we have learned from our time in Government. To show that we

will make the tough decisions to get the deficit down, thank we can

change our economy. Beyond getting the numbers right, this week is one

of Ed Miliband's few formal chances to nail down what his hypothetical

Government would do that is real. What voters beyond this hall might

be persuaded by and what they can expect. We are becoming a

low-productivity, low-skill, low-wage economy, you need to

decisively break out of that. In Ed Miliband we have the first Labour

leader since John Smith with the strength of character to do that. He

just has to talk about the finance agenda. He has to talk about, as he

is doing, I think he has to talk about the way that people are

struggling. I think the majority of people don't feel like the economy

has got better I think that most people feel like it has got worse. I

think the party has travelled an awful long way. Look at the things

we were talking about now, these were unheard of one election ago by

new Labour, they wouldn't discuss any of this stuff, housing, it never

got off the agenda. It is a better and more balanced approach. It has

been forced. By the unions? By the fact that millions of people have

stopped voting Labour. It is about being clear about inequality, about

opportunity, and setting out a real alternative vision. Ed has said many

times this is all about choice, and this is the election of choice. It

is the most important election for a generation. An extra tax to pay more

cash for the NHS seems will be part of the offer. But only voters will

determine next year how that is received.

That idea of more tax to go for the NHS is one of the ideas we sort of

expect in the speech tomorrow, our political editor is here. What will

he say? We do expect that extra boost for the NHS, we have had many

reports in the last few weeks and months about it heading for a real

cash crunch. He will boost that tomorrow. We think it will be paid

for out of a "Mansion Tax" on houses above ?2 million. But also more

originally something called Sin-tax, it exaggerates the polls. Labour

polls streets ahead on the NHS, it plays to that, it paints also the

Conservatives in a nasty place, they are the vested interests, the

friends of big companies, don't understand how it is to live like

real people. It is still talking about introducing new taxes, not

always popular, will this help? Indeed, there is two big central

questions this doesn't help at all. The first is the fiscal credibility

question, especially talk of we were going to use "Mansion Tax" to pay

for one thing now we are shifting it slightly, it is slightly smoke and

mirrors. There is another central question which is Ed Miliband's own

personal ratings, saw in a graphic that Labour is polling very well but

Ed Miliband isn't polling so well. In the next eight months the

question will be can the Labour brand carry the leader. That is not

a good place for him to be in. I think to address that they are doing

the following tomorrow, in his speech he will talk about a ten-year

plan, what Britain will be like in 2025, people are talking about

chairman Millie! They have set out lots of detail on six key areas

where they want Britain to be. That is them asserting they know it is a

credibility problem. If they have targets they have to meet people may

believe them a bit more. We will talk about it tomorrow. What can you

be pretty sure of is Ed Miliband's ten-year plan won't make him a

sudden convert to the ideas of banning Scottish MPs to vote on

English-only matters like David Cameron. Some in his party think his

position on sorting out the devolution mess has not gone nearly

far enough. Rather than spending time pressing the flesh here, some

MPs scuttled off for a private meeting to talk about what could end

up as English Labour. We were watching their every move.

Look familiar, Manchester Town Hall, so often a Westminster stand in for

TV dramas through the ages, perhaps one day not the understudy, but

parliament all of its own. This morning it is where worried Labour

MPs are gathering. We are told there is a meeting in the corridor at the

top here, it is to discuss Labour's response to the handover of powers

to Scotland ostensibly, but actually it is a crisis meeting to discuss

Labour on the English question. Some of the party's most senior figures

will be here shortly because they think Ed Miliband isn't yet doing

enough. Are you here for the English crisis meeting? No Are you here for

the English identity meeting, 301, you are, right. Bit of a crisis at

the moment isn't it? Not in the least. Are you laughing at why we

are calling it that? Some attendee, including Labour MPs think their

party must speak up for more English voters. We have to address the West

Lothian problem that has been around for decades. 150 years? Longer than

any of us have been alive. You don't solve a problem long standing in a

few months, do you it properly and with a cool head. The people in this

room are hopeful more powers to Scots means more powers to English

cities and regions. Later they announce the creation of an English

Labour Party to reach out to albion. Some think Ed Miliband must have

more to stay on his 40 Scottish MPs. This man writing Labour's manifesto

and expert on Englishness is put on the spot. I think there is a huge

opportunity for Labour to put meat on the bones of the convention we

have begun to talk about. About what constitutes the settlement for

England and who speaks for England. We have been talking about an

English Labour identity that we need to forge. That is a very interesting

debate. We have to crack open this conversation now. Labour's policy

chief there talking about who speaks for England. But others see no

problem. What do you all think about the move

on the Scottish MPs, is it really unfair? Barmy, we should leave the

Scottish MPs with full voting powers. It is ridiculous, and

Cameron playing dirty tricks and receding from his promises. Others

are happy with Scottish MPs voting but have other problems with Ed

Miliband's vow to Scotland? Lord Barnet is an old friend of mine, he

told me Jim Callaghan asked him to come up with a formula for a year,

look how long it has lasted, 30 years. The fact is, yes, let's look

at it afresh, I want to be generous to Scotland, but I also want fair

shares for Scotland and the other northern regions. Labour thinks it

can see off the Tories because voters don't care about the West

Lothian Question. So we went to an aJase seventh conference,

Manchester's Food and Wine Fair, a mile away. How do you feel about the

West Lothian Question? What? That is about Scottish people having power

in the English parliament and us not having powers in their's. That is

one proud politics teacher. Who else? English votes for English

people. What does that mean? It means we should vote on our own laws

and what we want in England and let Scotland do what they want in

Scotland. How do you feel about the West Lothian Question? Is that funny

is it? Yeah, I'm probably not great person to ask. You don't think that

the Scottish Labour MPs are a problem? I wouldn't seen think that

Scottish Tory MPs were a problem if it was all Tory. There is tension in

Manchester, yes, some MPs think David Cameron has been unprincipled

in targeting Scottish MPs voting on English laws. But then there are

Labour MPs who agree with him, and today behind the scenes there has

been much politicking to suppress their views. This group need Ed

Miliband tomorrow to say something significant in his speech on the

issue in order for them to be happy. Away from Manchester at the Prime

Minister's Chequers residence, Tories did not back down from

limiting Scottish voting rights. If other parties make it impossible to

deal with this issue in tandem, then of course it will be an issue at the

general election in May. The people of the country will decide. Two

years ago Ed Miliband talked in Manchester of one-nation Labour,

now, on the eve of the election, many in the hall tomorrow want him

to talk of more powers for four nation, not one.

The shadow education secretary, Tristram Hunt, is here with us in

the exhibition hall, just outside the main part of the conference.

Thank you for being with us, this should be a very big moment, we are

just seven months out from the election. But instead today we have

had senior figures, people like John Denham and Mr Bradshaw focus today

on a gap in the party's response to a very old problem? I think this is

the beginning of the debate we want to see about English identity and

English representation. I think what we saw in Scotland was, on the one

hand, great celebration of democracy and the artists and the musicians

and historians involved in a debate about Scottish democracy and the

referendum. But also a strong sense of a disconnect between the public

and the politicians. Our fear about what's going on with the sort of

post-referendum analysis is what we don't want to do is limit it

conversation. So what we are seeing on the fringe today, with John

Cruddas saying let's bring open the question and have discussion about

where Labour is within that. That is part of the beginning of that

conversation about Labour's place within a United Kingdom. But what is

also part of that conversation, loud and clear, from the senior figures

in the party, is that Labour must say and must say now, you know what,

the situation where Scottish MPs can vote on things that don't have

anything to do with their constituents has to come to an end?

I mean my starting point on this is slightly different. Which is all but

two UK Governments in the 20th century had an English majority. So

I think what the Labour Party does on the back of this referendum and

this conversation is make sure we work even harder to win those

English seats in Harlow, in Stevenage, and Norwich to make sure

we have an English majority and Scottish majority and a Welsh

majority. But I also think we need to lean in to our Great British

identity. You know, I saw you last in Scotland, in Glasgow, Paisley,

fighting for the United Kingdom. We don't then want to dismantle the

United Kingdom in Westminster. Once you beginning to down the road of

two-tier MPs you are beginning to dismantle the British constitution

as we know it at the moment. Except, there are already two-tier MPs,

there are already some of your colleagues able to vote on questions

that affect your constituents, but don't affect their constituents.

Now, why does the Labour leadership find it so difficult to say that in

simple terms that is not fair. Every MP can vote on what is in front of

them in the House of Commons. We have a situation where London MPs

look after their transport facilities, they can vote on HS 2, I

don't get to decide, as a Stoke-on-Trent MP on London

Transport expenditure. We have Welsh, Northern Irish MPs, we have a

multilayered constitution, and once you begin to unpick it as a sort of

House Party at Chequers, which is what David Cameron seems to be

doing. You are not dealing with the Combezou publicsity of it. Lots --

Complexity of it. Lots of your own side are saying you need to accept

this is an issue. A lot of people might agree with your analysis that

what David Cameron is trying do is rushed and too quick and you have to

do things gradually. On the point of principle rather than the process,

surely it is time, why is it so difficult for the leadership to

acknowledge it is not fair? We acknowledge there is a big issue and

that there is a disconnect between the public and politicians, we also

acknowledge that there has not been enough celebration and

representation of English identity within a federal UK system. But we

also acknowledge that the United Kingdom is a complicated federal

structure. And once you begin to pull away all of it, over the next

four months, to get this ready by mid-January. This is a really

complicated issue and what we want is a constitutional convention to

discuss it. That is not shying away from it, we accept it, we want the

debate. But what we don't want it to be is limited to a Chequers House

Party. We want a big public conversation about it. If you make a

promise about a consultation that will last six years, as the party

has suggested. Aren't you then leaving the door wide open for UKIP

or the Conservatives to make play saying that the Labour Party doesn't

want to pay much attention to what English people want, a new poll

tonight for ComRes suggests 65% of people think it is the time now for

Scottish MPs to stop voting on English-only matters. I'm happy to

go into the election fighting for English votes. I'm also very happy

going into the election as a Labour Party supporting Great Britain, and

being patriotic British party. Is it unpatriotic to say what Ben Bradshaw

and John Denham are saying and you have to address the issue? We do

want to address the issue. But we don't want to pull apart the vital

elements of the British constitution in four months. What we have is a

terrible narrowing of the Tory vision. This was once the

Conservative and Unionist Party, they seem to have lost faith in the

union of Great Britain as well as withdrawing from Europe. What

happened to the confidence in this country. I brief in Great Britain

and the United Kingdom. I think we should have a UK parliament, but I

also think we need to have a big conversation about English identity

and representation within that. It is not shying away from t we think

it is slightly more complicated. Again you are talking about the

overall process, it maybe needs to take a longer time, we need to have

a wider look at the issues. But on a simple point, for most members of

the public you either think it is fair or you think it is unfair? We

do not TRARD as a simple point -- regard it as a simple point, once

you ask members of the public do you want to pull apart the United

Kingdom. You might get a very different answer to English votes on

English laws. When you begin to think about this, if you think about

health funding and the research behind that. If you think about

education funding and the allocation between England and Scotland and

then transport, this question is more complicated and needs more

time. The referendum conversation in Scotland took place over two years

not four months. As a historian maybe it is your view we just have

to accept this is a misnomer of our unwritten constitution is that

right, you just have to accept it, it is a messy situation? There are

disparities in our unwritten constitution, what I won't accept is

resentment and the festering of resentment about an absence of

respect for English identity and Englishness. I represent

Stoke-on-Trent, the kingdom of Mercia, in the heart of England. We

have a strong, proud, English identity about there. I'm proud to

be an English MP in a UK parliament, we need to speak to that. Very

briefly, would it be simpler then, once you have had the constitutional

convention if we wrote something down and had a written constitution

so everybody knew where they stood? It is one of the ironies in Great

Britain that we have written more constitutions than anywhere in the

world, but our ability to deliver one for ourself has held us back.

2015 on the anniversary of the Magna Carta to begin the conversation. We

actually have lots of documents co-defying the British constitution,

bringing them together under the Laura Kuensberg memorandum! Beyond

in tangle, there are two big challenges for Ed Miliband this

week, one the question of economic credibility and also of his own

credibility. Now four years ago he won the leadership from his brother,

you didn't support him four years ago. What has he done since then to

convince you he is the right leader? He has risen to the challenge of

thinking about the kind of political economy Britain needs. We see this

very worrying disconnect at the moment between a return to a model

of growth which is not delivering for working people. And Ed

Miliband's critque of how our modern economy is working and his policy

response to that, we have announced this week raising the national

minimum wage to ?8, cracking down on zero hours. Making sure we don't

have contract workers all taken from abroad. On the one hand there is

quite an overarching policy critque of our economy, on the other hand

there are direct, winnable policies that I know I can go on the doorstep

in Stoke-on-Trent and say this is why you vote for the Labour

Government. Maybe some of the policies are cutting through, on

schools, the party is pretty consistently, if narrowly, ahead in

the polls. But again consistently Ed Miliband himself is way behind in

his own ratings? Why is that do you think? I have worked with Ed

Miliband close up now, I know first of all he's man of conviction and

character, he believes deeply and passionately in this country. I

think over the course of the general election we will see that. You know

we can look at Margaret Thatcher's polling prior to her election, we

can look at comments about Churchill about Clement Attlee, a modest man,

and much to be modest about, created the welfare state and delivered

freedom for India. I wouldn't hold too much on the polling. Except

popularity ratings determine whether or not people can win elections. You

can have a look at this with some of the previous ratings. This is the

position of leaders of the opposition one year before an

election, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, all way ahead. Ed Miliband down

there is only just ahead of Michael Foot, less popular than Michael

Howard was before 2005. Less popular than Neil Kinnock in 1986 and 1991,

less popular than William Hague when he was trying to be elected. Now

this matters because those leaders didn't win. The great thing about

being part of Ed Miliband's team is we are in the history-busting

business. Going back into office after one-term in opposition is

exactly what we are about. So I'm not really bothered about that. You

are not bothered? I'm not bothered about. What I'm bothered about is

policies to deliver for poorer people, an economy working for

working people. When we have the standard of living crisis we're

seeing, our policies on the national minimum wage, the NHS and schools,

having qualified teachers in your kids' classes might be a good start.

You can sit there this week and say as a front bencher who hopes to be

the Education Secretary or any other job that might be bestowed on you if

Labour won, that it doesn't bother you that Ed Miliband is less popular

than Nick Clegg. Less popular than Nigel Farage. It is very easy to sit

and say it doesn't matter. But it does if it means you won't win the

election? We are going to win the election, because we will convince

the British people that we have a long-term plan. Which is what Ed

Miliband is talking about tomorrow. We are also going to show at the

moment we have an economic model working for a very privileged few,

and what we have to make sure is when growth returns to this country

it delivers for the majority. We will come on to that in just a

second. Do you think that people haven't understood Ed Miliband then.

Have you sat there and made a very good argument for him, have they

misunderstood him? I'm not overly concerned by this debate. I'm

passionate about getting out there and selling our policies. Explaining

how Ed Miliband will deliver them. Ed Miliband will be a powerful,

creative, reforming Prime Minister, and it is my job as a Labour member

of parliament to get him into office.

He has to show he can be trusted to run the economy. And Ed Balls made a

promised to on child benefit that will save only ?400 million, it

sounds a lot, but in the context of what you have to do it is small

beer. The economic polling, the party is way behind. Isn't it the

truth that you are still very far back on the journey to show that

Labour can be trusted with the economy again? I think Ed Balls's

difficult announcement about child benefit in tough times shows we are

very serious about dealing with the debt and deficit. And this, you

know, it is not going to solve the public spending crisis that we will

inherit because this Government has shot to pieces our public finances.

But it is an important symbol about the rigour. It may do more to

restore public finances? No, debt has been escalating. When he came to

power it was a growing economy, we had three lost years pulling the rug

out from the economy. In terms of what will happen after the next

general election, right now they would deal with the deficit to the

tune of ?37 billion that they would cut from tax or public benefit or

raising tax. You are looking at only the equivalent of ?9 billion. There

is a clear difference with the pace you will deal with the deficit.

There is a clear difference, what we learned last time is when you have

an insipient growth you don't want to pull the rug from under it. We

need fairer system to deal with it, which is why we are committed to go

back to the 50p tax band for the top earner. This is priorities and

values. In education absolute priority, on apprenticeships, on

technical and education. Will your brief, the education budget be

ring-fenced? These are the discussions I have to have with Ed

Balls. We will present a manifesto to the British public, but I think

when you look back through the history Labour Governments, we have

always looked after education budgets and health budgets. Those

are absolute priorities. We sit here in Manchester where the first

charter schools were founded in 1819, education has been central to

Labour's message about social justice. We will certainly be

prioritising it. You are hopeful of a ring-fence but don't have one yet?

Ed Balls was Education Secretary and knows about that department.

Finally, isn't part of this problem, and when you speak to the people in

this hall, they know when they go on the doorsteps people don't trust

Labour on the economy. They know that had. Isn't part of the problem

there has never been a real moment when, since the last election, when

the party looked the electorate in the eye and said we were part of the

problem. We spent too much. David Miliband who wanted to be leader

planned on saying that when he had won. Wouldn't it be better to have

said it? When we go to the polls having the debates about the

expenditure in laid 08 will not be what people are concerned about.

They will be concerned about whether or not we have plan to deliver an

economy that works for working people. At the moment we have a

model of economic growth only benefitting a privileged few. The

kind of detailed, attractive policies, based upon a different

vision of political economy, raising the national minimum wage, cracking

down on zero hours and securing the NHS. Good Labour policies meaning Ed

Miliband will get into Number Ten. We will hear from Ed Miliband

tomorrow. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

We know our comprehensive coverage conference will sater, ate all of

your tastes. Some Newsnight viewers may want more. You know who you are.

Andrew Neil has more to come from the Labour Party Conference straight

after the programme. It is a crucial party conference

this year with the election only seven months away, I will bring all

the most important speeches from the best interviews and analysis. That

is Newsnight with Today the Conference.

The cheek of him. Well let's pick up on tomorrow of those themes, not

Andrew's themes, but what we have been discussing with our guests,

Lionel Barber from the Financial Times and Kate Pickett the author of

The Spirit Level. Rachel you have been scathing about Ed Miliband in

the past and also David Cameron, but Ed Miliband in the past. What do you

think he has to do this week. What can he do this week? What is

interesting he needs to reach out beyond the Labour tribe, can he do

that? There is lots of conversation with Tristram about the called

English question. I think the real question for him this week is can he

win in England. There is a shocking figure that in 2010, Labour won ten

seats out of 197 in the south of England outside London. If Labour

wants to form a Government, Ed Miliband has to reach out to the

people not natural Labour traditional supporters. Going back

to the centre ground, Lionel Barber, they have also to work on the

economic credibility. You are imbued with the city and talk with people

in business all the time. How far is the Labour Party on that journey

back to restoring trust on the economy? I would say it has moved

just beyond first base. If we're going to take the baseball metaphor.

I think that there has been no prawn cocktail offensive that I have

detected in the City of London. I think that that there was some

effort now to tone down some of what people in the business community

effort now to tone down some of what have thought wasn't aity business

rhetoric. I do not expect tomorrow Ed Miliband to be talking about

predator capitalism. But they are already having to unpick some of the

things they have done before? Part of that and what you seen today

is Ed Balls's policy on child benefit, for example. But surely

that doesn't sit with people on the core vote, left of the Labour Party

or traditional Labour? I don't think it does, I don't think what we heard

from the he Labour Party today is speaking to core voters or anyone

who wants a vision of a better society in Britain today. I'm hoping

and waiting and hoping that somebody over the period of the conference,

maybe Ed Miliband in the leader's speech, and will pick up the ball

and show us a better vision. Right here all three of you are saying he

has to do three different things, you are saying reach out to the

non-traditional Labour. He can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is

possible to reach out to Middle England and appeal to the business

community. You can do that. Is it possible to do both of those things

then, and appeal and shore up the traditional Labour vote? Possibly

not, I think the Labour Party needs to think about where its values are.

Should it be trying to reassure the City of London or trying row strain

it. The Southern voters who I think he has to win back are more worried

about economic credibility and the leadership questions. They are the

out in front people. He has to win them over. That does sit with the

business community very well. I do think he has to make a choice. Those

are small constituencies in the grand scheme of things. 80% of the

British public want a more equal society. That is a huge mandate. Who

what do you mean by that? It is clear in the British Association

attitude survey, 80% of British public think income differences

should be smaller. The evidence suggests that would improve our

society, make for a more Health and Safety Executivy, cohesive society,

more economic stability and growth. A lot of people understand the world

has changed after the global world financial crisis. A lot of people

don't want prosperity put at risk by irresponsible fiscal policies, that

was the message of Ed Balls today. Tentative, a little tentative, but

still in terms of his own a bold move on child benefit, politically

it is big. I think most people think the exact opposite. Ed Miliband

tomorrow won't talk so much, there will be the reprise about P

inequality, but I think he will make the health service front and centre.

Has he had such a rap on the knuckles about the energy price

freeze, the predator idea he put out, so business has been rapping

him? We are not talking about big business here only. We are talking

about small business, where a lot of the jobs are created. People who are

accustomed to taking risks, they want to hear and that is where

Rachel is right. Has to appeal to that community too. Does that

actually look like that though Rachel Sylvester, you say he has to

reach out and win in England w what? I think the NHS is a good theme. It

will be clash of two terrible brands in the general election. It will be

the Conservative Party seen to be the party of the rich, not trusted

on the NHS. Versus a Labour Party that isn't trust today run the

economy. Actually the NHS is an area where Ed Miliband has a huge

advantage over David Cameron. He Labour is trusted but also David

Cameron and Andrew Lansley, in particular with the health reforms

seem to have abandoned their promise on the NHS before the last election.

If he just talk about the NHS isn't it just returning to core vote? It

has to be a reforming vote on the NHS. It can't be more money for

nurses, doctors. I think Labour has a story on that about reforming the

health and social care, bringing those two very difficult things

together. The FT supported Labour for a long

period up to the 2010 election when they then backed the Conservatives.

Can you see the paper supporting a Labour Party with Ed Miliband as the

leader? I honestly think I'm going on Newsnight and answer that. I

think one of the most interesting things today and I have been with an

ex-cabinet minister over dinner tonight, is this sense there is a

big message from Scotland here about the collapse of the Labour Party

support. There is a message coming out about people being

discombobulated. What do you do about those people. Is it enough, if

you like, just to have this mantra of inequality. There is the populist

mood in this country in Scotland, in England, Ed Miliband has to take

that on board as well. That mood in Scotland is not about a mantra of

inequal fee, it is about real change, real equality and real

social justice. Thank you very much. How to respond to the threat

of Islamic State will not be the so simple question facing over 140

world leaders at the UN General Assembly today. The UN-GA, or as one

senior diplomat refers to in memory of Silvio Berlusconi, the Ungi

Party, kicks off on with an address of the President of the United

States, Barack Obama. Tony Blair has reentered the debate. Arguing that

Britain should not rule out putting boots on the ground. Our diplomatic

editor is there. How far does President Obama appear to be in

terms of forming a strategy now? You know there is a lot of scepticism

about this. Some countries, sworn enemies how are they meant to work

together. The phrase are using is "work in progress". There have been

some interesting developments and some people have broken cover in

recent days. If you talk about the British that is interesting, because

just a few weeks ago at the NATO summit in Wales I was getting a

pretty clear steer that this was the week when if there was going to be

an enhanced British contribution, air strikes, perhaps a military

training mission to go in and improve the performance of the Iraqi

army. This would be when we would hear it. I spoke to a senior British

official earlier today to push him on this point. Will we get this. I

got the answer, well... Soing will happen before David Cameron speaks

to the people here and attends the session of the Security Council

chaired by Barack Obama on Wednesday. If there is going to be

movement that is the time to look at it from the UK. On the wider

coalition there are vital meetings between President Erdegon and

President Obama. This is all part of the mood music to ramp up the

coalition and what we have seen over recent days.

September brings turmoil to New York, as scores of world leaders

arrive for the UN General Assembly. All sorts of diplomatic business is

done on the margins and this year President Obama is mobilising

support to fight the so called Islamic State.

There is still doubts about what President Obama's strategy consists

of, and whether it can work. You find those in Congress, the

international community and even the US military. This is taking a

clearer form now and we have been able to get some ideas in recent

days about what the main elements are? It is meant to be a new type of

coalition and a new battle plan. The administration is using big High

Streets like John Kerry to persuade the doubters. They will take Sommer

convincing, even within the President's own partymer convincing,

even within the President's own party. I think they want them to own

what is happening. And even with my experience it is very niave to think

this will stop at let's get the Syrian moderates to fight the war.

ISIS has to be defeated, plain and simple, end of story. We watched

round one, trying to convince a Congress that knows President Obama

hasn't wanted to arm the Syrian opposition or reenter Iraq, but has

been forced to by circumstance. The Republican administration left this

administration with big problems. I think this administration has turned

a big challenge into a major crisis. But the House of Senate did vote it

through, stepping up training for Syrian rebels, likely to take place

in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. That is just one part of the plan. He laid

out what his struggles were and inside the our comments. And

listened to our comments first over two hours.

The President has told trusted visitors to the White House that

tackling him. Ling ISIS in Syria is said to involve states like Saudi

Arabia and others. The secret sauce is in this fight a number of gulf

countries, plus Saudi Arabia, plus maybe Jordan, plus maybe Egypt, plus

maybe turkey will provide resources, including advisers on the ground,

whether they are called combat troops or something else. Special

Forces, I think there will be some friendly foreign fighters from the

region. At this week's UN General Assembly,

President Obama hopes to put the finishing touches to his coalition,

with meeting on the sidelines and a key speech on Wednesday. But many

remain to be convinced. You could say there is 40 countries

but the reality is what are the countries? What are they putting

into the equation. Where are the combat troops. For how long. Those

very specific things that I would like to see to feel comfortable with

his plan. We haven't received that. Among the leaders current and ex,

gathered in New York, calls from Britain too to put the military

flesh on the bones of the good intentions. You can contain,

possibly, by air power, you can hem them in and Harry them, but in the

end you will also have force capability on the ground. I'm not we

in the west need to do this, it would be better done by those people

closer to the ground who have the most immediate and direct interest

in fighting them. I don't think we can in all circumstances rule it

out. Afterall we do have the force capability to do this. The coalition

is growing and in some meaningful ways, with the French for example

starting air strikes in Iraq, Australia is set to do the same.

Britain too must now show its hand on air strikes and training for the

Iraqi forces. There is talk here too of a big change in position by

Turkey. But the Pentagon also wants to see

exactly what these commitments amount to. As the Defence Secretary

hosted a meeting to honour the missing in action of previous wars,

you hear Vietnam being mentioned. As an earlier example of one that

started with a half-baked pledge not to get involved on the ground. This

nation is immensely war weary after the experience of Iraq and

Afghanistan. There is one other constituency that the President has

to convince of the viability of his position. As your commander and

chief I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting

another ground war in Iraq. The President's promise of no boots on

the ground, or any second Iraq War has already rankled with military

advisers, who consider it unrealistic and potentially

misleading. The odds are overwhelming that they

will be involved in combat operations. The question is will

they be given a mission of direct combat. The answer is we don't know

yet. At the moment the mission will be to advise, mentor train the Iraqi

security forces, the Peshmerga in the north and the Syrian moderate

opposition as they come on line. I wouldn't foreclose at all the option

of ultimately needing combat operations as a mission for US

troops. At the moment the mission will be train, advise and mentor, we

shouldn't box ourselves in. Because we don't know what the future will

hold. Elements of the President's plan are now coming together, and in

ways that is surprising given about how vague it has been about its

objectives. But with Congress the coalition or military, one important

thing has changed. The President has given them their marching orders. We

have Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary at the time of the Iraq War. We have

been watching this very closely I know, the President has said they've

country on earth must do something in this battle, are we doing enough?

We could probably do more, there is an understandable reluctance by

British Government and British parliament to do more than operate

from the air, different the flat blankly the history of the Iraq War

with thousands of troops on the ground. We are seeing the French

already undertaking air strikes, why we the holder of the special

relationship haven't acted that way. We are not looking like we are

dragging their feet. I think we do as far as air strikes are concerned.

Speaking for myself and nobody else I think there is a good case to be

involved in air strikes. It is not so much about contributing to the

capability of the Americans, they could do this all themselves. S if

test about the coalition of the willing -- it is about a coalition

of the willing and sending a message to those on the ground in ISIS that

they are very isolated. In my judgment we have to talk to Iran. I

have been calling along with some Conservatives for them to be a

contract group to deal with the problem in Syria and that would

involve Iran. When this was put to the Government a few months ago they

came out with some ludicrous arguments that Iran had not signed

up to Geneva 1. The reason they isn't was because they hadn't been

in the room. Should David Cameron oughtor and talk to the Iranians on

the sidelines. I have no idea if he will, I think he ought to have been

talking to the Iranians last year. I know he has had one conversation,

but Iran is a huge country and hugely significant. Dr Rohanny want

a reprochment with the west and want to do a deal. It is not a

monoculture, there is a big political space and we need to take

advantage of the circumstances it operates in. How do you think the

mood of the Labour Party would be if Ed Miliband were to say, yes, we

have to get involved here, even perhaps as Tony Blair suggested not

ruling out ground troops? I think if Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander,

and called him up. This would be great support in church. They go

right across the chamber, it is very infreak there is a straight party

divide. Ground troops are more problematic. In terms of ruling out

the boot on the ground, our former colleague has been clear, Britain

ought not to rule it out, even though it is more ideal for regional

neighbours to do it. There is no point in pretending we could put

infantry battalion, we lack the capacity in large numbers. You agree

it would be politically impossible? Never use the word impossible,

politically different, certainly Special Forces and training. The

idea is our investment from the air and training in Special Forces and

the major boots on the ground for the Peshmerga and other forces who

want to see that. How different would Labour's foreign policy be

under Ed Miliband, if in seven months time he is Prime Minister?

Chaired Compared with what? Compared with you. He would not have

supported, as you said, the Iraq War, but that is now history. I

doubt it would have been that different. It is broadly

pro-European. He, as Douglas Alexander is, stuff stand as far as

the Israeli Government is and seeking a reprochment with Iran.

That's all we have from here from Manchester tonight. That is it. But

there will be more from us here at the Labour conference, thank you

very much for watching.