28/09/2014 Sunday Politics

Morning folks and welcome to The Sunday Politics,

live from the Conservative Conference in Birmingham.

There will be one less Conservative MP here after Mark Reckless defected

He joins us live from his constituency, where he has

It has not been the best of starts for the Prime Minister, as he

arrives in Birmingham for the last Tory conference before the election.

On top of the Reckless defection, a junior Tory minister has resigned

RAF jets have carried out their first mission over Iraq

And should we be targeting Syria, too?

In London, how the richest 1% are pulling further away, and why those

priced out are choosing to move away.

And joining me, three of the country's most loyal journalists,

who sadly have yet to resign or defect to our inferior rivals.

Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.

And, of course, they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

And you too can get involved by using the hashtag #BBCSP.

At the current rate of Tory resignations,

Mr Cameron could be speaking to an empty hall when he makes his keynote

address to the Tory conference here in Birmingham tomorrow.

It's been a classic car crash of a start to the conference, with a UKIP

defection, a minister shamed into resignation by a sex scandal and

Ed Miliband's memory lapses now look like a little local difficulty.

Here's what the Prime Minister had to say

These things are frustrating and frankly counter-productive and

rather senseless. If you want to have a European referendum, if you

want to get the deficit down, if you want to build a stronger Britain

that we can be proud of, there is only one option, which is to have a

Conservative government after the next election.

And Mark Reckless joins me now from Rochester.

Welcome to the programme. Why did you lie to all your Conservative

colleagues and mislead those who elected you? Well, I am keeping

faith with my constituents and keeping my promises to them. You

heard the Prime Minister saying that the Conservative led government was

dealing with the deficit and cutting immigration. The reality is, we have

increased the national debt by more in five years than even Labour

managed in 13, and immigration is back up to the levels we saw under

Labour. I believe in the promises I made in 2010, and I want to keep my

words to my electorate, not least to deal with the deficit, cut

immigration, reform the political system, to localise powers back to

the community, particularly over house-building. The government has

broken its word on all those things are. I want to keep my word to my

voters here, and that is why I have done what I have done, by moving to

UKIP. You have not kept your words to your Conservative constituency

chairman. You assured him 48 hours ago that you would not defect, and

you left his voice mail on the Conservative Party chairman's office

telephone, missing to come to Birmingham to campaign for the

Tories. This is your voice mail... I have just picked up your e-mail...

So, Friday night, telling Grant Shapps you are coming to Birmingham

to campaign for the Tories. The next day, you are joining UKIP. Why did

you are a? I sounded a bit more hesitant on that call than I usually

do, and I am not sure if that was the full conversation. But you

cannot discuss these things in advance, you have to make a

decision. I have decided the future of this country is better served by

UKIP then it is by the Conservative Party under David Cameron. I made a

lot of promises to my constituents, and I want to keep those promises.

That is why I am moving to UKIP, so I can deliver the change this

country really needs. In May of this year, you said that Nigel Farage,

quote, poses the most serious threat to a Tory victory at the election.

So, you agree, voting UKIP means a Labour government? I think voting

UKIP means getting UKIP. While in the past a disproportionate number

of UKIP people were ex-Conservatives, now, they are

winning a lot more people, from all parties. People are so disillusioned

with the political class in Westminster, that they have not

voted often for a generation. Those are the people Nigel Farage is

inspiring, and frankly, he has also inspired me. What he has done in the

last 20 years, building his party, getting people from all walks of

life, sending up for ordinary people, I think deserves support.

That is a key reason why I am moving. UKIP are now the agents of

change. You said it poses them a serious threat to a Tory victory? My

ambition is not a Tory victory. We made all of these promises in 2010

as Conservatives, and they have been broken. We now hear from David

Cameron about English votes for English laws, supported by Nick

Clegg as well, but that is what we said in our manifesto in 2010, and

we have done absolutely nothing about it. It is not credible now to

pretend that you are going to do those things. They have omitted to

give every Scot ?1600 per year in definitely. If you want to stand up

for the English taxpayer, and really tackle the debt, then UKIP are the

party who will do that. But there is nothing principled about this, this

is just an attempt to save your skin. You said UKIP stopped you

winning in 2005 - UKIP did not stand in 2010, and you won. You are

frightened that UKIP would beat you in the next election, this is to

save your skin to me you think I am doing this because I am frightened,

you think this is the easy option, to abandon my position in

Parliament, but my principles on the line? On the contrary, you look at

MPs who have moved party before, almost none of them have given their

voters to chance to have a say on what they have done. I am asking

permission from my voters, and I am moving to UKIP because I believe

many of the people in my constituency have been let down by a

Conservative led government, and that what UKIP is saying appeals to

decent, hard-working people, who want to see real change in our

country. If they do not agree, then they can vote in a by-election and

have their say on who they want to be their MP. I am being open and

honest, giving people a say. I am trying to do the right thing by my

constituents, and whatever the risk is to me personally, I think it is

the right thing to do. It is what MPs should be in politics to try and

do for the people they represent. Your defection, coming after Douglas

Carswell's, confirms the claim that UKIP is largely a depository for

disaffected right-wing Tories like yourself, isn't it? On the contrary,

the number of people I met in Doncaster yesterday was

extraordinary. When I first went to Conservative conferences 20 years

ago, there was some enthusiasm for politics, I remember Norman Tebbit

speaking against Maastricht, people fought they could change things,

there was real politics. But I do not think you will see that at

Birmingham this week, it is PR people, lobbyists, corporate, few

ordinary members of. At Ancaster, people had saved up for months just

to get the rail ticket to Doncaster. People who believe in UKIP, who

believe in Nigel Farage, who believe in the team, as agents of change,

who can actually deal with a political class at Westminster which

has let able down. We want proper reform to the political system,

which David Cameron promises but does not deliver. Final question -

after the next election, the Prime Minister is going to be either David

Cameron or Ed Miliband, that is the choice, one or the other - who would

you prefer? Well, what we would prefer is to get the most UKIP

policies implemented. We want a first rate we want to deal with

immigration. I asked about who you wanted to be Prime Minister. We will

look at the circumstances. We need as many UKIP MPs as possible, to

restore trust in politics. If people vote UKIP, they will get UKIP. How

serious is this? I think it is very serious. It is the old Tory disease,

destroyed John Major, and it has been bubbling away again. It is

beginning to feel like the worst days of Labour in the early nineteen

eighties. It matters, because people care passionately. It is nothing

like Labour in the early 1980s, it is bad, but it is nothing like that.

There are these very strong strands. People like David Davis

writing a large piece in the Daily Mail attacking the leader on the

first day of the conference. That is the kind of thing that Labour used

to do. That is what David Davis does all the time! But this is authentic

in the sense that there is a real, genuine dispute about Europe. Some

of us were not around in the 1980s, but I imagine it is pretty bad.

There is the short-term problem of the by-election they might lose, the

media problem of the general election which they cannot win if

UKIP remain anywhere near their current level of support. But in

many ways the longer term question is the most pressing, which is, does

it make sense for the Conservative Party to remain one party, or would

it not be better for the hard-core of 20-30 intransigent Eurosceptics

to essentially join UKIP or form their own party? At least the

Conservatives would become more internally manageable. And probably

lose the next election. Probably, yes. That is what you are advising

them? If the reward is to have a coherent party in 15 years' time. It

is just as well you are a columnist, not a party strategist. I

was an anorak in the 1980s, who watched the Labour conference on the

TV. Were you wearing your anorak? Of course I was, that is how sad I am.

But once again the crisis from UKIP has forced the Prime Minister to

step in an even more Eurosceptic direction. Said on television what

he was trying not to say, which is that if he does not get his way in

the European negotiations, he will recommend to the British people that

we should go. He began by saying, as I have always said, and when they

say that, you know they are saying something new. He basically said,

Britain should not stay if it is not in Britain's interests. I think this

is big stakes for both the Tories and four UKIP. The Tories are able

to write off Clacton. Rochester is number 271 on the UKIP friendly

list. If the Tories win it, big moment for them. If UKIP lose it,

this strategy of various will be facing a bit of a setback.

To what extent are Mark Reckless's views shared by Conservative

The Sunday Politics commissioned an exclusive poll of Conservative

Pollsters ComRes spoke to over 1,000 councillors -

that's almost an eighth of their council base - and Eleanor Garnier

There is not a single party conference at the seaside this year,

and Sunday Politics could not get through them all without a trip to

the coast. So here we are on the shore in Sussex. There are plenty of

Conservative councillors here, and Tory MPs as well, but one challenge

they all face is UKIP, who have got their sights on coastal towns.

Places like Worthing East and surer and, with high numbers of

pensioners, providing rich pickings for UKIP. In West Sussex, the Tories

run the county council, but UKIP are the official opposition, with ten

councillors. We cannot lose any more ground to UKIP. If we lose any more

ground, if you look at the way it has swung from us to them, it is

getting near to being the middle point, where we might start losing

seats which we have always regarded as safe seats. So, it has got to be

stemmed, it cannot go any further. Our exclusive survey looked at the

policy areas where the Conservatives are vulnerable to UKIP. If an EU

Referendum Bill is called tomorrow, 45% say they would vote to leave,

39% would stay in. Asked about immigration...

It was those issues, Europe and immigration, that Mark Reckless said

were the head of his decision. I promised to cut immigration while

treating people fairly and humanely. I cannot keep that promise as a

Conservative, I can keep it as UKIP. When asked if Conservative

councillors would like an electoral pact with UKIP in the run-up to the

general election, one third said they support the idea. 63% are

opposed and 7% don't know. Conservative councillors who left

the party to join UKIP say it wasn't easy. I left because basically the

Conservatives left me. I saw it as a difficult decision to change, but

what I was seeing with UKIP was freed. Me being able to speak for my

residents. Back to our survey and on climate change 49% said it was

happening, but that humans are not to blame. Our survey showed that 60%

think David Cameron was wrong to pursue legalising gay marriage, with

31% saying it was the right thing to do and 9% not sure. In Worthing

councillors said gay marriage was divisive. That has really been an

issue here, it might have damaged the party slightly, and I think in a

way by setting a rule like that, it is a very religious thing and it is

almost trying to play God to make that decision. But some of the

party's toughest decisions have been over the economy. 56% in our survey

thought the spending cuts the Government has so far announced have

not gone far enough. 6% were not sure. They are prepared for

difficult decisions, but local activists say the party's voice must

be clearer. I think the message has to be more forceful, it has to be

specially targeted to the ex-Conservative voters who now vote

UKIP, especially in this area, the vast majority of UKIP people are

disillusioned Conservatives. The message has to be loud and strong,

come back and we are the party to give you what you want. With just

eight months until the general election, the pressure is on and

local Conservatives are searching for clues to help their party stem

the flow of defections. Joining me now is William Hague, the former

Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons.

Tories like Mark Reckless are defecting to UKIP because they don't

trust the party leadership to deliver on Europe, do they? They

believe people like you and David Cameron will campaign to stay in and

they are right. They said before they defected that people should

vote Conservative to get a referendum on Europe, and that is

right of course. The only way to get a referendum is to do that and this

is the point, the people should decide. However a future government

decides it will campaign, it should be the people of the country who

decide. Can you say to our viewers this morning that is not enough

powers are repatriated back to Britain, you would want to come

out, can you say that? Our objective is to get those powers and stay in.

The answer to the question is I won't be deciding, David Cameron

won't be deciding, you the voters will be deciding. But you have to

give us your view. If you don't get enough powers back, would you vote

to come out and recommended? Our objective is to get those powers and

be able to stay in. You just get endless speculation years in

advance. I will decide at the time how I will vote. Surely that is the

rational position for everyone to take but I want a referendum to take

place. I understand that. As you pointed out to Mark Reckless just

now, unless there is a Conservative government, people won't have that

choice. Under a Labour government they will not get a choice at all.

Our survey of Tory councillors shows that almost 50% would vote to leave

the EU in a referendum. I think it showed, wasn't it 45, and 39%, but

again, I'm pretty sure they will decide at the time. They will want

to see what a future government achieves in a renegotiation before

they decide what to vote in a referendum. Unless David Cameron is

Prime Minister and there is a Conservative government, there will

not be a renegotiation. That is a point you have made four times. I

think they have got it. Your Cabinet colleague says we should not be

scared of quitting the EU, but you went native in the Foreign Office,

didn't you? You used to be a Eurosceptic, you are now the Foreign

Office line man. No, I don't think so! We brought back the first

reduced European budget ever in history. Even Margaret Thatcher...

Leaving the EU scares you, doesn't it? Not much scares me after 26

years in politics but we want to do the best thing for the country.

Where we scared when we got us out of liability for Eurozone bailouts?

We were not scared of anybody. People said we couldn't achieve

things but we negotiated these things. We can do that with a wider

negotiation in Europe. Mr Reckless says he cannot keep the Conservative

promise to tackle immigration. You have failed to keep your promise to

keep net immigration down. You promised to cut it below 100,000,

you failed. It is over 200,000 people. We have cut it from 250,000

in 2005, the last figures were 240,000. I think we can file that

under F four failed. It includes students, we want them in the

country. You knew that when you made the promise. But has it come down?

Yes, it has. Have we stopped the promise. But has it come down?

coming here because of our benefit system? Yes. None of that happened

under Labour. If Mark Reckless had his way, it would be more likely we

would have a Labour government. They have an open door policy on

immigration. You are not just losing MPs to UKIP, you are losing voters.

Polling by Michael Ashcroft shows that 20% of people who voted Tory in

2010 have abandoned youth and three quarters of them are voting UKIP

now. We will see in the general election. Politics is very fluid in

this country and we shouldn't deny that in any way but UKIP thought

they were going to win the by-election in Newark, we had a

thumping Conservative victory, and I think opinion polls are snapshots of

opinion now. They are not forecast of the general election and we will

be doing everything we can to get our message across. Today we are

announcing 3 million more apprenticeships in the next

Parliament. I think this is what people will be voting on, rather

than who has defected. Your activist base once parked with UKIP. Our

survey shows a third of Tory councillors would like a formal pact

with UKIP. Why not? It shows two thirds are against it. No, it shows

one third want it. I read the figures, it showed 67% don't want

it. We are not going to make a pact with other parties, and they don't

work in the British electoral system even if they were desirable. You are

sharing the Cabinet committee on English votes for English laws. Is

further devolution for Scotland conditional on progress towards

English devolution? No, the commitment to Scotland is

unconditional. We will meet the commitments to Scotland but we

believe, we the Conservatives believe, that in tandem with that we

have to resolve these questions about fairness to the rest of the UK

as well. That will depend on other parties or the general election

result. Are you committed to the Gordon Brown timetable? Yes,

absolutely. So you are committed to producing draft legislation by Burns

night, that is at the end of January. Will you produce proposals

for English votes on English laws by then? We will, but whether they are

agreed across the parties will depend on the other parties. There

was no sign that they were agreeable at the Labour conference. We will

produce our ideas on the same timetable as the timetable for

Scottish devolution. You will therefore bring forward proposals

for English votes for English laws by the end of January? Yes. And will

you attempt to get them on the statute book before the election?

The commitment in Scotland is to legislate after the election. You

will publish a bill beforehand? We will publish proposals beforehand. I

don't exclude doing something before the election, but the Scottish

timetable is to legislate for the further devolution after the general

election, whoever wins the election. Have you given thought as to what

English votes for English laws would mean? I have thought a lot of it

over 15 years. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome will be,

but it does mean in essence that when decisions are taken, decisions

that only affect England or only England and Wales, then only the MPs

from England and Wales should be making those decisions. You can

achieve that in many different ways. Is that it for English

devolution, is that what it amounts to? That is devolution to England if

you like, but within England there is a lot of other devolution going

on and we might well want to extend that further. We have given more

freedom to local authorities, there is a lot of scope to do more of

that, but that in itself is not the answer to the problem of what

happens at Westminster. You haven't just given Scotland more devolution

or planned to do it, you have also enshrined the Barnett formula and

that seems to be in perpetuity. It is widely regarded as being unfair

to Wales and many of the poorer English regions. Why do you

perpetuate it? It will become less relevant overtime if more

tax-raising powers... It goes all the way back to the 1970s, we made a

commitment on that, we will keep our commitments to Scotland as more --

but as more tax-raising powers devolved, the Barnett formula is

less significant. If you transfer ?5 billion of tax-raising powers to

Scotland, 5 billion comes off the Barnett formula? It will be a lot

more complicated than that, but yes, as their own decisions about

taxation are made, the grand from Westminster will go down. And you

can guarantee that if there is a majority Conservative government,

there will be English votes for English laws after the election?

Yes, I stress again that there are different ways of doing it but if

there is no cross-party agreement on that, the Conservatives will produce

our proposals and campaign for them in the general election. Don't go

away because I want to move on to some other matters.

Now to the fight against so-called Islamic State terrorists.

Yesterday, RAF Tornado jets carried out their first flights over Iraq

since MPs gave their approval for air-strikes against the militants.

When you face a situation with psychobabble -- psychopathic killers

who have already brutally beheaded one of our own citizens, who have

already launched and tried to execute plots in our own country to

maim innocent people, we have a choice - we can either stand back

from this and say it is too difficult, let's let someone else

try to keep our country safe, or we take the correct decision to have a

full, comprehensive strategy but let's be prepared to play our role

to make sure these people cannot do not trust harm.

And William Hague is still with me - until July he was, of course,

Why have only six Tornado jets being mobilised? Do not assume that is all

that will be taking part in this operation. That is all that has been

announced and I do not think we should speculate. Even the Danes are

sending more fighter jets. There is no restriction in the House of

Commons resolution passed on Friday on what we can do. So why so

little? Do not underestimate what our Tornados can do. They have some

unique capabilities, capabilities which have been specifically asked

for by our allies. When you are on the wrong end of six Tornados, it

will not feel like a small effort. But there will be other things which

can add to that effort. We are joining in a month after the

operation started, we are late, we are behind America, France,

Australia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, one hand tied behind our

backs cause of the rule about not attacking Syria - why is the British

government leading from behind? First of all, we are a democratic

country, and you know all about Parliamentary approval. You could

have recalled parliament. We have done that, with a political

consensus. Other European countries also took the decision on Friday to

send their military assets. Our allies are absolutely content with

that, and Britain will play an important role, along with many

other nations, including Arab nations. General Sir David Richards

Sheriff, who just steps down as the Nato Deputy Supreme Commander, he

condemns the spineless lack of leadership and the absence of any

credible strategy. It is embarrassing,isn't it? Of course,

they turn into armchair generals. We are playing an important role, we

are a democratic country. Your viewers will remember, we had a vote

last year on military action in Syria and we were defeated in the

House of Commons, a bad moment for our foreign policy. We have taken

care to bring this forward when we can win a vote in the House of

Commons, and that is how we will proceed. The air Chief Marshal until

recently in charge of the RAF, he says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq

but not Syria. He calls the decision ludicrous. Of course, it DOES make

sense to bomb Iraq, because the Iraqi government has asked for our

assistance. This came up a lot in the debate on Friday, and the Prime

Minister explained, similar to what I have just been saying, that there

is not a political consensus about Syria in the House of Commons. When

we did it last year, we were defeated, and it was described by

all commentators as a huge blow to the government and to our foreign

policy. So, we will bring forward proposals when there is a majority

in this country to do so in the House of Commons. Professor Michael

Clarke, one of the world top experts on military strategy and history, he

says there are very few important IS targets in northern Iraq, that they

are all in Syria, and we are limiting ourselves to the periphery

of the campaign. First of all, just because you are not doing everything

does not mean you should not do something. Secondly, the United

States and other countries are engaged in the action against

targets in Syria. This is a coalition effort, with people doing

different things. Thirdly, if we were to put their proposal to the

House of Commons tomorrow, and it was defeated, we would not have

achieved a great deal. You do not know it would have been defeated.

The Labour Party has given no indication they would have supported

that. So, you are hostage to the Labour Party? We have to win a

democratic vote in the House of Commons, and the Labour Party is a

very large part of the House of Commons. You are asking us to pursue

a policy which at the moment could be defeated in Parliament. Is it not

embarrassing to be on the wrong side of so many of these military

experts? Why should we trust the judgment of here today, gone

tomorrow, politicians? We have the military experts with us now. We

have a national security council, we do not have sofa government, unlike

the last government. The national security council is chaired by the

Prime Minister. Alongside the Chief of Defence Staff and the heads of

the intelligence agencies. And we take decisions together with the

people who have the information now. So, you will know what British

and American intelligence says about Syria. The Prime Minister has said

there is a danger that the British-born jihadists will come

back and attack us. But the intelligence reports which you will

have seen are clear - Al-Qaeda and its associates are selecting,

indoctrinating and training jihadists in Syria, not Iraq. Does

that not make the Syrian exclusion even more ludicrous? I cannot

comment on intelligence. Is the situation in Syria I direct threat

to this country? Yes, it is. Have we excluded action? No, we haven't.

Could you come back to the House? The Prime Minister said, it was in

the motion put to the House of Commons, that if we want to take

action in Syria, we will come back to the House of Commons. But we have

not taken any decision about that and we would not do so if we thought

we were going to be defeated again. The government supports US strikes

on Syria, show you must relieve they are legal. Either way the legal

basis differs from one country to another, according to their reading

of international law. But you have supported it. We do believe that

they and Arab countries are taking action legally and we support their

action. But I understand your legitimate questions. But it comes

back to your basic question, why in Iraq and not Syria. Nonetheless, it

is important to take action in Iraq. We are also engaged in Syria

in building up the political strength of the more moderate

opposition and in trying to bring about a peace agreement, and we do

not exclude action in Syria in the future. If we propose doing

something, then we ask for the specific legal advice. Why would you

not ask for the legal advice anyway? Because you have to be sure

of the legal advice at the time, and also we do not comment on the advice

given to us by the Law officers. Mr Blair ended up publishing his. That

was because there was a huge legal dispute. So you have not had legal

advice yet that Britain attacking Syria would be legal? The legal

situation is unlikely to be the barrier in this case, let me put it

that way. Within international law, you can act in the event of extreme

humanitarian distress and elective self-defence, so one can imagine

strong legal justification, but of course, we will take the legal

advice at the time. watching The Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who Scotland. Coming up here in 20

minutes, The Week Ahead. Scotland. Coming up here in 20

My thanks to you both. Andrew, back to you.

Here we are back in Birmingham with the Conservatives. The Tories

thought all they had to do was come here, have a rally, a jamboree, and

off they go to the races, or in their case the general election. Two

races later it hasn't quite worked out like that. Let's look at the

state of this conference as it gets under way. On our panel we are

joined by David Davis. You wrote an article in the Mail on Sunday this

morning which was an Exocet at the heart of David Cameron's modernising

strategy. It was designed to act as a lever. It was designed to cause

trouble. No, we are in the running for the next general election. One

of the characteristics of having a five year fixed term Parliaments is

that the last year is about campaigning. It is important we beat

Miliband, he would be a disastrous Prime Minister. You think the whole

modernising strategy was a wrong turn, that is what the article said.

Yes. Has that opened the door to UKIP? It has left a lot of people

disillusioned with politics. What do you do to get it right? Who was

listening to you? Frankly we need to take a more

robust series of policies. How many more UKIP defections will there be?

I do not think there will be any more. I would be very surprised. I

know Nigel Farage has a brilliant sense of timing, but I do not think

he has got the resources to do that, namely, another Tory MP. So it could

be another Labour one, maybe? I think an awful lot will hinge on

what happens in Rochester. Because that is not a slam dunk. Clack and

unfortunately looks like it will be a walkover for them. But Rochester

is a different scene. And so, there could be a kind of Newark situation.

When I campaigned in Newark, two labour families I spoke to said they

would vote Tory to keep UKIP out. How bad was the Labour conference

last week? One politician said after he had a really bad performance that

his television performance was suboptimal. I think that would be a

good way of describing Ed Miliband's speech. The problem for

Ed Miliband in memorising speeches is that we are not auditioning for a

new lines Olivier, we're rehearsing for Prime Minister. He failed the

Laurence Olivier test, and therefore failed the Prime Minister test. I

think the real problem for him was forgetting to mention the deficit.

He spoke from the heart about issues which she really cares about, the

NHS, the rupture between wages and inflation, and forgot the deficit.

Those issues are important, but if you are not addressing things like

the deficit, then people are really not going to be listening to your

messages on the areas that matter. Was it bad? Yes, suboptimal, I am

afraid. I hope that this ends the nonsense of leaders wasting their

time learning speeches off by heart. You could learn a Shakespeare

play in the time it takes to learn 70 minutes of a leader's speech. I

think we should just go back to sensible reading what you have

written. You can then alter it just beforehand. A lot of things were

changing, which is not surprising, but he did not have time to learn

it. It is a silly gimmick, it worked once or twice, but that is enough

for that. Despite some of the derision of Mr Miliband, the Tories

are flat-lining in the sun decks, they have been there almost since

the disastrous budget, the omnishambles, of 2012, Labour is

still several points ahead, nothing seems to change? And David Cameron

is now the leader in trouble. It is almost as if a week is a long time

in politics. I thought the Labour and friends was Saab --

sub-suboptimal. It was so parochial. You could've watched the top

speeches without knowing that the borders of Ukraine, and Iraq and

Syria were in question. I hope, because of Friday's discussion in

Parliament, that this conference will raise its sights a bit, and we

will have something in Cameron's speech, possibly that of George

Osborne as well, which is a bit more global. People hoped UKIP had gone

away during the summer, people at this conference, I mean, but it is

back with a bang. They are still up at 15% in the polls, the Tories

languishing on 32 - what is going to change? UKIP won 3% of the last

election, I always thought they would get about 6%. If, by the turn

of the year, they are still in double digits, I think at that point

you can begin to wake of his party's chances of winning. I have

had three people say to me so far, come election day, it will be fine,

people will sober up and so on. It will be all right on the night is

not a very good strategy, frankly. When they get past 5%, I start to

bite into our 3-way marginal seats, with liberals, Labour and Tories,

and we have got about 60 of those in the Midlands and the north, so it

really is quite serious. And if I may steal one of David's lines, when

you were interviewing Mark Reckless this morning, and was not talking

about the EU referendum, he was talking about how he felt he had

broken his pledges to the electorate because the Conservatives he said

had failed on immigration and on the deficit, and those sort of

bread-and-butter issues could be really potent on the doorstep, which

means the Tories have got to run the kind of campaign they ran in Newark,

which is a real centre ground, Reddan but a campaign, in which they

would hope to get Liberal Democrat and Labour voters out to vote

tactically against UKIP. I think today we have seen Cameron been

pushed to the right. He has had to say, yes, I would leave Europe,

which he has never said before. It is a huge stepping stone, a big

difference. It takes the Tory party somewhere else. May be get them a

lot of votes. But it has not so far. But I think it loses a lot of

people. The industry organisations, for example. The prospect of going

out of Europe, but is quite a fight for them. Is it not the lesson that

you can out UKIP UKIP? Well, you do not need to, really. I agree, last

week was sub-sub-suboptimal. Hold on, that is enough subs! I would not

be crowing too much! But what I was going to say, he left out something

incredibly important, the deficit. But how many people outside the M25

are thinking about the deficit? One problem we face with Miliband is, he

is good at politics and bad at economics, in a way. He comes up

with bonkers policies which people love, price-fixing, things like

that. Our problem will be about relevance on the doorstep. I do not

think at the end of the day it will be about Europe. But was there not a

moment of danger for you at the conference, that one area where

Miliband is potentially vulnerable is not having credible team with

business. Who turned up at the Labour conference, the head of

Airbus, saying, we have got to stay in the European Union? The danger is

that Europe allows the Labour Party to gain credibility with business.

There is some truth in that. But we are in effectively the home

straight, the last six months, and people will be fussing about prices

and jobs. Very parochial. They will not be saying, what does the CBI

think about this? It is, what is happening to me, in my town, in my

factory, in my office. That is where the fight will be. Is it not the

truth that if UKIP stays anywhere near around this level of support,

it is impossible for the Tories to win an overall majority? I would

say, if it is this level of support, it is impossible for the Tories to

finish as the biggest party, even in a hung Parliament. The Tories keep

trying to win back UKIP voters with cold logic - witches it makes Ed

Miliband becoming prime minister more likely. UKIP is basically a

vessel phenomenon, coming from the gut, and David Cameron has never

found the emotional pitch in his rhetoric to meet that. I wonder

whether we will see that moron Wednesday. It is just not him. I

hope we do. -- more on Wednesday. I hope you're right that we do

actually engage on emotion. So far with UKIP, our policy has been to

insult them. It does not work. I know that from my constituency. We

have to say to them, there is a wider Tory family, we understand you

are patria, we understand you are worried about your family, and we do

the same. What does it tell us about the state of the Tories, seven

months from the election, the economy is going well, they are not

that far behind Labour, and yet there is all sorts of leadership

speculation? It is extraordinary. They are doing well, they are in

with a shout. It depends. UKIP has to be kept below 9% of. -- below

9%. I think David Cameron is one of the few who speaks human, actually

talks quite well to people and does not look like a swivel-eyed loons.

Whereas a lot of people behind him do. You look at Duncan Smith and

Eric Pickles, they are all kind of driven, ideological men, with very

right-wing policies. And nice people! Don't hold back! He is not

the Addams family, he is basically quite human. I think a lot of people

do not realise how ideological he is himself and how well he has led his

party in the direction they all want to go. You go on about him being

this metropolitan moderniser, I do not think that is what he is,

really. It may not be visible from the guardian offices in the

metropolis! Everybody where you are, Polly, is a metropolitan moderniser.

And where you are, too. That is the nature of living in London. The

trouble is, when these people get into Westminster, they are part of

Westminster, too. If you could only win by being an outsider, the moment

you get in, you are done for. All teeing up nicely for Boris Johnson

to be the next leader? I do not think so! The point of my Exocet, or

lever, this morning, is that I think this is winnable. If we are good

Tories for the next six months, we can do this. It is by denying ground

to UKIP, not giving in to them, not buckling. Denying ground. Thank you

to our panel. They did all right today, but the normal. That is your

lot for today. I am back tomorrow. We will have live coverage of George

Osborne's speech to the conference. I am back next week in Glasgow for

The Sunday Politics at the Labour conference. How could you miss

that? Remember, if it is Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics. Bye-bye.