:00:25. > :00:29.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics Conference special
:00:29. > :00:31.live from Manchester. The sun has made an appearance on the
:00:31. > :00:33.penultimate day of the Conservative party conference, perhaps in
:00:33. > :00:38.defiance of Chancellor George Osborne's gloomy prognostications
:00:38. > :00:41.yesterday. But whether you're gloomy or chirpy, it's fair to say
:00:41. > :00:49.this has been a pretty uneventful conference so far. Business-like,
:00:50. > :00:51.serious. A little apprehensive about how it's all going. No major
:00:52. > :00:54.announcements, like last year's child benefit bombshell, except
:00:54. > :00:59.perhaps the Chancellor's plan for credit easing, which few understand
:00:59. > :01:06.and even his aides are struggling to explain. The conference will
:01:06. > :01:09.continue its sober course today. But there will be substance. This
:01:09. > :01:12.morning, Home Secretary Teresa May will take centre stage. It's
:01:12. > :01:15.expected she will outline plans to re-write the immigration rules to
:01:15. > :01:19.try to stop foreigners who commit crimes in the UK using the Human
:01:19. > :01:27.Rights Act to avoid deportation. We'll be talking to her later in
:01:27. > :01:29.the programme. We'll be taking a look at how the
:01:29. > :01:36.coalition is fairing with an undercover Liberal Democrat MP and
:01:36. > :01:40.an unhappy Tory backbencher. Last year I was roll up -- well received
:01:40. > :01:44.at the Tory party conference. I even got a bear hug from Eric
:01:44. > :01:51.Pickles. But now many Tory backbenchers are getting rebellious
:01:51. > :01:55.so this time, I am going undercover. And that is not all! Our very own
:01:55. > :01:59.Jo is in London. Yes, hello, Andrews.
:01:59. > :02:02.Here in the capital, all eyes were on this morning's star turn, the
:02:02. > :02:06.Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. A great favourite inside the hall and
:02:06. > :02:10.already campaigning for re-election. But would the party turn to him if
:02:10. > :02:14.ever Dave himself fell under the proverbial 88 from Clapham Common?
:02:14. > :02:23.It is the halfway mark and I have had to get down on my hands and
:02:24. > :02:29.knees because it was really close but now Boris is in the lead for of
:02:29. > :02:35.We will talk about that later. We are nearly at the end of the
:02:35. > :02:40.conference season. Three weeks of hard slog, hot rooms, overheating
:02:40. > :02:44.white wine. Two days to go. But are we wilting? No! And look
:02:44. > :02:48.we've found two fresh as a daisy journos to kick off the programme.
:02:48. > :02:52.Back by popular demand... Their mothers have e-mailed me and asked
:02:52. > :02:58.me to have them back on. Nick Watt from the Guardian and Sam Coates
:02:58. > :03:03.from the Times. Welcome. Do you detect that this conference is flat
:03:03. > :03:06.or am I imagining it? It is not surprised that people around David
:03:06. > :03:11.Cameron say the Prime Minister would not be that upset if the
:03:11. > :03:14.conference was reduced to one day, because really it is about one day,
:03:14. > :03:20.his speech. Although there is the traditional parade of people
:03:20. > :03:25.standing up to the podium behind me, not a lot of it matters. They don't
:03:25. > :03:29.have debates, they don't have motions. I watched Jeremy Hunt
:03:29. > :03:36.yesterday. It was like one of the programmes that will probably be on
:03:36. > :03:41.his local TV! This whole conference season has been pretty dull. The
:03:41. > :03:45.reason why it is that none of the party's have any leadership
:03:45. > :03:51.challenges and although we have a coalition government, we know when
:03:51. > :03:57.they let -- next election will be, spring 2015. But a dull conference
:03:57. > :04:03.season. Out there, the world, the eurozone, is facing a very grave
:04:03. > :04:07.crisis which could make the autumn of 2008 look like a party. They are
:04:07. > :04:12.apprehensive about that. They are solidly behind George Osborne but
:04:12. > :04:17.they have got both fingers crossed, probably their toes crossed as well,
:04:17. > :04:21.because their political fate is in his hands. Absolutely. If you look
:04:21. > :04:26.at the polling, eventually the public are stable and have not made
:04:26. > :04:32.any big decisions. They are waiting to see whether the world ends, the
:04:33. > :04:37.euro collapses, whether they will have jobs and money in two years,
:04:37. > :04:42.or whether it will be fine. Yesterday you had George Osborne
:04:42. > :04:46.who eventually gave a speech at Conservative Party conference aimed
:04:46. > :04:50.primarily at the bond market, talking about securing money for
:04:50. > :04:57.small firms, and that left a lot of people in the hall scratching their
:04:57. > :05:03.heads. I was scratching my head as well! Dahl is good. We have just
:05:03. > :05:08.had Boris Johnson. We were expecting a barnstorming
:05:08. > :05:12.performance and it wasn't. It was not that exciting and it did not
:05:12. > :05:15.set up the hall. He is looking to election in London next year and
:05:15. > :05:20.possibly the leadership of the Conservative Party. Do you think
:05:20. > :05:24.that Boris is a leadership contender? He is in his own mind.
:05:24. > :05:30.Don't forget that he thinks that David Cameron is his intellectual
:05:30. > :05:38.inferior. He would go around ten years ago saying, David Cameron is
:05:38. > :05:44.just a PR man for Carlton TV, I and the classically educated editor of
:05:44. > :05:48.the Spectator. Now we are 16 months into the government, it is quite
:05:48. > :05:53.clear that George Osborne, the great rival, we think, for the
:05:53. > :05:58.leadership, is slowly getting what could seem to be his team together.
:05:58. > :06:03.He has a guard around him, a bunch of law real people. He is carving
:06:03. > :06:07.out a distinctive personality. Disowning their early green stuff
:06:07. > :06:12.that made David Cameron's name for him. You are starting to see the
:06:12. > :06:16.early signs of a race between these two getting going, which is why it
:06:17. > :06:22.watching one after the other is fascinating. I know the
:06:22. > :06:29.Chancellor's speed got blown off because of all this Foxy Knoxy
:06:29. > :06:34.business in Italy, but almost 24 hours after the speech, how does it
:06:34. > :06:41.stand? Where does Mr Osborne's staters lie with his party?
:06:41. > :06:44.great challenge could all -- a challenge for George Osborne was to
:06:44. > :06:52.say he will promote growth for the economy but in a way that does not
:06:52. > :06:55.involve moving from Plan A. That is difficult when you can no longer
:06:56. > :07:00.control Monetary Policy. He has come up with credit easing that has
:07:00. > :07:05.the flavour of a fiscal stimulus but does not involve spending money,
:07:05. > :07:09.but also has the flavour of monetary activism. I was surprised
:07:09. > :07:14.that the standing ovation was so short and lukewarm. He was barely
:07:14. > :07:18.off the stage by the time they were filing out. It was not a speech for
:07:18. > :07:23.the hall. It doesn't mean they don't like him but something did
:07:23. > :07:27.not quite work. Either they just felt it was a serious speech for
:07:27. > :07:31.series times and it was not designed to please them, but
:07:31. > :07:35.alternatively there is a more worrying possibility. George
:07:35. > :07:39.Osborne is the guy that must now protect Britain at one of the
:07:40. > :07:44.biggest potential crisis, potentially, we have seen in the
:07:44. > :07:48.last 30 years. I wonder whether people were thinking, crikey, is he
:07:48. > :07:52.the man to do that? His strategy was to take the tough action, which
:07:52. > :07:58.he did, and by now we should be seeing the beginnings of growth.
:07:58. > :08:03.Hasn't happened. He is worried the economic cycle is going to be
:08:03. > :08:08.longer than the political cycle. I heard on the radio this morning and
:08:08. > :08:13.other European saying, we are not talking about a default on Greece,
:08:13. > :08:17.that is not on the agenda. What plants are they on. We are running
:08:17. > :08:23.out of time but I think that is what worries them. If the eurozone
:08:23. > :08:26.does not get a grip, there is no way we can escape. When the finance
:08:26. > :08:30.minister says there will not be a default, you can be pretty sure
:08:30. > :08:34.there will be one. Thank you, gentlemen. Your parents will be
:08:34. > :08:40.proud of you. They have not been behaving but I
:08:40. > :08:44.will tell you about that later. The conference will not play a
:08:44. > :08:48.formal role in developing party policy, so what is the point? What
:08:48. > :08:58.does it do? Here is another conference jargon buster to find
:08:58. > :08:59.
:08:59. > :09:04.out how the Conservatives run their The Conservative Party conference
:09:04. > :09:08.is unlike its main rivals' party conferences in that in terms of
:09:08. > :09:15.membership influence and policy- making, it has virtually no power
:09:15. > :09:18.at all. Now it is all run by the conference committee, which is a
:09:18. > :09:22.subsection of the party board, and though they have left the seaside
:09:22. > :09:29.behind, it is more of an event for a gathering of like-minded souls
:09:29. > :09:35.for things like contact building and big speeches. And as such, its
:09:35. > :09:40.structure is far less rigid than other parties'. It can and has been
:09:40. > :09:45.changed pretty much at whim, although the big final event is
:09:45. > :09:49.usually fixed as the leader's speech. Although David Cameron has
:09:49. > :09:53.also spoken at the beginning of conference when he felt like it.
:09:53. > :09:58.Ordinary members to get to make their contributions, but they are
:09:58. > :10:02.always drowned out. They do so by lining up next to the microphone on
:10:03. > :10:06.a first-come first-served basis. But they do have to keep their
:10:06. > :10:14.contributions short and they don't interestingly have a constitutional
:10:14. > :10:17.right to have their voice heard. Housing minister, Grant Shapps, is
:10:17. > :10:23.with us. Take these planning changes that the government wants
:10:23. > :10:28.to put through. Very controversial. Not for me to say whether they are
:10:28. > :10:35.right or wrong. There is a debate, even among people at conference,
:10:35. > :10:39.but there has been no debate or vote. As with all conferences, the
:10:39. > :10:44.best discussions take place in the fringes. That is where you find the
:10:44. > :10:50.vibrant debate. Everyone agrees that planning needs to be faster
:10:50. > :10:54.and less contradictory... There is a lot of country people here, a lot
:10:54. > :10:58.of people living on the edge of the green belt, in villages, market
:10:58. > :11:04.towns in the green belt. I think they would have liked it to be
:11:04. > :11:09.debated properly. Yesterday I was doing question and answers about
:11:09. > :11:19.growth and the economy... That was not a debate. There is no vote.
:11:19. > :11:24.
:11:24. > :11:28.write. It doesn't matter in the end. We don't make those decisions on
:11:28. > :11:32.the floor but yesterday, people were asking about planning reforms
:11:32. > :11:36.and a lot of people backing the idea that it needs to be faster to
:11:36. > :11:43.plan things. Do you think if you had a vote, you would have run?
:11:43. > :11:48.Absolutely. We will never know. Are we seen evidence of backtracking on
:11:48. > :11:53.your planning reforms? Are you wilting under the Daily Telegraph
:11:53. > :11:57.campaign? No. I came from a conference fringe from one of the
:11:57. > :12:01.Daily Telegraph writers who said they think the campaign itself is
:12:01. > :12:06.rather misguided. The point is everyone agrees planning does not
:12:06. > :12:10.work in this country so something has to be done. The document
:12:10. > :12:17.reproduced is a draft and you want debate and, so in many ways, we
:12:17. > :12:20.welcome the debate. Will there be substantive changes? We are clear
:12:20. > :12:26.that what needs to come out is a faster and more efficient planning
:12:26. > :12:30.system, where people get a sense of certainty and the debate has moved
:12:30. > :12:34.from the planning inspectorate, which is what happens at the moment,
:12:34. > :12:39.to the point where the local plan is put in place by local people, so
:12:39. > :12:45.it shifts the debate. That is what we want to see happen. There is
:12:46. > :12:50.some evidence you on the run. Bob meal, then local government and
:12:50. > :12:54.planning minister, said their proposals will have to be improved
:12:54. > :13:00.-- Bob Neill. He set me will be in a very different place by the end
:13:00. > :13:06.of the year. There will be no point in sailing a draft cannot be
:13:06. > :13:11.improved, by definition. -- in sailing. Bob meant that when all
:13:11. > :13:15.sides sit down, and you look at the concerns put up by people like the
:13:15. > :13:22.National Trust for example, you understand the relative positions
:13:22. > :13:26.and everyone is in a different place... You have been criticised
:13:26. > :13:30.in the letters column in the Telegraph and they are Tory voters.
:13:30. > :13:33.I am pretty sure come the next election, the discussion of
:13:33. > :13:36.conversation on the doorstep will not be a document which frankly
:13:36. > :13:41.most people have never read called the national planning policy
:13:41. > :13:47.framework. So "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" does not hold
:13:47. > :13:50.sway? I think this great document we are talking about, I hope it
:13:51. > :13:55.will be a significant as some people would have you believe. It
:13:56. > :13:59.is important but it is one small element of the overall picture of
:13:59. > :14:03.trying to improve efficiency of the planning system and create growth.
:14:03. > :14:09.The and at the core of that is a presumption in favour of
:14:09. > :14:14.sustainable development. Define sustainable development. That has
:14:14. > :14:24.been define since 1974 and widely used in legal terminology -- has
:14:24. > :14:24.
:14:24. > :14:30.been defined. Give us a two sentence definition. OK. In my
:14:31. > :14:35.constituency... One sentence. wet areas where they were trying to
:14:35. > :14:39.put homes that were inappropriate and where the local authority
:14:39. > :14:44.thought were good. The sustainable ones were the ones where it should
:14:44. > :14:48.go. I apologise for being flippant, it is important. I would give you a
:14:48. > :14:53.second chance. Give us the definition in an easy to understand
:14:53. > :14:57.way of sustainable. What I am saying is local people will
:14:57. > :15:01.understand what is sustainable in there every year. That is as long
:15:01. > :15:06.as a piece of string. It is an issue for proper debate at a local
:15:07. > :15:11.level because in my patch, we knew that the old Aerospace site was the
:15:11. > :15:15.sustainable area and we knew it was not, for example, the green belt
:15:15. > :15:20.between the two towns I represent. So it will mean different things
:15:20. > :15:24.were different people. It is meaningless. You should just be a
:15:24. > :15:28.presumption in favour of development. No. Sustainability is
:15:28. > :15:32.best judged when you know at the lay of the land and guess what, the
:15:32. > :15:35.people who know they lay of the land live locally and understand
:15:35. > :15:41.how the Community operates. Sustainability should be judged at
:15:41. > :15:44.a local level. Let's go on to housing. The record of the last
:15:44. > :15:49.government was criticised because they did not build enough houses.
:15:49. > :15:58.At one stage, when Mr Prescott was in charge, they built a few houses
:15:58. > :16:01.then since 1924. Do you have a target and figure for how many
:16:01. > :16:10.houses a year in the public and the private sector we should be
:16:10. > :16:13.Yob but it is many more than we are building at the moment. We know
:16:13. > :16:20.building at the moment. We know that for example, one measure
:16:20. > :16:29.indicates something like 200 and 1,000-230,000. That suggests that
:16:29. > :16:35.if we're only building 100,000, we are a long way short. -- 200,000-
:16:35. > :16:39.230,000. 3 million homes by 2020, that was a big target. I can
:16:39. > :16:46.remember something from this party, targets for building houses, and
:16:46. > :16:50.actually, in the 1950s, they met them. Determined by this conference,
:16:50. > :16:54.in a power that it never has today. Harold Macmillan, who was doing
:16:54. > :16:59.your job then, as the Housing Minister, was overruled by this
:16:59. > :17:03.conference, who told him to build more. You're not doing that. I know
:17:03. > :17:08.it was very different times. I was not around them, but let's not go
:17:08. > :17:12.there. You could do things like put up a lot of prefabs, which then
:17:12. > :17:17.have to be taken down again, and you could create a lot of housing
:17:17. > :17:23.very quickly, a post war. We are in a different world now. Can you give
:17:23. > :17:28.us a ballpark figure? I mean, combined, council, social housing,
:17:28. > :17:32.private, a ballpark figure. I can tell you that we will be
:17:32. > :17:40.disappointed if we are not building a lot more. On affordable housing,
:17:41. > :17:47.we have just announced plans for of 270,000 affordable homes in the
:17:47. > :17:52.next five years. And as many homes in general as we can possibly get
:17:52. > :17:56.built, to the right standards, and good quality. Our viewers who are
:17:56. > :18:01.mark will have noticed there is not a figure in there. I am not going
:18:01. > :18:11.to say a figure. Would you like a badge? This one is, I love the
:18:11. > :18:13.
:18:13. > :18:19.coalition. Can I get a collection, and a mug as well? No, the team
:18:19. > :18:23.will get you. Have this one, I love the coalition. And you should
:18:23. > :18:29.definitely have this one, when the housing figures do not quite
:18:29. > :18:33.measure up - don't panic. Let's go back live to London now. I hope
:18:33. > :18:36.Grant Shapps is not running off with that mug. The uncontested
:18:36. > :18:40.highlight of this morning's conference in Manchester was the
:18:40. > :18:44.Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. He was first up this morning, always a
:18:44. > :18:51.difficult slot, just as everyone was trickling into the hall. Behind
:18:51. > :19:01.the scenes, the nerves were jangling. We're OK, I have just got
:19:01. > :19:02.
:19:02. > :19:06.to concentrate on the very important message, for myself.
:19:06. > :19:10.nerves at all, by the looks of it. He got a rapturous reception when
:19:10. > :19:15.he came on stage, and he went straight into his theme, how to
:19:15. > :19:20.prevent any repetition of this summer's riots across the capital.
:19:20. > :19:24.I have spent a fair bit of the last two months travelling the streets
:19:24. > :19:32.of London, talking to hundreds of people who were caught up in the
:19:32. > :19:36.riots. People whose businesses were attacked, or who were just appalled
:19:36. > :19:44.by what they saw. And I have got a pretty good idea of what Londoners
:19:44. > :19:49.want. They want to make sure that nothing like it ever happens again.
:19:49. > :19:54.So, I can tell you that as long as I am mayor, I will not allow police
:19:54. > :19:59.numbers to fall below a level that I believe is safe or reasonable for
:19:59. > :20:03.a great city like London. Police numbers are up by 1001 when I was
:20:03. > :20:13.elected, and the number of special constables has doubled to more than
:20:13. > :20:13.
:20:13. > :20:18.5,200. I pledge to you now that I am going to keep it that way. We
:20:18. > :20:22.know that it is not all just about numbers, and the Londoners I have
:20:22. > :20:26.spoken to also want the police to have the backing that they need to
:20:26. > :20:29.deal with the thugs and the looters in the way that they need to be
:20:29. > :20:33.dealt with. If you look at the record of the new commissioner,
:20:34. > :20:38.Bernard Hogan-Howe, you can see how clearly he understands the
:20:38. > :20:44.principal, that if you crack down on the small stuff, the big stuff
:20:44. > :20:49.starts to take care of itself. 75% of the rioters and looters were
:20:49. > :20:55.criminals. And lots of them, by the way, had 15 or more convictions. We
:20:55. > :20:59.have got to recognise that 25% of them had no record, and I think
:20:59. > :21:04.what Londoners want, talking to people, is for everyone together,
:21:04. > :21:09.politicians, police, teachers, parents, to sort out the underlying
:21:09. > :21:13.issues which encouraged these people to riot. One of the very
:21:13. > :21:18.best things to have come out of this is the fierce desire of people
:21:18. > :21:26.to help to bring communities together, and to show that those
:21:26. > :21:32.looters and rioters do not stand for London. I can reveal today that
:21:32. > :21:38.in the paddock Calais area of France, and the authorities have
:21:38. > :21:43.decided that the region is to be re-baptised. Conference, I reckon
:21:43. > :21:48.we have got a record to be proud of. We have effectively frozen the
:21:48. > :21:53.council tax, we have effectively cut it, by 10% over three years. We
:21:53. > :21:58.have delivered Oyster, we have delivered a 24-hour Freedom pass
:21:58. > :22:03.for the people of London. The last bendy bus will leave our streets by
:22:03. > :22:08.Christmas. In the new year you will see a new generation of
:22:08. > :22:11.Routemasters-style buses, with an open platform, built in the UK,
:22:11. > :22:16.with British Technology, the quickest, cleanest bus in London.
:22:16. > :22:25.And after more than 450 years since it was lost, we have recaptured
:22:25. > :22:33.Calais from the French, as the burghers of Calais have yielded to
:22:33. > :22:37.the soft power of the Olympics. With me now, the Labour MP Stephen
:22:37. > :22:44.pound. No wonder Boris is sounding confident, because despite the fact
:22:44. > :22:47.that Labour is nearly 20 points ahead in the polls - Stephen Pound
:22:47. > :22:56.- Boris Johnson is still eight points ahead of the Prime Minister,
:22:56. > :23:02.why? One has a certain sympathy with the great Boris. That was a
:23:02. > :23:07.pretty lacklustre performance, and received very poorly. Actually,
:23:07. > :23:12.they seem to love Boris Johnson, as we will see. But first, let's just
:23:12. > :23:17.look at his standing in London. If Labour is doing so well, why is
:23:17. > :23:21.Boris Johnston outstripping Ken Livingstone by eight points? --
:23:21. > :23:27.Boris Johnson. I would not have thought eight points was that much,
:23:27. > :23:33.it can easily be caught up. At the moment, the glitz and the glamour,
:23:34. > :23:38.he has even had a new haircut. The reality is that we have got a five-
:23:39. > :23:43.day a-week Tube system which costs five times as much as it used to.
:23:43. > :23:49.We have got major problems with the police. These numbers which Boris
:23:49. > :23:54.talks about, what exactly does that mean? It is when Ken Livingstone
:23:54. > :23:57.can actually show the substance, the real difference, and show that
:23:57. > :24:02.London needs experience, but energy as well, and Ken Livingstone has
:24:02. > :24:05.got both of those. Ken Livingstone has admitted that if it comes down
:24:05. > :24:10.to confidence, he feels he would have a better chance, but at the
:24:10. > :24:14.moment, it comes down to charisma, and that's the problem, Boris
:24:14. > :24:17.Johnson is winning on personality. These polls also say that one in
:24:17. > :24:22.five Labour voters say they will vote for Boris. You will not be
:24:22. > :24:26.able to catch that up. I think we will. Last time, the polls were
:24:26. > :24:32.wobbling around all over the place. It is a pretty volatile,
:24:32. > :24:38.sophisticated city. But Labour are 20 points a head, the capital is
:24:38. > :24:48.going your way. Labour on 51%, the Tories on 32%, but Ken Livingstone
:24:48. > :24:56.
:24:56. > :25:01.is not translating that lead, so the problem is with him...
:25:01. > :25:04.reality is that the volatility in London is so high, we are still a
:25:04. > :25:09.fair way away from the election. Experience will start to tell. At
:25:09. > :25:12.the moment, yes, gourami the marvellous bumbling person who
:25:12. > :25:17.comes in and talks about playing with kids, throwers jelly around,
:25:17. > :25:25.all of those things. But where is the District line on Saturday and
:25:25. > :25:30.Sunday? Why are our fares going up? Those are the questions Londoners
:25:30. > :25:33.asking. Did you agree with Ken Livingstone's response to the riots,
:25:33. > :25:38.that it was all down to cuts, and therefore to some extent it was
:25:38. > :25:43.going to happen? If he had said that, I would not have agreed.
:25:43. > :25:50.you think that was right? No, I do not. Had he said that, I would have
:25:50. > :25:57.disagreed. It was a whole multiplicity of things. 75% of
:25:57. > :26:00.those people, as Boris said, had criminal records. We have got an
:26:00. > :26:05.excellent opportunity in London to draw together some of the most
:26:05. > :26:10.valuable empirical data we have ever had on this sort of activity,
:26:10. > :26:14.which hopefully we can use to make sure it does not happen again. It
:26:14. > :26:23.is all about giving people inspiration which will help. Back
:26:23. > :26:30.to Manchester. Two weeks ago, at the Liberal Democrat Conference, we
:26:30. > :26:36.got the Conservative MP and Sven lookalike Peter Bone to come along
:26:36. > :26:41.and make a film for us. It was only fair that we brought the Lib Dem MP
:26:41. > :26:51.here to see what he makes of his Conservative coalition partners.
:26:51. > :26:51.
:26:51. > :27:36.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds
:27:36. > :27:41.Despite the colour, you would not see these in a Lib Dem conference.
:27:41. > :27:45.I do not pretend to you that these are not difficult days, and that
:27:45. > :27:54.there are not difficult days ahead. But together, we will ride out the
:27:54. > :27:58.storm and we will move into calmer, brighter sees beyond. Thank you.
:27:58. > :28:02.That was really strange. I actually agreed with nearly everything
:28:02. > :28:06.George Osborne said, and yet, he was not assured in the way he
:28:06. > :28:13.delivered it, and frankly, the audience did not seem to like much
:28:13. > :28:16.of it. Well, I'm just doing a bit of homework at the moment. One year
:28:16. > :28:19.on, what do you think about the role of the Liberal Democrats in
:28:20. > :28:23.the coalition? They have been all right so far. They have been
:28:23. > :28:29.working well with the Conservatives. There has not been anything that
:28:29. > :28:34.major to disrupt anything. I think both parties are coming together.
:28:34. > :28:38.think that as long as David Cameron is liberal and Nick Clegg is
:28:38. > :28:42.Conservative, it will last. I think they have done a really good job in
:28:42. > :28:47.terms of choking off the more right-wing Conservative elements,
:28:47. > :28:50.so therefore, it is a benign effect. It is working particularly well. I
:28:50. > :28:53.have got lots of admiration for many people in the Liberal
:28:54. > :28:56.Democrats. The way that ministers talk about how they are working
:28:56. > :29:06.together in teams seems very different from the impression that
:29:06. > :29:16.
:29:16. > :29:21.we get when we read about it in the It is hypocrisy if the people who
:29:21. > :29:31.can you to cut spending to get the deficit down are then imposing an
:29:31. > :29:43.
:29:43. > :29:48.Rather amazing. The Labour Party says that the coalition government
:29:48. > :29:50.is cutting too deep and too quickly. Now, we have got the right wing of
:29:50. > :29:57.the Conservative Party saying we're doing it too slowly, and not deep
:29:57. > :30:07.enough, which probably suggest we have got it about right. Boris
:30:07. > :30:10.
:30:10. > :30:14.Taoiseach... I think not, but thank you. -- T-shirt. Well, it is the
:30:15. > :30:19.end of the day, and they have all gone off to enjoy themselves in the
:30:19. > :30:23.bar. I have certainly enjoyed myself. I had convinced myself that
:30:23. > :30:26.I'm certainly not a Tory, but many of the Conservatives here seem to
:30:26. > :30:36.think that the coalition is continuing to work well. So I did
:30:36. > :30:38.
:30:38. > :30:44.Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Isn't this a bit embarrassing?
:30:44. > :30:51.Everyone is so nice to you here and you lot did nothing but slap of the
:30:51. > :30:56.Tories at the Lib Dem conference. In fairness, I told lots of jokes,
:30:56. > :31:02.both about the Tories and the Lib Dems, but certainly we have been
:31:02. > :31:08.swamped in kindness while we have been here and even the whipped up
:31:08. > :31:11.fury about the European Union doesn't seem to have actually
:31:11. > :31:21.gathered the imagination of the delegates, so it is all going
:31:21. > :31:25.rather well. Why are they so nice, Peter Bone? I have no idea. Look at
:31:25. > :31:32.all the things they called you last week. They accused you of sticking
:31:32. > :31:37.kids up chimneys, of being the ruthless and reactionary, you were
:31:37. > :31:44.the tea-party tendency... Which I am very proud to be. But that is by
:31:44. > :31:49.the by. It is a compliment. So why is everybody being so polite, not
:31:49. > :31:53.just to Don Foster, but about the coalition? The only thing that
:31:54. > :31:58.really matters is the economy and from that point of view, working
:31:58. > :32:03.together to get the economy right is so important. I think we went
:32:03. > :32:06.overboard, I was feeling slightly sick at times. How it is nice to
:32:06. > :32:11.have rational discussions with people from the other side, rather
:32:11. > :32:16.than if you have discussions within the party it is not rational. Those
:32:16. > :32:22.sorts of things, rather strange. They are not from the other side,
:32:22. > :32:29.they are you coalition partners. they are from the other side. This
:32:29. > :32:34.is a temporary arrangement. Is it the dockside? Definitely.
:32:34. > :32:39.dockside? It is interesting how the Conservatives have accepted some of
:32:39. > :32:44.the things the Lib Dems have brought, raising the tax threshold,
:32:44. > :32:48.taking nearly 1 million low-paid people out of income tax, and the
:32:48. > :32:53.work on the green economy, these have been accepted by many
:32:53. > :32:57.Conservatives as real benefits from the coalition. They have equally
:32:57. > :33:02.had to accept that we have had to swallow things, look at the beating
:33:02. > :33:05.we got on tuition fees, the problem we had trying to get people to
:33:05. > :33:09.support the Tory proposal with elected police commissioners. We
:33:09. > :33:14.have had to swallow things as well. The Conservative side of the
:33:14. > :33:18.coalition has not had to go through anything like tuition fees of stock
:33:18. > :33:23.I don't know about that. I think the Liberal tail is wagging the
:33:23. > :33:27.Tory dog. We have had to go back on so many things, you look in
:33:27. > :33:33.particular. The bizarre thing about the coalition is that we both agree
:33:33. > :33:37.there should be a referendum on the EU. Parliament will bring that
:33:37. > :33:43.forward and that will be a binding decision from the Government.
:33:43. > :33:47.don't rethink the Lib Dems are that keen on a referendum. -- I don't
:33:47. > :33:52.really think. Never on this programme has a Lib Dems said to me,
:33:52. > :34:00.we must have a referendum. And it would be absolutely wrong to do it
:34:00. > :34:04.now given the mess in the eurozone. I am not saying do it now. We have
:34:04. > :34:08.been cleared, we have said if there is any significant change between
:34:08. > :34:14.the relationship between this country and the rest of Europe, the
:34:14. > :34:18.British people should have a decision on that. We would go
:34:18. > :34:22.further and say not just a referendum on the changes but that
:34:22. > :34:26.is the opportunity to have the in or out referendum. But Parliament
:34:26. > :34:29.before Christmas will have a vote on whether there is such a
:34:29. > :34:33.referendum and it doesn't matter how the Government's spin it, then
:34:33. > :34:38.they will have to have that referendum so it is no good what
:34:38. > :34:43.the government or opposition think, parliament will decide. Do you
:34:43. > :34:47.agree? If parliament voted for that, would it have to happen? There has
:34:47. > :34:52.been many occasions when Parliament has voted of things that have not
:34:52. > :34:57.happened. This is a new regime now. Labour would not vote for it, would
:34:58. > :35:02.they? Who knows? They are opportunists. If it was a free vote
:35:02. > :35:08.across Parliament, I think we would win. Is the Prime Minister going to
:35:08. > :35:12.whip Tories to vote against it? I can't believe that. People are
:35:12. > :35:15.voting who have never had a say on our membership to the European
:35:15. > :35:20.Union. Clearly we have to have the weight of giving them that
:35:20. > :35:24.opportunity but I don't think the time is right and I don't think you
:35:24. > :35:32.Engineer it at a random time. mean when you get the results you
:35:32. > :35:36.want. You are getting no red meat, you are not going to get a
:35:36. > :35:41.referendum properly, you are not going to get the repatriation of
:35:41. > :35:44.powers, ministers have admitted that on this show, this side of the
:35:44. > :35:48.next election, and you are not going to replace the existing Human
:35:48. > :35:52.Rights Act with the new British one. Listening to the Home Secretary,
:35:53. > :35:58.things are moving in the right direction. The she is changing
:35:58. > :36:03.guidelines. But her personal view is quite clear. She is a superb
:36:03. > :36:10.Home Secretary and moving in the right direction. Would you like "I
:36:10. > :36:19.love the coalition". Yes please. have got, let's get rid of the 50
:36:19. > :36:24.pence badge. No, that one says "I love the 50 pence tax"! I know, up
:36:24. > :36:27."I love deficit-reduction". I will have that one. I knew he would like
:36:27. > :36:32.that! Now do you remember the days when
:36:32. > :36:38.every Tory Party conference was plagued by a leadership crisis? Had
:36:39. > :36:42.become a happy days. -- happy, happy days. They seem long gone now,
:36:42. > :36:46.and it appears that David Cameron is as safe as houses. But let's
:36:46. > :36:51.think the unthinkable. He resigns tomorrow and takes a new post as
:36:51. > :36:54.head of PR for Sky TV. Yes, it's back to the future for Mr Cameron.
:36:55. > :36:59.So who would take his place? We sent Adam out with some fantasy
:36:59. > :37:04.balls. If David Cameron did stand down,
:37:04. > :37:14.who would be the best replacement? Boris Johnson or George Osborne?
:37:14. > :37:22.Why don't we let the balls decide? At the end of the day, you have to
:37:22. > :37:30.vote with your head, not your heart. I think we know who you are backing.
:37:30. > :37:35.He didn't try as hard as other politicians to hide who he is. He
:37:35. > :37:40.is who he is. I think that is a trustworthy way of politics.
:37:40. > :37:46.Boris? He is much more of a character than Osborne. And you
:37:46. > :37:50.have gone for him as well? connects better with people. Boris
:37:50. > :37:54.is a fantastic party member and he gets the crowd going but in terms
:37:54. > :37:58.of the international stage and seriousness, George has the
:37:58. > :38:03.experience and he is also doing a difficult job as Chancellor and
:38:03. > :38:08.that will give him great experience for the future, if we ever lose the
:38:08. > :38:12.Prime Minister. He has got a better reputation than Boris because most
:38:12. > :38:17.people think Boris is an idiot. think Boris is wonderful but I
:38:17. > :38:27.don't think he will be leader of the Conservative Party. I think he
:38:27. > :38:28.
:38:28. > :38:34.is a bit too high risk to be a You are going into the coalition
:38:34. > :38:41.with Boris Johnson's Conservatives. You did not ask me that! You ask me
:38:41. > :38:48.who I wanted to be leader at... Neither of them well. Backing the
:38:48. > :38:52.bag. What we need to do is get some DNA from him and injected into
:38:52. > :38:57.Boris and then we might have someone. I think that might be
:38:57. > :39:03.against the law. He is a stand- alone, different, people like him!
:39:03. > :39:09.Who would be the better leader? Don't be silly! I would need to
:39:09. > :39:14.take two! It was worth a try! It is the halfway mark and I have had to
:39:14. > :39:19.get down on my hands and knees because it was really close but now
:39:19. > :39:26.Boris is still in the lead. There might be another contender!
:39:26. > :39:31.would you like the third man to be? Or woman? Who would that be?
:39:31. > :39:38.think Theresa May has got increasing popularity in the party.
:39:38. > :39:42.David Davies. Why? I worked for him before. He has a better
:39:42. > :39:47.understanding of real life. He stood up for the miners in the
:39:47. > :39:54.north. Financially illiterate. Maybe skip a generation, someone
:39:54. > :39:57.like great -- Grant Shapps. I would like to see a return to Washington,
:39:57. > :40:03.watching the primaries and the leadership candidates, I would like
:40:03. > :40:06.to see a televised debate. So although potential leaders of the
:40:06. > :40:16.Conservative Party line-up and have a debate and actually involve the
:40:16. > :40:20.
:40:21. > :40:27.Boris, thank you. Do you think he is already thinking about it?
:40:27. > :40:31.think that he would be stupid not to. Because politics is about
:40:31. > :40:35.opportunity and he is an opportunist. Rather than plastic
:40:35. > :40:40.balls, today we have had crystal balls, looking into a future
:40:40. > :40:48.leadership contest, and it looks like Boris would be the winner,
:40:48. > :40:51.although not by a huge majority. There is still all to play for. I'm
:40:51. > :40:54.joined now by the author and journalist, Toby Young, who tells
:40:54. > :40:59.us he has a �15,000 bet with Nigella Lawson on Boris becoming
:40:59. > :41:02.the next tory leader. Of the musings of the idle rich. We
:41:02. > :41:08.couldn't get Nigella on but we've got her lookalike, Danny
:41:08. > :41:11.Finklestein from the Times. Welcome to you both. Why would you do this?
:41:11. > :41:17.Someone said they could not think of a better argument for the 50
:41:17. > :41:23.pence tax rate. It was in 2003, Boris was my then employee at the
:41:23. > :41:27.Spectator, Nigella and other people were being dismissive. It was an
:41:27. > :41:33.act of slightly inebriated bravado. I was like, put your money where
:41:33. > :41:38.your mouth is. But you are sticking at it? It looked like a week bet
:41:38. > :41:46.then when he was just elected but I think it is safe for now. When does
:41:46. > :41:51.it expire? 2018. Leader of the party. Is he a serious contender to
:41:51. > :41:55.be leader of the Conservative Party? I would be very surprised, I
:41:55. > :42:03.have to say. It is not impossible but I think that her baby's bet is
:42:03. > :42:07.much safer -- and that Toby Young's bed is much safer sailing leader of
:42:07. > :42:12.the party rather than prime minister. So you think he could be
:42:12. > :42:17.leader of the party but unlikely to be Prime Minister? You can lose a
:42:17. > :42:21.lot of money underestimating Boris Johnson. He has a lot of charisma.
:42:21. > :42:27.But I think people would expect from the Prime Minister a better
:42:27. > :42:33.grasp of detail than he demonstrates. He is a political
:42:33. > :42:38.star, he has got charisma, he is a proven vote-winner. I have known
:42:38. > :42:44.him since 1983 and people do not think... We were at Oxford at the
:42:44. > :42:53.same time. People didn't think he had a chance of becoming mayor or
:42:53. > :42:57.MP and you underestimate him at your peril. Is he serious though?
:42:57. > :43:03.He may not be in the conventional political mould but is that what we
:43:03. > :43:09.want? I went to a fringe meeting yesterday for Boris and there were
:43:09. > :43:13.500 people there. William Hague earlier, 150. What is the case of
:43:13. > :43:19.George Osborne? I was just laughing that this is the sort of
:43:19. > :43:24.speculation one makes before a celebrity chef but not one that MPs
:43:24. > :43:30.make. But do you think he has leadership potential? He is very
:43:30. > :43:34.capable. Potential leader? question over that would be what
:43:34. > :43:40.the public think of that and I really don't know... What does
:43:40. > :43:45.Danny Finkelstein think? I would be happy of him as leader of anything.
:43:45. > :43:50.Did you see his speech? No. There have been rumours, a particular
:43:50. > :43:55.blog... The last time I was on this programme you asked me if I was
:43:55. > :43:58.leaving my job. You have an eccentric line in questions. If the
:43:58. > :44:05.Conservatives lose the next election, George will have to take
:44:05. > :44:10.his share of the blame. David will fall on his sword and George would
:44:10. > :44:16.not be the heir to that. Are we right in keeping the conversation
:44:16. > :44:21.to these two? Theresa May's name came up. Grant Shapps, who we just
:44:21. > :44:25.had on the programme. Do you think of him as leadership material?
:44:25. > :44:32.is not for me to say but you clearly don't. No, I thought he did
:44:32. > :44:37.quite well. Even David Davies. of the thing for David Davis and Ed
:44:37. > :44:43.Miliband, it illustrates there is quite a big gap between being a
:44:43. > :44:47.capable senior minister and the election as Prime Minister. William
:44:47. > :44:52.Hague demonstrated that. I have a lot of admiration for him but when
:44:52. > :44:58.it came to being a prime ministerial candidate, he just
:44:58. > :45:06.could not... He did not have the expected. Boris has the X-factor.
:45:07. > :45:12.If David Cameron wins the next election, your bet is groat. He
:45:12. > :45:16.will be prime minister until 2020. He doesn't seem to invest that much
:45:16. > :45:21.in been Prime Minister. He likes spending time with his family, he
:45:21. > :45:27.would like another life. Maybe he will resign towards the end of his
:45:27. > :45:36.second term. He can stand as an MP even if he is mayor, Boris! Thank
:45:36. > :45:41.Let's have a quick catch-up of events on the conference floor this
:45:41. > :45:44.morning. The big theme has been home affairs. We heard Boris
:45:44. > :45:51.Johnson, and next up was the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on crime
:45:51. > :45:55.and immigration. The Government is looking at a British bill of Rights.
:45:55. > :46:00.I can today announce that we will change the Immigration rules to
:46:00. > :46:04.make sure that the misinterpretation of article 8, the
:46:04. > :46:11.right to a family life, no longer prevents the deportation of people
:46:11. > :46:16.who should not be here. The right to a family life is not an absolute
:46:16. > :46:22.right, and it must not be used to drive a coach and horses through
:46:22. > :46:28.our immigration system. Our opponents will say it cannot be
:46:28. > :46:33.done, that they will fight us every step of the way. But they said that
:46:33. > :46:37.about the cap on economic migration, and we did it. They said that about
:46:37. > :46:41.our student visa reforms, and we are doing them. As Home Secretary,
:46:41. > :46:47.I will do everything I can to restore sanity to our immigration
:46:47. > :46:56.system, and get the numbers down. She sounded pretty bullish there.
:46:56. > :47:03.Joining me now from Nottingham is the Labour home affairs spokesman.
:47:03. > :47:07.Do you back those plans to change the immigration rules? I thought it
:47:07. > :47:11.was interesting what she said when she actually read out the article,
:47:11. > :47:15.which showed that it was possible to balance the law under the
:47:15. > :47:22.current legislation. Of course, if there is a need for clarification,
:47:22. > :47:26.then we would support that. But what we're actually saying is that
:47:27. > :47:32.the law as it stands appears to give that balance, it is the
:47:32. > :47:37.interpretation by the courts. It does well in the hall, but outside
:47:37. > :47:44.there, we wonder whether in fact the reality will match that
:47:44. > :47:49.reception in the hall. Just to be clear, do you back her call? Do you
:47:49. > :47:53.accept that at the moment, those human rights arguments have been
:47:53. > :47:57.perhaps abused, and they should be changed to stop that happening?
:47:57. > :48:01.What we have said is that if there is a need for a clarification of
:48:02. > :48:11.the law, then of course we would support that. But Theresa May
:48:11. > :48:17.herself read out the actual article, but alongside that, there is the
:48:17. > :48:22.matter of enforcing the law. Just looking at Labour's position on law
:48:22. > :48:26.and order, last year, Ed Miliband said clearly, we're not going to
:48:27. > :48:30.criticise Ken Clarke over short sentences, we're not going to
:48:30. > :48:36.criticise Theresa May when she says we should review stop unchurched
:48:36. > :48:42.powers, and yet last week, Yvette Cooper said that the Government's
:48:43. > :48:52.counter terror legislation should be reviewed. Labour is the party of
:48:53. > :48:54.
:48:54. > :48:58.law and order. Are you? Of course. We are progressive on crime. If
:48:58. > :49:03.you're cutting 16,000 police officers, weakening the law with
:49:03. > :49:09.respect to DNA, and with respect to CCTV, if you're preventing the
:49:09. > :49:12.courts from excluding somebody from London, for example, where you
:49:12. > :49:17.think they might be prone to terrorist offences, then I don't
:49:17. > :49:25.think there is other -- any other phrase you can use, other than weak
:49:25. > :49:35.on law and order. I'm joined now in The Daily Politics bubble at the
:49:35. > :49:36.
:49:36. > :49:42.Tory conference by the Home Secretary, Theresa May,. What can
:49:42. > :49:46.you do if the judges decide to ignore your guidance? I have every
:49:46. > :49:49.expectation that the judges will not ignore what we are saying, that
:49:49. > :49:56.they will actually listen to what we have put into the immigration
:49:56. > :50:01.rules, in terms of making sure that there is that interpretation.
:50:01. > :50:04.they are legally obliged to do that? Parliament will set its
:50:04. > :50:10.wailjick down in the statutory instrument, what we expect judges
:50:10. > :50:15.to do, and as I say, I have every expectation that when they see...
:50:15. > :50:21.You have seen how they have ruled before. I would expect that when
:50:21. > :50:27.Parliament gives a very clear message, by saying, we are
:50:27. > :50:35.emphasising this point, and it is of course in Article 8 of the
:50:35. > :50:39.Convention on Human Rights. I was looking at that, because what you
:50:39. > :50:43.want and the caveats in Article 8 are not quite the same thing. You
:50:43. > :50:49.want the judges to take into account criminal offences, breaches
:50:49. > :50:53.of the immigration rules, living on welfare, not working. But the
:50:53. > :50:56.caveats in clause 20 are about the interests of national security,
:50:56. > :51:01.public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, those
:51:01. > :51:05.are not the same thing? No, it is rather broader than that. As you
:51:05. > :51:11.look at the end of that, it talks about the rights of others. It is
:51:11. > :51:16.not just very specific categories. It is quite general, in terms of
:51:16. > :51:19.the ability of a public authority to say, actually, we need to
:51:19. > :51:23.balance the individual rights of this person to a family life
:51:23. > :51:29.against the rights of others in a variety of ways. One problem is
:51:29. > :51:34.that it has always been a relative right in Article 8, rather than an
:51:34. > :51:38.absolute right. But it has been interpreted over the years in that
:51:38. > :51:44.more absolute sense. If the judges continue to rule in the way they
:51:44. > :51:47.have, there is not much you can do about it. Well, if they do, and I
:51:47. > :51:52.have every expectation they will not, then we will look at further
:51:52. > :51:56.measures. Is it true that you said that one judge had ruled that
:51:56. > :52:01.somebody could not be deported because they had a cat? Yes, that
:52:01. > :52:05.was a case that has been reported. We have had a statement from the
:52:05. > :52:11.judiciary saying that is not true. Well, it was identified and
:52:12. > :52:15.reported. Your researcher may have got that one wrong. I have not seen
:52:15. > :52:20.the statement which has come to you from the judiciary. Obviously, I
:52:20. > :52:28.will look at any statement. We will see if we will get it round to you,
:52:28. > :52:32.while we are honoured. Boris Johnson has boasted of adding 1,000
:52:32. > :52:36.extra police to the London constabulary, and then said, I can
:52:36. > :52:40.tell you that as long as I am mayor, I will not allow police numbers to
:52:40. > :52:43.fall below a level that I believe it is safe or reasonable - how can
:52:43. > :52:50.that be true for London and not for the rest of the country? I don't
:52:50. > :52:55.think it is the case that it is only true for London. But you're
:52:55. > :53:00.cutting 16,000. I'm sure you know this very well, but central
:53:00. > :53:04.government sets funding for the police, the police then have a
:53:04. > :53:07.precept power, to raise extra money locally, and then chief constables
:53:07. > :53:16.will decide within that budget how many police officers they wish to
:53:16. > :53:20.have. Obviously, the Mayor of London is, if you like, almost a
:53:20. > :53:26.crime commission. We have to take some measures to bring them into
:53:26. > :53:31.line. But as Mayor, he is able to make decisions about how his budget
:53:31. > :53:36.is spent. He thinks that to keep Londoners saved, he needs 1,000
:53:36. > :53:40.extra police, and he's going to keep it that way. -- safe. But
:53:41. > :53:46.there will be a reduction in the rest of police -- numbers of police
:53:46. > :53:53.in the rest of the country - you cannot both be right. I'm not sure
:53:53. > :53:57.I follow your point. Every chief constable will be making a decision
:53:57. > :54:01.about how their budget will be spent, in discussion with their
:54:01. > :54:03.police authority. In London, there's a Mayor as well as the
:54:04. > :54:07.Metropolitan Police Authority. And Boris will be making decisions
:54:07. > :54:11.about how the budget will be spent, and what he wishes to do in terms
:54:12. > :54:15.of police numbers. There are chief constables elsewhere in the country
:54:15. > :54:23.who, despite the budget cuts, are making sure they have got more
:54:23. > :54:26.police on the streets by changes their making. There is a Chief
:54:26. > :54:30.Constable who's looking at recruiting more officers, outside
:54:30. > :54:35.London. So, people are looking within their budget at how they
:54:35. > :54:39.deploy resources in terms of the number of officers. Is it your
:54:39. > :54:43.contention that these cuts can be made without a reduction in the
:54:43. > :54:48.number of police we will see on the streets? It is my contention that
:54:48. > :54:51.the cuts can be made without affecting frontline services. We
:54:51. > :54:56.have heard chief constables up and down the country showing that that
:54:56. > :55:01.is where they are putting the focus, in terms of... But will there be
:55:01. > :55:05.more or fewer police on the streets, after these cuts? People want to
:55:05. > :55:10.see more... I'm getting rid of some of the bureaucracy which will allow
:55:10. > :55:14.police to get on the streets. will there be more or fewer police
:55:14. > :55:18.on the streets after these cuts? want to get rid of some other
:55:18. > :55:28.things which are tying up the police and preventing them from
:55:28. > :55:28.
:55:29. > :55:34.getting out on the streets. We saw the impact of police numbers on the
:55:34. > :55:38.riots. Since the riots, there was some anecdotal evidence that crimes
:55:38. > :55:41.in places like Croydon have drastically fallen - do you have
:55:41. > :55:45.information on that? I have not seen the latest crime figures for
:55:45. > :55:48.those areas. But of course, what happened during the riots was that
:55:48. > :55:55.a number of people have been arrested following the riots, and
:55:55. > :56:02.some of those were taken into custody. Does that not suggest that
:56:02. > :56:05.contrary to Ken Clarke's assertions, short sentences work? Actually, Ken
:56:05. > :56:10.Clarke has been saying that actually we need a variety of
:56:10. > :56:17.sentences, which can be applicable at different times. But if crime
:56:17. > :56:22.has fallen because the bad guys have been put away, that would
:56:22. > :56:27.suggest that prison does work. all think, in government, that
:56:27. > :56:31.prison must work better. Ken was talking here at conference today,
:56:31. > :56:34.and as he was saying, there is a big issue about reoffending. About
:56:34. > :56:38.three-quarters of those people who were arrested in the riots had a
:56:38. > :56:43.previous criminal record. A quarter of them have more than 10 previous
:56:43. > :56:48.offences. That tells us we're doing something wrong in terms of dealing
:56:48. > :56:51.with reoffending, which is what Ken has been talking about. You say you
:56:51. > :56:57.do not know what has happened to crime in those areas since the
:56:57. > :57:02.riots. If you were in New York, you would have daily figures on the
:57:02. > :57:12.spikes and falls in crime - do you not get that? You get that daily in
:57:12. > :57:13.
:57:13. > :57:18.new no,... You're actually now arguing for our policies on crime
:57:18. > :57:21.commissioners. In New York, there is one person job and responsible
:57:21. > :57:31.for policing in New York, and the equivalent is Boris Johnson in
:57:31. > :57:33.
:57:33. > :57:37.London. Police forces will have different systems, and chief
:57:37. > :57:45.constables up and down the country will be looking on a daily basis at
:57:45. > :57:48.figures for crime in their area. immigration, the party's policy in
:57:48. > :57:56.the election was to get net immigration down into the tens of
:57:56. > :58:04.thousands. In 2008, it was 163,000. In 2009, it was more than 109,000.
:58:04. > :58:09.In 2010, it was more than 230,000. Will 2011 see a reverse in that
:58:09. > :58:15.trend? As you will know, it takes time for any changes in the
:58:15. > :58:19.immigration rules to work their way through in terms of numbers. This
:58:19. > :58:25.is the first year from April that we have got the full figures with
:58:25. > :58:29.the cap on migrants from outside the EU. It will be a long while
:58:29. > :58:33.until we get to tens of thousands. We are putting in place the
:58:33. > :58:39.measures which are necessary to bring down that migration. We have
:58:39. > :58:43.got the statement from the judiciary, it says, the basis was