02/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Daily Politics. Bad news for Boris Johnson, as his dream of a fantasy


Island airport for London is finally killed off. He says the decision is


short-sighted, so where does it leave the UK's airports?


The Prime Minister says Britain might join American air strikes in


Iraq and Syria, and he might do it without asking for Parliament's


approval first. We will speak to an MP who wants him to act.


They came to office promising to be the greenest government ever must


how are they doing? We will speak to the Energy Secretary.


New EU rules meant to stop the sales of powerful vacuum cleaners have led


to a spike in sales. Is it a sensible way to cut our use of


electricity, or idea that just sucks?


All that in the next hour. With us for the whole of the programme today


is the writer and environmentalist, George Monbiot. He describes himself


as a rational troublemaker. You have been warned. He has written about


his travels in dangerous parts of the world and today, he has made the


hazardous journey to our temporary home at the BBC's new Broadcasting


House. First today, the Labour Party has


suspended four members this morning in the wake of the report into the


Rotherham child abuse scandal. The four all held senior positions of


responsibility in Rotherham in the 16 year period during which children


are reported to have been abused by predominantly Asian men. This comes


in the wake of a report last night that a researcher who raised the


alarm over the abuse of teenage girls in rather more than a decade


ago was sent on an ethnicity and diversity course by child protection


officials who refused to act on her evidence. We are joined now from


Westminster by Labour's shadow home affairs minister, Diana Johnson.


What did Labour politicians no about what was going on in Rotherham? From


the report that came out last week, there were clearly councillors in


positions of authority who did not act when they should have. It is


right that today, those councillors have been suspended. The government


now need to take a leadership position. Labour is doing that by


taking this action against Labour Party councillors, but I think


Theresa May today needs to set out what the government is going to do.


Two months ago, she announced the overarching enquiry into child


protection, but we still don't have a chair for that or terms of


reference, two years after Labour were saying we needed to have that


national overarching enquiry. But the abuse was carried out over 16


years. Labour were in power for most of that period. Why didn't senior


politicians at Westminster no? There was a series of home secretaries


under the Labour governments of those years. They were in power


throughout this period, when most of these girls were being horribly


abused by men, mostly of Pakistani heritage. Those are very good


questions, the kind of questions we want to see addressed in this


overarching child protection enquiry. But if Labour does not know


what was going on, questions have two be asked about competence. Of


course they do. When allegations were put to the police, they did not


do anything about it. They said a 14-year-old girl who was having sex


with a much older man, that was consensual, when it is clearly a


crime. So for me, I want the Home Secretary to look at what the police


should be doing in South Yorkshire in terms of bringing those


perpetrators to prosecution where possible. She also should address


the needs of the victims. We are talking about 1400 victims here and


the support services are still not in place for them. Everyone would


agree with that. What will worry people is why this did not come to


the surface. The Home Office research we have talked about, the


researcher was told she must never refer to the fact that the abusers


were predominantly Asian men. Do you accept that there was a culture


within parts of the lead party where political correct bus had gone mad?


There is no excuse for not dealing with criminal events, irrespective


of who did it. Was that a culture in the Labour Party? That is why this


enquiry into child detection links in with what happened with Jimmy


Savile in the BBC and the NHS. We need to look at what was going on


culturally around these issues. But why did Labour miss it? You had a


rotten borough. You have suspended four councillors and the leader has


resigned. The police and crime commission is still there, suspended


from the party. He was kicked out of the Labour Party. We made it clear


that he should stand down. If you hold a position of authority as a


counsellor, you are under obligation to ask difficult questions and


scrutinise what officials are telling you, and that was not


happening in Rotherham. I was the chair of social services in Tower


Hamlets in the 90s and I remember having to ask difficult questions.


As an obligation on all local authority councillors to do that are


particularly the group who have been suspended today. Do you think


politicians at senior government level at that time have no


responsibility? Well, I don't know what they were all were not told. We


know the police did not act and the councillors did not talk about this


openly. They had a few meetings, but they did not have a public


discussion or treat it as a priority. So I don't know what then


went up to national government. But this clearly needs to be looked at


and we need to find out who knew what at what point. That is why this


enquiry is important. Former Labour MP Denis MacShane, who represented


Rotherham, confessed that as a Guardian reader and liberal left


the, he backed off from confronting the Muslim community over what was


going on. Is that the truth of what happened here? People turned a blind


eye because it was too difficult politically to look at this one


community, because it would have perhaps cost them votes and seats?


It is part of the truth. No one emerges well from this. It is


disgraceful and unjustifiable if people were not investigated as a


result of their ethnicity. But that is only part of the truth. Whether


police were concerned, their attitude towards Jimmy Savile's


victims was almost the same as their attitude towards the victims in


Rotherham. They were treated with disrespect and not as if they were


full citizens with equal rights. And there is no suggestion that Jimmy


Savile is of act as Danny heritage and no suggestion that he was


exempted from proper investigation because of his ethnicity. But do you


accept that in this case, that was a barrier over a 16 year period, and


do you not feel the Labour Party has to take sponsor billeting right up


to the top about what happened on its own doorstep -- responsibility?


Yes, there were evident failures of Labour councillors and officials all


the way through. Even so, it is a bit rough to put it on current


Labour politicians, some of whom were in short trousers at the time.


But referring to those at the time, some of them are still MPs, but


let's leave it there. Bad news for Boris Johnson this


morning. His ambitious plan to build a new hub airport in London's Thames


Estoril has been permanently grounded. The airports commission


set up by the government to decide where to expand UK airport capacity


said his puzzle, nicknamed Boris Island, was a nonstarter.


Whether to expand the UK's airports and if so, where to do it is one of


the trickiest issues facing the government. To deal with it,


ministers that up an independent commission under Sir Howard Davies.


It said the country needs one new runway by 2030. This morning, he


ruled out the most ambitious option, a new hub airport on the Isle of


grain in north Kent, proposed by Boris Johnson. Howard Davies said


the plans could cost as much as ?90 billion, while there are doubts


about its delivery and operation. That leaves three options still on


the table for expansion in London - adding a third runway at Heathrow,


lengthening and existing Heathrow runway and a new runway at Gatwick.


The Davies commission will not decide until next summer after the


election, but Boris Johnson is not happy. Now you have got to hear from


others about their plans. We need some of the same clarity and


boldness we have seen from the estuary airport solution. In the


long term, people look at the reality of what is involved with a


third runway and almost inevitably, a fourth runway at Heathrow. They


will shy away from that. And people will say, what is the logical


replacement? And they will look again at the estuary site. This is


all looking more competitive for the London mayor, since he announced he


is hoping to be selected as candidate in the Uxbridge seat where


many of the people whom work at Heathrow live. We are doing now by


the Mayor 's aviation adviser, and George Monbiot is still here.


Daniel, were you surprised that it has been killed off by Howard


Davies? Not entirely, because the whole process has been set up in


such a way that it is difficult for a new airport idea to get any


traction. Davies has been clear that he wants to look to 2030 rather than


take a long-term view. He is only looking at one runway. None of that


is in his remit from the government. That is what he has decided to do


himself. He has also made it easier for private sector business people


to put plans forward. But that is a reality, money is a critical issue.


The Mayor's scheme was talking 70 to ?90 billion, a vast amount of money.


And we have had controversy over HS2. People want a solution now.


They need certainty, which is why they are focusing on other options.


Well, I am not sure they are. If you look at Chambers of commerce up and


down the country, they have been calling on Howard Davies not to take


this option off the table. In terms of the cost, part of that is for the


cost of the airport itself, which is not very different from the cost of


building a new runway at Heathrow. The rest of it is road and rail


access, it would have benefits for the estuary. Another part of


intellectual dishonesty in the Davies process is that they loaded


the whole cost of road and rail expansion to the cost of the


project. I think the whole process is coming apart. It seems the


argument has been made that you had your say, but you and Boris Johnson


sound as though you are going to continue. Is there any point in


pursuing a plant that has no chance of becoming a reality? But the


airports commission is only a small part of the decision-making process


to resolve this issue. No political party has agreed on it. Its primary


purpose was to kick the whole thing beyond the general election. Howard


is doing that successfully. But this will be a decision for the


government after the election and politically, and expansion of


Heathrow to three or four runways in the west of London is politically


undeliverable, while a that Gatwick solution means saying goodbye to


having an airport hub in London. There is a reason people keep coming


back to the estuary idea. The other options don't work. Should that


estuary option still be on the table? Piriz Boris Johnson, who


supports all the government cuts, and yet when it comes to his pet


project, he is prepared to spend ?70 billion. To me, that is indicative


of what interests the Coalition Government and the Mayor, which is


that they are happy to impose the most rigorous austerity upon the


poor, make cuts to essential public services, but when it comes to their


pet projects, they behave like gamblers in a Russian novel,


engaging in Bullingdon debauchery as they rip through the Treasury, grab


as many public assets as they can and stuff them into their cronies'


pockets. It is an amazing case of double standards. I don't think


George supports the estuary option, but it is a vanity project. He did


not get around to saying it was a vanity project. He was flinging to


many other insults around. The fact is that in this country, the


government provides road and rail services. The edge bought itself,


Inc -- the airport is about 25 billion, which would be paid for by


the private sector, as it would at Heathrow. The roads and rail


provided would give connectivity and economic growth to the history,


which is an area which suffers from depression and has largely been


ignored. It is legitimate to say that that is what politics is about.


I do want to spend money on that, I would rather spend it on something


else. That is what politics is about. It is not a vanity project. I


did not say that. If it is of the table, one could argue there is no


point in pursuing it. How much has City Hall spent on this? The mayor


has spent ?4.25 million so far on this. He will not continue spending


money now, will he? I think he will. It is all right for Howard


Davies to say I am just going to focus on where you put the tarmac.


What the mayor focuses on is that you have a city which, by 2030, when


this wretched runway is built, will be 10 million. You have people


crying out for homes already. You need to do something spatially to


shape the city. Daniel has a point, doesn't he? Because when you were


castigating this vanity project, the alternative is that you don't


support either. There will be another runway at Gatwick or


Heathrow or an extended runway. I don't believe any of them should


happen. We have so many exciting means of communicating, and the idea


that in the 21st-century, in order to talk to someone else you still


need to get somebody up to 30,000 feet and fly them 4000 miles, this


is an antiquated way of doing things. We are already seeing a


major drop-off in demand from business and private passengers. We


are not going to see the expansion of demand that the Government


projects and it is crazy... That demand clearly is there. We should


be talking about reducing capacity, and we can do that now that we have


better technologies. It is not only the amount of damage it does to


local people's lives, we are talking about the climate and the idea of


expanding the airways is madness. Would you talk about that more now


that you have lost the argument in London? India and China populations


are reaching the level of income that they will want to fly. As an


island we should nonetheless cut ourselves off from the principal


means of access. As long as everyone understands exactly what George is


saying, it will mean that you will be getting over to Paris and


Amsterdam by whatever means you can do it, but there are very few ways


of leaving an island except by vote or by air.


Thank you. It was a big day in Parliament yesterday as MPs returned


and David Cameron gave a statement on what turned out to be a summer of


instability around the world. He spoke about the situation in Ukraine


and how to deal with the terrorist threat at home but it was his


suggestion that the UK could join US air strikes in Syria that has made


waves. His responses to previous questions implied that he is open to


the idea of direct military participation in the current air


strikes to protect the Kurds. If that is the case, can he say so


clearly now? If there was a direct threat to British national


interests, or in the case of Libya when we had to react rapidly to


prevent a catastrophe, we reserve the right to act immediately and


inform the House of Commons afterwards. You have seen what the


British government has done to date and I am listening carefully to the


views of honourable members in this debate. The MP you saw was John


Woodcock and he joins me now from outside Parliament. You heard David


Cameron say yesterday that he is not ruling anything out when it comes to


air strikes, do you think he should go further and send British planes


and bonds above Iraq? Let's consider what is happening here. You have a


humanitarian crisis that has not gone away in Syria and Iraq, it is


getting worse and the weather is set to change. The Prime Minister talks


about acting if there is a direct threat to our interests. The rise of


these extremists, the Islamic State, will threaten our interests.


The idea that they will get a lasting foothold in the Middle East


is a real threat to our own borders, the prospect of sending back


terrorists who will be intent on hitting British civilians, it


doesn't seem right... On the one hand you have the Foreign Secretary


saying other nations need to step up, we cannot leave it to the


Americans all alone, and yet that is our position at present. We are not


part of the military action. We are involved in various other things


like surveillance and humanitarian issues. By calling for intervention,


you are not on the side of public opinion, as you know. It is very


difficult and not really the right thing to conduct really difficult


and drenched foreign policy on opinion polls. It is our


responsibility to do the right thing to keep the nation secure and it is


unquestionably the right thing to deal directly and fully with the


threat that ISIS, Islamic State, whatever they are going to be


called, these extremists who will do anything they can to threaten our


way of life in Britain and other countries, it is in our clear


interests to act against them. Or will it cause more unrest and be


more of a recruiting sergeant? You only have to look at recent air


strikes in Libya, that has hardly left peaceful democratic government


there. Ed Miliband was right yesterday when he spoke about the


need for a proper international coalition against what is


happening, what Islamic State are doing in the region. It is the


neighbours of Iraq who have the most to fear and the most to lose from


the rise of these people. We should be doing more about getting


international efforts together, but the idea that this action actually


makes the problem worse, I'm afraid it is a fallacy. Once you start


accepting that, you play into the hands of people who would like us to


sit back, who would like our nation just to let whatever happens in Iraq


and Syria happen, then deal with the serious consequences further down


the track. George Monbiot, what do you say to that? We know the terror


threat level has been increased, the Prime Minister announced that at the


end of last week. Should we be proactive and join the Americans? It


is serious but just a year ago David Cameron recalled parliament to


weighed in on the other side of the dispute, to start attacking Syria


which proposes Islamic State. It seems that just about every armed


intervention we have ever made in the Middle East has stoked problems


rather than preventing problems and has contributed to the rise of


jihadism. When they see our support for Israel, all of that contributes


to the idea that Britain is an enemy of what some people consider to be


Islam. Wouldn't it have been a disaster if we had gone into Syria,


bearing in mind what has evolved? It has been a disaster that we did not


intervene to help the moderate opposition in Syria who still exist


but they are under the cosh from both sides, from the Islamic


extremists and the Syrian government. I'm afraid it is a


counsel of despair to say nothing can be done and risks being


accompanied misrepresentation of Islam, which is a peaceful


religion, to say that these barbaric extremists represent that religion.


We have to leave it there. While we were discussing that, it has been


announced that George Osborne's Autumn Statement went -- will be on


December the 3rd. David Cameron made himself something


of a hostage to fortune when he pledged to lead the greenest


government ever in 2010, and many environmental groups claim that


green issues have been driven down the agenda at Westminster ever


since. He hung out with huskies and vowed to lead the greenest


government ever but maybe David Cameron should have listened to


ecological experts Tony Bennett and Kermit the frog. It is not easy


being green when many of your backbenchers think climate change is


not real and your own Chancellor worries green policies could slow


down growth. So how is the Government doing? Under EU law by


2020, 15% of our energy consumption every year should come from


renewable resources. Currently it is 5%. The amount of energy generated


from wind turbines is increasing too and one Sunday this August record


was broken, the most energy generated ever in a single hour


although it was a particularly blustery day. Tory MPs lost a lot


about wind farms saying they are expensive and unreliable. Eric


Pickles now decides whether they go ahead. Since 2013 he has said yes to


two out of 17 applications. This is the first new nuclear plants in a


generation. EDF will build it after they were offered a guaranteed price


for its electricity, a price many campaigners felt was too high. It


seems the Treasury's favourite fuel is gas, fracking that is taken out


of the ground with water at high pressure. For campaigners, the


so-called dash for gas is a disaster, producing too much carbon


and potentially pollution too. What about consumers? The flagship scheme


that gave out vouchers for people to carry out energy improvements had to


close down because people stampeded to take it up, but when people


complained about the cost of their bills, the Government cut levies for


environmental policies. Kermit is right, it is not easy being green. I


am green, and I think it is what I want to be. We are joined now by the


Lib Dem Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, and of course George Monbiot is


still here. You have had this long running battle with the Chancellor


about the scale of pace for targets for cutting emissions, which you


have won. We have more than doubled the amount of our electricity from


renewable sources, now 15% and rising fast. We have doubled the


amount of investment for future renewable electricity at record


levels, more than double in the last Parliament, and legislated for the


world's first-ever low carbon electricity market so we are moving


fast on renewable electricity. We will come onto the renewables and


how great you have been, but as I say, you have won that particular


argument, despite George Osborne saying it could harm business


competitiveness. Why is he wrong? Climate change is a critical issue


for Britain and the world. We have to play our role in it, and that


means investing in renewables and low carbon technologies. It also


means working with our partners because we cannot do it a go on --


do it alone. Why should Britain be ahead of our European competitors? I


remember George Osborne saying we would be paying the price for


unilaterally beating European partners, why don't we go at the


same pace? It is about taking them with us. It is about agreeing a


European target and effectively we are getting the climate change act


that we passed in the UK, getting that in Europe,


remember George Osborne saying we would be paying which is a huge


achievement. If we pull this off, it will be the biggest green measure by


this Government by a long way. Are you going to put a medal on his


lapel for being the most green minister ever? He has toed the line,


I will give him that, but the contradictions are vast. One of his


responsibilities, at the same time as minimising the amount of carbon


dioxide we produce is to maximise the economic recovery of the UK's


oil and gas, to get as much as possible out of the ground. The


carbon impact of coal is huge. But that might help with the lights on


while we wait for nuclear to come on board. We have other ways. When we


publish our carbon plan, that plan shows us, using a lot of oil and gas


between petrol and diesel, the question is, where is that oil and


gas going to come from? It could come from the Middle East. Or it


could come from our own resources. By locking us into gas, you look is


in for the next 50 years into a high carbon economy. Not with carbon


capture and storage. We are leading in Europe. We have the two only


large-scale carbon capture storage plants in Europe. One is gas, and


one is coal. And how far have they got? Further than anyone else. Will


there be a guarantee that there will be no new gas plants without carbon


capture and storage? Otherwise, your pledge is nonsense. We have said,


with the pledge is nonsense. We have said,


with emission performance standard, that no new coal plant can be built


without... But the question was about gas. I have asked you a


straightforward question. It is an improvement, but it looks as into


another form of fossil fuel. Gas power stations are being built now


and in the early part of the next decade. They will come off-line


before 2050. So what you really want me to argue is about gas powered


stations built after 2030. Although I am the Secretary of State now in


2014, being able to predict 2030 is a big difficult. But isn't it a case


of long-term commitment? Yes, and that is where the fourth carbon


budget, which you are right that some parts of government were not


keen for it to be kept at the current level, I fought hard to


maintain it at that level and we won. That sets targets through the


next decade, which is critical to make sure we meet our climate change


commitments. Let's see how committed you are to renewable resources. We


mentioned in the film a target to generate 15% of electricity from


renewable resources by 2020. It is currently 5%. Are you confident that


that can be achieved? We are on track to do that. You have different


sources for electricity, heating and transport. With electricity, we are


targeting 30% renewable electricity by 2020 and we are on target to beat


that. So the fact that we have grown viewable electricity so fast and we


have this pipeline gives me confidence that we will meet those


targets. And what happens beyond 2020? You have resisted EU calls for


a binding target. That sounds like you don't have both in the


renewables market. Let me explain. Through building the world's first


ever low carbon electricity market, if you can go low carbon through


durables or through carbon capture and storage or through nuclear, let


me pay tribute to George. He is one of the environmentalists who say


nuclear has to be part of your low carbon strategy. Because we are now


reducing a low carbon electricity market, after 2020 unit targets to


make sure investment will go into all low carbon forms. If you pick


out one, it means you reduce the amount overall. If you are really


ambitious and climate change, you need a technology for all. You are


talking about investment into all the carbon technology forms, but at


the same time, you are talking about an investment in gas, which locks us


in. And you failed to answer my question. And the answer is no. You


are saying, it will not be quite as bad as coal, so that of chocolate


fudge cake, we will all be eating in the pie, which is not quite as bad


for you, but we are not getting onto the low carb diet which is what we


need. We have made it live sometime that you need to see gas as a bridge


fuel away from coal as we invest in renewables and nuclear. But we will


have 40 years with gas plants. Over time, you will see our gas


consumption come down. Why? Because we are investing so much in low


carbon. You are delaying it by going for gas rather than going straight


to the low carbon alternatives. You don't believe renewable resources


are inexpensive and efficient? You are going for gas instead? That is


exactly what is happening. Let me bring some sanity into this


conversation. You a mixed approach. That is why we are doing renewables,


nuclear and energy efficiency. And carbon capture and storage. In


future, gas can be burnt with carbon capture and storage. We are the only


country in Europe with a gas carbon capture project. You two... But the


once you are currently building do not have carbon capture and


storage! Ed Davey, thank you! Now, what has happened to the


Conservative Party lately? You can hardly have failed to notice that


they were hit hard by the defection of the MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP.


This morning, it was announced that the ensuing by-election, which the


pollsters expect the Tories to lose, will be on October the night, the


Prime Minister's birthday, no less. And there are plenty more


conservative backbenchers unhappy with David Cameron's leadership.


Former MP Matthew Parris has suggested that those on the right


actually want to wreck the Prime Minister's chances of winning the


next election. In a moment, we will speak to Matthew. First, I am joined


in Westminster by the pollster Katherine Peacock of ComRes. Let's


look at some of the polling. We know those who are interested in politics


do not like divided parties. They absolutely don't. They also don't


like divided government. The public did not want a coalition. But


throughout the course of this Parliament, the public have seen


Conservatives as divided. It is not just Europe. There are things like a


marriage. And the majority of the public think the Conservatives are


more divided now than under John Major. What about the issues that do


appeal to voters, like immigration? The issue of immigration is really


important to people. But the problem is that Europe is bound up in


immigration. While the public are talking about immigration,


politicians are speaking about Europe, and the two are not the same


thing. Well, Matthew Parris is here in the studio, the former


Conservative and the. We are also joined by Mark Wallace of the


website Conservative Home. Matthew, you say that a conservative schism


is all but inevitable, but we have been here before. One only has to


look at Maastricht and John Major. Yes, we came close to schism on


Maastricht, and John Major just managed to pull that one off. The


right in the party have not gone away. They have never forgiven the


party for Maastricht, and they are back. And I think they are now so


bitter, so angry and so zealous in their anti-European ideology that


they are prepared to destroy the unity of the Conservative Party to


get it. Do you agree that there are people in the Conservative Party who


are prepared to see the Conservative Party split over this? Well, I


believe we should leave the European Union. Hopefully, I will not display


too much bitterness during the discussion.


Union. Hopefully, I will not display too much bitterness You are too


young! I think Douglas Carswell made the wrong decision to defect to UKIP


. That threatens the possibility of re-election in 2015. But it is not


simple enough, or rather, it is too simple to say that Eurosceptics are


somehow anti-conservative. I fear that the wrong lessons could be


learnt from this. When talking about Eurosceptics, we are talking about a


lot of people within the Conservative Party and possibly the


Labour Party, but you are saying there is a division between the


Eurosceptics and the Europhobes. Yes, we are all Eurosceptics, but


the Europhobes just want out. They want out now. They don't care what


deal Europe dashed David Cameron gets, they want out. They fear that


David Cameron might win a referendum on Europe, so they would rather see


the party go down in flames than have that happen. And from those


flames, they see a pure, more right-wing and unambiguously


anti-European Conservative Party emerge. When Douglas Carswell


announced his defection, Europe was not the only issue he mention. He


was talking about direct democracy, recall of MPs, open primaries. So


his vision is slightly broader than you have portrayed. He was


scrabbling together as many reasons as he could for resigning, but I


think he resigned for opportunistic reasons. That is a misreading of


Douglas Carswell. There are certainly anti-EU MPs and there have


been since the 90s, whose main motivation in life is to leave the


EU. But Douglas Carswell is not one of them. His Euroscepticism comes


from a broader iconoclasm. He really believes we should have direct


democracy. He wants power of initiative for referenda. His


opposition to the EU stems from that. I don't think UKIP is the


right vehicle to deliver that, but his main motivation... He must be


crazy if he thinks UKIP is the right vehicle to deliver that. But think


of the wider iconoclasm. If you have an Essex Roundhead attitude to life,


he really wants to shake Westminster until parts of it fall down. Do you


think that is a noble cause? I think he is mistaken. I don't think


letting Ed Miliband in will get us a referendum. But is it a noble cause?


It is noble to want to change our politics, to say that parties


elected on a lower and lower proportion of a lower and lower


turnout, that is not a solution for the future. Its troubles me that


Douglas Carswell does not feel he can find hope with the


Conservatives. There are elements in Conservative Home being very careful


not to attack Douglas Carswell. There is an enormous amount of


sympathy for him there, not just in Conservative Home, but among the


Tory right generally. Well, it would be a mistake... He has betrayed the


Conservative Party, hasn't he? I think he has made a horrible error.


So why not condemn him? The crucial thing is, do you want to respond to


the criticism, Carswell by slinging mud and accusing him of treason, off


with his head etc? No, we should be asking why people like Douglas


Carswell, someone who was a politician for the future, not the


past, why doesn't he feel comfortable in our party? Why is he


not the future? Every age produces politicians with strong


ideological, zealous attitudes, who are sure they are right. They never


tend to prosper within any political party. He will not bother within the


Conservatives or UKIP. But we need to think about the direction of the


Conservative Party. Do you think the Conservative Party should move


towards Douglas Carswell's position? Absolutely not. If the Conservative


Party even talks about deals with UKIP, it will lose the centre ground


and loses ability to appeal to those who are worried that the Tories are


rather right-wing. His directly, it has been proven time and again,


particularly when there were Conservative leaders who did move to


the right on issues like the EU and immigration, this is a different


time, but do you think they can win on that agenda? This is a much more


subtle question that might not fit a debate very well. The simple fact is


that Cameron's modernisation has unfortunately been surpassed by the


modernisation of the financial populace, people for the use on the


state have changed. Then why not advise people to look at UKIP? If


you are so sympathetic to what Douglas Carswell has done and you


want the Tory party to emulate some of their policies, why not advise


people to look at UKIP? Because I don't think UKIP offers the answers


to this. If you saw Douglas Carswell today in our interview with him on


Conservative Home, he takes on a passing voter on immigration who


says they are not a threat to the NHS. Mark is not advising people to


support UKIP, but there is a lot of dog whistling coming from the right


and from Conservative Home. I have no doubt that a lot of those people


would like to see a deal between the Tories and UKIP, and I think that


would be disastrous for my party. Let's leave it there.


The latest poll ahead of the referendum on Scottish independence


has caused a big stir today, putting Alex Salmond's campaign to leave the


UK only three percentage points away from victory. It is unlikely to


lower the temperature in what has been a passionate debate, as you


would expect, that at times has spilled over into outright


hostility. Labour MP Jim Murphy as this morning resumed his one-man


tour of Scotland to promote the union. He suspended it * after what


he said was coordinated abuse from yes voters.


I will not be silenced! Jim Murphy almost losing his voice there.


Joining me now is the man himself from the Better Together campaign.


We got the idea of what was going on there, is that a fair reflection of


the nature of the campaign? There have been 100 meetings I have been


to, and I am travelling around the country with my makeshift stage. For


the first 70 meetings it was great old-fashioned politics, really good


passionate politics. Men just after Alex Salmond lost the first TV


debate, things took a turn for the worse and there was an aggressive,


angry mob on the street of yes voters. These things didn't happen


spontaneously so we paused it and started to -- again today in


Edinburgh. Whoever noisily turned on the top of that political aggression


has quietly over the weekend turned it off again and that is good. Some


might say that is the rough and tumble of politics. Hopefully you


won't get any more eggs lobbed at you. I couldn't care less about


eggs. The point is when you turn up to meetings and the yes campaign


have occupied the space where you are going to have the meetings,


where people are routinely called a traitor and much worse in a


coordinated way, it is something much more


coordinated way, it is something much sinister but I am glad that we


paused for three days and now we can go onto the great democratic


exercise which is the referendum. Which you are struggling with now,


looking at the polls, because the no campaign is losing ground and Alex


Salmond and the SNP are breathing down your neck as we speak. It was


always going to be close and passionate. It is the biggest


decision we are ever going to take. I worry about the fact that with a


fortnight ago Scotland has no currency. Scotland doesn't know how


interest rates would be run. But the second debate between Alistair


Darling and Alex Salmond demonstrated that people have moved


on from those issues, they wanted to know about issues like the NHS for


example, how they might be affected with their pensions. They are right


to be worried about those sorts of things, and with a fortnight ago we


don't know what things, and with a fortnight ago we


don't would happen to the pension system. We all pay into a system at


the moment across the UK, and many pay into a private pension, and


there is no sense what would happen if Scotland was independent.


there is no sense what would happen if Scotland We cannot just say it


will be all right on the night, Scotland deserves some answers.


George Monbiot, do you have sympathy for Jim Murphy there? Do you think


it has turned nasty? I defend his right to speak and it is great he is


getting out there and speaking on the street but I think he is being a


little bit precious about this. We are seeing a revival of fire and


passion in politics and there has not been enough of that recently,


with three parties who are almost indistinguishable. There is the


possibility in Scotland of the yes vote, and there you see people


really rediscovering what politics is all about, which is about letting


your heartbeat and having some passion. When is the next one?


Glasgow city centre, Edinburgh today and on Thursday in the nation's most


important city, Glasgow. You should go! It is great that he is doing


this, but I'm sure you don't expect... People in Glasgow will


say, I yield to the honourable member. I am not worried about that,


don't get me wrong. I knew what I was going to get. There are going to


be hecklers, and that is fine, it is actually more


be hecklers, and that is fine, it is actually enjoyable then, but there


came a .3 days ago when it was no longer safe for the public. But it


has moved on and I am really glad. Come and heckle me, George! We asked


yes Scotland to appear but nobody was available.


Sales of powerful vacuum cleaners have soared over the last few weeks


as buyers have turned out. I'm told he never touches a vacuum cleaner at


home but our reporter, Adam Fleming, is in the newsroom to give a


demonstration. Do you know where the on button is? I have a bone to pick


with you, you left the office total state. There are crisps, sugar, but


luckily we have some vacuum cleaners here. This is one of the illegal


ones because it uses more than 1600 watts, I am told sales for this went


up by more than 380%. Let's get going. It is very quiet. Lovely,


gliding across the carpet there. It has made very short work of the


sugar. Will it manage the crisps? These are much harder. Look at that.


The crisps are gone, amazing! So you cannot buy these any more, but you


can buy these ones instead, which are about half the wattage, but have


they got the same suction? Let's find out. Much less smooth on the


carpet, and a bit quieter. The sugar has gone. Is it going to manage the


crisps? There you go. They are gone. To my untrained eye the


suction is exactly the same even though the wattage is different. We


have heard from an expert today, the guy who runs the International


Hoover Museum in Derbyshire and he says higher wattage is not


necessarily of higher suckage back to you. I think you should do that


more regularly in our offices! Listening to that is UKIP MEP Louise


also. What was wrong with that? It is a flawed experiment because they


are using new Hoovers and anybody who has once knows that over time


suction disappears, it gets less and less. Suction is something to do


with wattage according to James Dyson. He is an expert, one of our


prime businessmen, so I am going to listen to him. He has launched


already the judicial review because he is so worried about this because


of that kind of test, a flawed experiment. Why should we be told


what to do and which vacuum cleaner to buy? There is a payoff and it is


between having a full and completely open choice as to what vacuum


cleaner you want to buy and the damage you are doing to the global


atmosphere. How much damage am I doing with my high wattage vacuum


cleaner? It all contributes. It adds unnecessarily to the burden of


greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Come on! Apparently this will save


?8 per year, roughly, on an energy bill for the consumer but the length


of time they will continue to Hoover for longer, that will negate that.


If it is saving ?8 per year it doesn't negate it.


You were saying in the Guardian and environmentalists should be based on


science. Dyson would say that, because they are obviously trying to


promote their high wattage appliances, but isn't it true that


is what the EU is for? These are the organisations that will decide what


it it -- what is better for us. Telling us how to live our lives


once again. We have to look and think what is best for the consumer.


Allergy UK have said allergy sufferers... It is a detriment to


them because they will no longer be able to buy the vacuum cleaner they


recommend. We have to put people first. It is a good point on


allergies. Those dust mites now are far more widespread. We need those


Hoovers. I have one myself, caused by house dust. It is not catching,


is it? You are sitting far too close. Our vacuum cleaner, way below


the threshold, does it adequately and you don't need these monstrous


machines like military hardware in your house in order to do a good job


of cleaning up. We don't need this constant profligate pointless use of


unnecessary energy in order to power the economy. You said yourself,


Louise, it is all about the consumer. As consumers they are also


interested in Environ mental protection. Lots of consumers have


changed their behaviour with recycling for example, and it hasn't


been terrible, so why can't they do it over energy guzzling vacuum


cleaners? I would say this is the thin end of the wedge. Vacuum


cleaners will do nothing to hit the climate change targets. On their


own! You have proved my point because I was going to say they have


a list of other items they are going to do the same four, including


hairdryers and kettles. You are against energy efficiency. My sister


is a hairdresser, and this is going to affect her. She is the first


one... Let George answered the question. If you have something that


takes double the time, you are not saving energy. You have conceded


that you save ?8 per year with the lower wattage vacuum cleaner, that


means you are saving ?8 of energy, this is energy efficiency. You are


going back on what you said at the beginning. But we have to vacuum for


longer. Very quickly, will hairdryers and lawn mowers be next?


They should be. We should be applying energy efficiency to all


our products. That is all for today. Thank you to our guests,


particularly to you, George, for being our guest of the day. Andrew


is back from his holidays, finally, tomorrow. Goodbye.


This year, the world's greatest half-marathon


Download Subtitles