02/09/2014 Daily Politics

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