23/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to Manchester where it's Ed Miliband's big day.


Can the Labour leader overcome his dire personal poll ratings


and convince voters he's Prime Minister material?


The US leads air strikes against Islamic State in Syria


A mansion tax on houses worth over ?2 million to pay for increased


spending on the NHS - that's Ed Miliband's eye-catcher today.


They're seen it a threat to the Tories but how much could UKIP


damage Labour in next year's general election?


Some say he saved the union in last week's referendum. We ask delegates


here if it's time for a Gordon Brown comeback?


It just seemed to have a different sort of spunk to him, if that's oar


word I can use. Is Ed Miliband liking it, though? Is Ed Miliband


less spunky? Yes, most definitely. All that in the next hour,


with the Ed Miliband speech to come First this morning, let's take stock


of how this conference is going. I'm joined by Dave Wooding


of the Sun on Sunday and Elizabeth What do you make of the mood of the


conference? It is a bit flat, Andrew. There isn't much verve.


There are not many speeches that seem to ignite the audience. We


spoke to one Shadow Cabinet Minister yesterday and he said, "We are


steady as she goes." It feels you are on the cusp of potentially


returning to power but there doesn't seem to be a belief you can do it. I


remember the 1996 Labour Conference, the year before the landslide in


'97. I remember the year before, the year before they thought they were


going to win. The mood is very different. Yes, if you run the clock


back, there was a sweeping feeling of change. Their time had come. You


knew it was going to be there and you sensed the build-up to a general


election. We are only eight months away from a general election now.


You wouldn't think it was around the corner. This is his last speech


before the general election, judging the mood here, very flat. I would


say, you have to have some sympathy for him. His conference is wedged


between the Scottish referendum and now, air strikes in Syria, and so,


it is events, isn't it, events have overtaken. And even overshadowed.


Yes and he is dropping down the news event at the moment he needs to make


the pitch to the English - well, the English - the British voters. Well


he has a particular pitch to make to the English voters. One of the


questions they have struggled to answer here from the start is


English votes for English laws proposition the Prime Minister has


stuck on them. That has overshadowed the whole thing. Everyone you talk


to, we are all talking about Scottish devolution. The problem Ed


Miliband has, is if he backs Cameron's pledge or desire to have


English votes for English laws, he then automatically cuts out 40


Scottish MPs and voters, so it is not in his political interest. It is


a very difficult argument to sell. To the people So it is tricky. Is it


true, all the good stuff has been kept for Mr Mill ban's speech this


afternoon? Is it -- Mr Ed Miliband's speech this afternoon Is he says - I


need to all to make an impact. Last year, he had the freeze on the


energy prices. Which set the political temperature. It will be


interesting to see what he has this year. He is talking about bread and


butter issues to get away from the English question. Nevertheless, I


think the thing he needs to give us at the conference speech this


afternoon, is not so many eye-catching initiatives, let's be


honest, there isn't the image. More so, he has proproject himself as a


leader a future Prime Minister which I don't think many people see him as


at the moment. You mentioned the issue at the moment, dominating the


headlines. With the Arab allies, but without Britain in Iraq and now into


Syria do we have any idea what the idea of the policy of the Labour


Party is, should Britain decide what it wants to do? It is fluid. The


story broke overnight but the early-morning sense we are getting


is they are more supportive of going into Syria. You remember that they


basically helped defeat... Last year, the vote. But I don't think


they actually have a firm position. I checked in this morning, and there


has been no official contact between the Prime Minister and Ed Miliband


over it. Parliament going to be recalled? I would probably put money


on maybe Friday. I think they'll have to recall Parliament. And then


the Prime Minister has to make up his mind what he is going to ask


Parliament to do. Is he going to ask Parliament simply to support air


strikes in Iraq? Or is he going to ask what is now happening, air


strikes in Iraq and Syria. Do we know? We don't at this stakes. There


are talks already going on with Iran, which is quite bizarre when


they were funding operations against our soldiers which led to many


deaths in the Basra region. He did tee up his MPs a couple of would hes


ago on this, with the whips ringing round. There haven't been any calls


to MPs this morning apparently. One MP said to me that he didn't think


Cameron would make any mood on this, until the fate the hostages is


decided one way or the other. If he does go in and they have got


hostages, it is too high risk. One of the things I found here is, it


has been quite difficult to get some of the details out of Shadow Cabinet


people on the poll si.s he spoke to Rachael Reeves yesterday to find out


-- I spoke to Rachael Reeves to find out is Ed Balls going to balance the


current budget or overall budget. That was not clear but that was


nothing on what happened on LBC this morning with Miss Looefs. What is


the pension at the moment for an elderly person? Just under ?100. The


basic state pension. Is it? Around ?100 a week. I thought it was ?113.


It is around ?100. So you don't know what the pension is. It depends how


many years you have contributed to a pension. Well, actually, on the


basic state pension, it doesn't, really, it is the basic state


pension. Wouldn't you expect the Shadow Pensions Spokesperson to


know. Well, look, the whole point of that is they are trying to show that


they are credible on the economy, and on spending and they have got to


show voters they are not just going to get into power and spend loads of


money they haven't got. Shouldn't you know what the pension is, if you


are the Shadow Pension Secretary? You absolutely should. Absolutely.


You should know how you are going to balance the books. It is not good.


It is one of these basic stuff questions - you ask somebody a


standard question they should know and they should know it. They know


deep policy but not basic stuff. How could the Labour Party accuse George


Osborne and David Cameron being two posh boys who don't know the of a


pint of milk when she doesn't know the price of the basic state


pension. Thank you very much. So overnight the US and its Arab


allies launched airstrikes against It marks a significant widening


of the US bombing campaign, which up to now has only attacked


the Jihadists in Iraq. Let's talk to our correspondent


in Washington, Barbara Plett Usher. Barbara. I suppose the President


told us he was going to widen the war, and this is it not happening on


the ground or from the air? Yes, he gave lots of lead time. He announced


it in a speech nearly two weeks ago. He didn't say when exactly it would


happen, so it wasn't unexpected, so we didn't know when to expect it and


now it has happened. What the US central command has reported, is


quite a big series of air strikes, carried out with the help of Arab


allies in the region. It says five Arab regions helped in some


capacity, including some who, we understand, actually carried out


some of the air strikes against Islamic state targets, which, the


control said were damaged. The supplies themselves, supply depots


and so on but also central command said separately the United States


forces attacked a network of Al-Qaeda veterans who are serious


Syria to plot attacks against Western interests and the United


States, rere kruting Western fighters with those, experimenting


with explosives and so on. That's separate from the Islamic state


threat - Islamic state being the militant group that's focussed on


the Middle East, crossing borders and taking territory which has


helped the United States convince its allies that it is a threat to


the region. Barbara, I would think it is quite a significant


achievement for Mr Obama to get five Arab allies to join him in these air


strikes? It is a very significant achievement. The Arab countries,


Arab Sunni Muslim countries, do not like to be seen to be bombing other


Arab countries or other Arab movement, especially a Sunni


movement like Islamic state. That's an achievement in itself plus they


have a lot of internal ditcheses and squabbles. They have different


national interests and competing interests. They have backed


different proximityies, for example, in the Syrian war. This is the one


thing they can agree on, that Islamic state is a threat to all


because it is expansionist, it is crossing borders, bumping up against


their borders. The Jordanians are afraid because they have had


skirmishes with Islamic state on fwhierders. Checkpoints have


exchanged hands. The Americans are to convince the Islamic states that


it threatens them. I think this is something that President Obama will


highlight at the US General Assembly where he is set to make an


appearance today and in a couple of days next week, where he will seek


to strengthen the coalition and he will argue - I have support in the


region, so you should support me, too. Thank you very much.


We can speak now to the Conservative MP, John Baron, a member of the


Foreign Affairs Select Ccommittee, who joins us from Westminster and


Labour MP, John Woodcock, who takes a big interest in defence matters.


John Baron, what do you see as the figures of this development of


taking the war against IS into Syria? I think the good news is we


are involving regional allies, it is very positive. The symbolism of the


West alone defeating this caliphate would be profoundly negative. But,


Andrew, certain key questions still remain unanswered. I mean, what is


the follow-up plan? If we all accept that air strikes alone will not


defeat IS, what is the follow-up plan? If there isn't one, we are


entering a cul de sac. Secondly, if we degradism S sufficiently, who is


going to take their place. -- de-Grade Icy. S sufficiently. Who


will take their place? Thirdly, the Syrian war, last year we were siding


the with the rebels, this year we seem to be now - is there a clear


policy with this? And finally f we don't get Iraq right and drive IS


out of northern Iraq, then actually Syria is almost an irrelevance. Do I


take it from anything you have said that you are happy that is not


involved in the air strikes? I am for the moment. We must be clear


about this. These are questions that need answering before we can commit


troops, air strikes and resource to this. Don't forget, Parliament is


right to ask these questions. Our track record, invading Iraq in 2003,


the disastrous Morphing of the Afghan nation -- war into nags


building and in areas where civil wars have got so bad and changing


sides in the civil war, we haven't covered ourself in glory. We need to


make sure we are clear and have clear answers to these important


questions. John Woodcock where are you on this? I think action is going


to be necessary. I would like to see it led by Iraq and Syria's


neighbours. I think it is pretty important. They are there with the


Americans now. They are. For me it simply doesn't make sense for us to


stand outside of that, given how we are directly affected. The British


people are directly affected by the threat of allowing these Isil


extremists to get a sustained foot hole. John Baron is right in the


need to have a plan beyond this, but military action is not sufficient on


its own but it is necessary to beat them back. I would feel deeply


uncomfortable if we repeated what I believe was a mistake, in both the


Prime Minister in screwing up the vote last year on Syria and also on


my side in not backing it. To clarify, are you in favour of the


British being involved in air raids, which include not just Iraq, but


also Syria? Well, I think we should state that it is on a military


level, in tackling Isil, it is right to want to take action across the


border. Now, the legal question is different - and it has to be - that


has to be resolved. But this is a border which, Isil themselves don't


respect. Is poorest and we have a regime in Syria which the British


Government doesn't respect as legitimate, so, there is a need to


take action there. What does it do for our standing


with Washington if most of America's allies seem to be involved


in this except Britain? Sometimes it is right for good friends to ask


serious questions. We did not participate in the Vietnam war and


yet within 15 years of that war ending, we had the best of


relationships. Sometimes you have got to ask awkward questions. In


fact, friends thank you for that. There is no point looking at Syria


if we cannot get Iraq right. We have an Iraqi army that seems to be doing


nothing, despite being 20 times the size of ISIS. They should be driving


ISIS out of northern Iraq. Meanwhile, it does come down to


politics. Soldiers can only buy you time. In the politics of Iraq, there


was no sign that we are making progress. We have got rid of the


sectarian Nouri al-Maliki, but we are not sure that what has taken his


place is inclusive. There are a lot of people in high positions in the


political spectrum. John Woodcock, can I put to you your report in the


New York Times this morning, which is just hitting the streets of


America as we speak. After six weeks of American air strikes, the Iraqi


government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of


Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country.


They may have stopped the extremists' March, but they have not


robbed them back. The government has acknowledged that it has lost


control of another town to Islamic State. So air strikes are not having


any effect. Well, you cannot necessarily draw from that that they


are having no effect. They have stopped the advance, but they are


not rolling them back. It could be that they need to be stepped up.


This is after six weeks. That may suggest that there is an increased


case for Britain to be part of the next wave. The alternative is a


counsel of despair, to say there is nothing we can do. I understand why


people look back at the history of Iraq over the last ten years and say


we failed to do what we ought to have done as a country to


reconstruct the country properly. But for me, that means we have an


increased responsibility to stop ISIL getting a proper hold. We need


to put the country on a more sustained footing. John Baron, you


are in Westminster. Is Parliament going to be recalled on Friday? As


far as many of us are concerned, there is no need to recall


Parliament, provided that government policy does not change. The


government said it is thinking about its options and it will consult


Parliament if it wants to put a particular case for military


intervention. So unless the government has changed its mind or


it is going to take a course of action which it thinks contravenes


the promise it made to many of us that it will not take action unless


they have recalled parliament, there is no need. So if Parliament is


recalled, your view is that that will be because the Prime Minister


wants to change policy and get parliament to approve the bombing of


Iraq and probably Syria? We have a cast-iron promise from the


government. A number of us secured this, that there will be no military


intervention without Parliament's consent. So if he recalls


Parliament, the implication is that he wants to change policy or has


decided on a policy where he needs the consent of Parliament. Until we


get to that point, there is no need to recall Parliament. The official


line from the government, quite rightly, is that we are reviewing


our options. Only fools rush in, and I'm afraid the UK, in the past, has


been doubtful too often. -- that fool. John Woodcock, do the


Americans really care? They have massive airpower in the region. They


have five Arab allies involved in the air strikes, which is very


symbolic. The French are there as well. Our contribution militarily


would be marginal. They don't need us. Well, the British armed forces


remain one of the best in the world. I think it is in our interest as a


country to be part of this. They don't need our air force. Actually,


if we do intervene, it will be so that we can add value properly. We


have the capacity to do that, and there are wider benefits from us


being part of a coalition which is being underpinned by America, but is


being led by the Arab neighbours of a state which is deeply threatening


to those countries. Thank you both for joining us.


Here is what the Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander had to


say about the latest developments in Syria a few moments ago. ISIL


represent a threat not just a regional security in the Middle


East, but to international security. So we understand and


support the action that has been taken both by the United States and


Arab allies in recent hours. But the Prime Minister and the president are


due in the United Nations this week, so we are now urging that a


resolution be brought to the Security Council of the United


Nations. Let's go now to JoCo, who has


arrived in Manchester. She is lurking somewhere in the conference


centre. In fact, I am right outside the hall


where the speed she will be given later today. A highlight of any


party conference is the leader's speech, so how will Ed Miliband fair


this afternoon? Some say a lot depends on how people perceive the


speech giver. So we have taken a look at Ed's poll ratings over his


time as Labour leader. Ed Miliband wants to pull it out of


the bag with his speech today, but his personal poll ratings are


consistently week. In January 2011, people did not like him. He had an


approval rating of -15, which decreased to -19 by October 2012 and


plummeted to -33 on August 2013. It is now -32. David Cameron fared


better over the same period, with approval ratings of one, -13 and


-11, rising back to -1 this month. Even in Scotland, Ed was unable to


edge in front of the Prime Minister. On the eve of the referendum, 25% of


Scots trust of him, compared with 26% for the Prime Minister. But


perhaps it does not matter what Ed says today. His current popularity


rating may be at -32%, but this has not affected perceptions of Labour.


They are the only party with a positive rating, at a lofty 6%.


Let's talk to Ben Page, the chief executive of Ipsos MORI. So in


short, listening to those figures, people broadly like the band, but


not the lead singer? Absolutely. Ed Miliband's ratings have drifted down


slowly ever since he became leader and are now similar to those of


William Hague before the 2001 general election, which he did not


win. But is there a difference between poor poll ratings for


leaders, who also have poor ratings for the party they represent? Here,


the party is more popular than the leader. Can Labour still win with


those personal poll ratings? It has not been done before, but the fact


that the Labour Party remains popular than the Conservative Party


not in the vote but if you ask people about how they just feel


about the parties, the Conservatives are the most unpopular party. 57% of


us say we don't like them. So although Cameron does better, he is


not President Obama or Tony Blair better. And the party is making up


for some of Ed Miliband's weaknesses. So with this talk about


presidential style elections here in Britain, are you saying that if all


three leaders do not pull brilliantly, Ed Miliband fares


better? Yes. It is not just how you do, but who you are up against. If


your competitor is not brilliant either, you have a better chance


full of the net ratings of all three main party leaders are now some of


the lowest they have ever been. People are also not just voting on


the character of the leaders. Even in 2010 during the leadership


debates, people said they were as likely to vote on the policies of


the party as well as the leaders. Since the 2010 election, perhaps


because it is a ox on all your houses, they are more likely to say


it is about policy. So it does not help, but he is certainly not down


and out. So you are saying that if Labour wins, they win by the fault


rather than taking a nation with an? Yes, this is what we call the war of


the week. How inspiring! That is where we are. All precedents suggest


that this election will be very close. Ed Miliband cannot afford to


mess up this afternoon or on any other occasion. But he is not down


and out, particularly as he only needs a 2.8% lead in the polls to be


in with a chance of winning. What about when people are standing in


the polling booth? If you are not a tribal party voter and you always do


not put a cross by one of the main parties, what will be the deciding


factor? Is it not who you imagine as Prime Minister? There is and to


that. Lynton Crosby, the Conservatives' adviser, will be


trying to focus on that. Labour will try to focus on their competence


over things like the NHS. So it is extra things. -- a mixture of


things. So even if they did not like Ed Miliband, people could easily put


a cross by Labour? Well, they already do in the polls all the


time. His ratings even amongst Labour voters are fairly divided


compared to David Cameron's ratings among conservative voters, and yet


they are ahead in the polls. But about comparisons with Tony Blair?


He rated extremely high. Tony Blair is exceptional. I doubt I will ever


see anybody win three consecutive elections as a Labour leader. His


ratings after he became Prime Minister and running up to becoming


Prime Minister work pretty much unprecedented, far better than Mrs


Thatcher's. Tony Blair was a phenomenon. Ed Miliband may not


compare to that. And he probably would not want to. But does he need


to improve from the -32? He needs to set up to his stall clearly. He


cannot ever be "normal", here's a north London intellectual. I don't


know what advice he is getting about speech delivery and style. These


things do matter. It is like job interviews. They say people make up


their mind in the first 16 seconds, and he needs to work on that.


Now, he has been credited by some for saving the union, because you


can never be sure, but Gordon Brown's late intervention in the


referendum campaign, with his passionate speeches, certainly


brought the no campaign some much-needed energy. So is it time


for the former Prime Minister to make a comeback? We sent Adam out


with his balls to find out what people think.


There is a lot of buzz around Gordon Brown, who found a new lease of life


on the independence referendum campaign trail. But do people want


him on the front line of politics, or should he stay on the


backbenches? It is ironic that David Cameron, of all people, had to ask


Gordon Brown to rescue the no campaign. So a man of his ability


should begin in consideration. I think he should be on the Treasury.


Like Shadow Chancellor? Maybe not, maybe something like a junior. Do


you think Lord Browne would accept a junior spokesperson's roll? I don't


see that -- Gordon Brown. You would have him back straightaway? Yes. You


think history has treated him unfairly? He saved all my savings,


thank you, Gordon. I would say backbench in England, front line for


Scotland. He could make a huge difference in Scotland. Johann


Lamont did not want to do our survey on which is maybe just as well,


because many have said Gordon Brown should replace her. His plans were


excellent for the economy, but people did not believe him. But he


did lose the last election spectacularly. Yet, because people


believed the press. Let's find out if Gordon is selling well here. At


the book shop. Is Gordon Brown's took flying off the shelves? -- his


book? Not especially. A bunch of lads did come in yesterday just to


touch Tony Blair's face. It is true! He just seems to have a


different spunk to him, if that is a word I can use. Is Ed Miliband less


punky? Most definitely. The UN Gordon still speak? -- to you and


Gordon still speak? It was a fair fight, I just felt he would not win


the election for us. I will take that as a no. No, we speak. No hard


feelings? We share a lift and we have a chat, usually about football.


If he comes around the corner, I am going to cry. These of joy? I am not


sure joy is the word. Given in Duncan 's at the moment and the


hardship he is putting a lot of people through, Gordon Brown could


be a good antidote. Have you just fired a ritual reeves on television


and replaced her with Gordon Brown? Ask Rupert Murdoch and his friend


Alex Salmond to play bloody games, don't ask me. Would you like to give


him a toast? To Gordon! Well, the man himself says he is too old to be


a comeback kid and too young to be an elder statesman, but the message


from Labour Party conference is clear. Gordon, they want you back.


I'm joined now by the Shadow Energy Secretary, Caroline Flint.


Do you want Gordon back? I tell you what, it was great having Gordon


back a few weeks ago. He may not be on the frontbench in Parliament but


he is still there when you need him on the frontline of politics. Nobody


can take away from him what a great character but also force he has on


that one. Interesting point. What is the answer to my question. I think


it is about the role he wants to play. We have a team, under Ed


Miliband, and we are going to take that forward. I'm not going to


second-guess what Gordon wants to do. I was asking what you wanted him


toy do. He may be asking now. What should he do? It is good to see you,


Gordon in the frontline of politics. It is good to have you when we need


you and it is good when you are part of my team. You won't answer my


question. I have. Should he come back? I think he has his own future


he is thinking about. I think we have a good team, an excellent team


to lead us into the next general election. You once say he used you


as window dressing Said on that area I disagreed with Gordon because he


wasn't giving women enough prominence in the Cabinet. I stand


by that. I never take away the contribution Gordon played as


Chancellor and our party and last week he stepped up when you needed


him. Why didn't Ed Miliband thank him yesterday when he thanked


everybody else for saving the union. I think he has many times. He didn't


do it yesterday when he was going through the roll call. And the man,


who many here think really saved the union, didn't get a thank you from


Ed Miliband. I think Gordon Brown knows how much he is appreciated. He


was overshadowed by Mr Brown. Ed Miliband had no cut through in


Scotland it was Mr Brown. I tell you who had cut through. When you have


Gordon and Allister and Margaret, playing the role, what has cut


through is the policies we are putting forward which Scots


recognise will be good for them. If that has cut through, why is Ed


Miliband's personal ratings lower than Mr Camerons? Personal ratings,


may not show how people are going to vote but when you look... Lower than


the Prime Minister Some Prime Minister like Margaret Thatcher's


personal ratings haven't been that high. When you did ask people about


who is most in touch, they say Ed Miliband, and when you put forward


the policies helping people, they are more popular than what Cameron


is espousing. Lets look at policies. This mansion tax, how much money


will it raise? We are looking at well over ?1 billion. How much over?


Well, I think it is about ?1.5 billion to ?2 billion. It is not


quite clear at the moment. Hold on. The amount matters. Of course it


matters. You have said this money is going to the NHS, to make up a short


fall Hang on a second. So how much will the NHS get from the mansion


tax? Hang on a second. We have said we will have a mansion tax. That has


been on the stock. What we haven't declareside where the money will be


going. Ed Miliband will be making in his speech this afternoon, details


about the NHS and I will not second guess that. We have been briefed by


the Labour Party that the mansion tax proceeds will go to the NHS.


Have you not been told that? Ed Miliband is making his speech this


afternoon. We have already been told that's what he is going to say. Can


I get back to the money. How much do you think this mansion tax will


raise? If the mansion tax is going to support the NHS, it is not the


only thing we need to look at in terms of the NHS. I understand that.


I will come on to other things. Caroline Flint, you are announcing


policy. You bring in the mansion tax, part of the extra funding for


the NHS, you have a duty to the people watching this programme to


tell them how much will it will bring in. Ed Miliband will be


outlining this afternoon in his speech how the mansion tax will be


used. Can I say about the NHS, part is also saving money currently being


wasted and making sure we get value for bringing health and social care


together and quality and also to make sure we get value for money.


Gep, the kangesds - the Liberal Democrats claimed the mansion tax


would bring in ?1.7 billion. Interesting your policy advisors


saying only ?1.2 billion. Let me ask you this, because it is becoming a


key part of your pitch that Mr Miliband will announce it this


afternoon. How will you go about identifying those houses that are


worth over ?2 million. That will be part of the detail we will be


looking at with Ed Balls and their team and setting out that in due


course. The mansion tax is one part of our policy. You are talking about


it as if it is the only policy. I perfectly accept it is not. It is


not in itself the major plank. How will you identify those homes that


are worth more than ?2 million, without having a property valuation


across the country?. That is something we will be consulting on.


We will outline the details in due course. You must have given thought


to T Thought has been given to it. Share those with me Advice has been


given in different quarters. We have not identified exactly how we will


do that. We will set out our ideas. Consultation will make that happen.


Will the mansion tax apply to Scotland? It is an English situation


at the moment. But we will take soundings from our Scottish


colleagues as well. It won't apply to Scotland? Those are the issues we


have to talk about with our Scottish and Welsh colleagues in the devolved


parliaments and Assembly. If it doesn't apply to Scotland, would it


be right that Scottish MPs could vote on a mansion tax that applies


only to England? I think there is going to be a huge debate over the


course of the next year. Would that be fair? Hang on a second. There


will be a huge debate over the course of the next year about more


devolutionary powers to Scotland but also what should happen in England.


Part that of discussion will undoubtedly be around English MPs


and their power to scrutinise legislation just for England. I'm


sure it'll come out in due course. Let's talk about where the other


money has come from, because NHS England, let's stick with England,


predicts the health service needs an extra ?30 billion over the five or


six years. The mansion tax, when you work it out, may give you about ?5


billion of that. Where is the other ?25 billion coming from? Tlard


issues in the NHS. There is no doubt about that. -- there are hard


issues. Part of the problem is money has been wasted on the


reorganisation but also, I have to say, if I look at something like


health and social care, not just as a politician in Westminster but a


local MP, I know there are lots of savings that can be made by bringing


that together. How much of savings of the ?25 billen still outstanding?


It is about setting out our priorities to tackle this. There is


no simple way for me today to say - this is where you are going to find


T it is good accouncy, value for money and making sense of the


services you provide and making sure the money is not going on corporate


lawyers aimed at putting services out to tender. You said to me, when


we started the interview, it is not just the mansion tax to give us


extra money for the NHS, we should talk about the other areas. I am now


asking you, where does the other ?25 billion come from? Part of what we


can contribute in the NHS is making better use of health and social care


where there is a lot of repetition. How much of that will be the ?25


billion? More of the details of this policy Ed Miliband will be outlining


this afternoon. That's for him to announce. You can't tell me where


the other ?25 billion is coming from I'm telling you, there is a speech


this afternoon where Ed Miliband will outline what we can do to


support the NHS going forward. It is a huge challenge, you are right.


Unforetoon ately. Will he tell us where the other ?25 billion is


coming from? Despite organisation, we find we are losing money and


people can't see a GP and waiting times are going up. I understand all


of that, I wanted answers on the money. Anyway, we'll wait for the


speech and see if it is more illuminating. Good.


As we talked about earlier the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,


Rachel Reeves, had a tricky exchange on the radio this morning.


Yesterday afternoon, however, she had an easier ride


Be incoming Labour Government will have to make tough choices on


resources and priorities. -- an incoming Labour Government. But


we'll tackle the reasons for the rising Social Security bill by


building an economic recovery that leaves no-one behind, which is how


we can share a system that is fair and affordable so we can keep up our


fight against child and pensioner poverty, upholding and renewing the


principles upon which our welfare state was built. Responsibility and


opportunity for all who can work, dignity for those who cannot. Hard


work and contribution, recognised and rewarded. Those are my values


and this is my mission. So, this is how we will deliver it. Step one, a


compulsory jobs guarantee to help all young people into work, so


no-one is left be unemployment benefits for years on end. Step two,


a basic skills test so we intervene early to tackle skills gaps so


no-one is left for a life on benefits. Step three, a youth


allowance that means young people who lack key qualifications are


expected and supported to get the skills they need. Step four, replace


the failing work programme, with power devolved to local councils and


communities, rather than topdown contracts signed in Whitehall.


APPLAUSE Step five, ensure that the pensions


market works for all working people, so we can save for our retirement


with confidence. Step six, ensure that disabled people who can work,


get the tailored support that they need.


Right. That was Rachael Reeves this morningment let's go back to Jo.


-- this morning. UKIP is just the Conservatives


problem - right? Nigel Farage has often claimed that


UKIP also appeals to a large number of traditional Labour


supporters as well. So, has Labour awoken too late


to the threat UKIP might pose? They may not take any of Labour's


seats, but in key marginals Labour need to


win, they could take vital votes. Giles has been to Thurrock where


Labour are having to battle Thurrock in Essex has had better


times. Deepwater docks that hired workers to haul goods, not shopping


and paid good wages to pay for T but memberisation and zero hours


contracts means less so, now. It has a rapedly changing community and


immigration is a word as common here as the desire to make your heritage


very clear. A population that has now had a


Labour and Tory MP is being fiercely wooed by UKIP. One ex-Labour man is


on the council for them. We are niend this country with regards


aschools, housing, jobs, you name T -- we are behind in this country.


You only have to look around. You go to any building site you wish and


you would be lucky to hear an English voice. We don't blame the


guys coming over, obviously from where they are from, they are trying


to better themselves but what about us? What about our people? Surely we


should come first. Labour, on the ground here, are well aware of those


attitudes. If Thurrock contains enough blue-collar, fewer


qualifications working white people, who once sat comfortableably as


Labour, it also happens that's the same demographic who have the


potential to see UKIP as an option. UKIP fancy their chances here at the


general election but some Labour-supporting analysts say the


real risk here for the party and in other seats like it, is Labour's


challenge to the Conservatives - whose majority here is just 93 -


gets blunted by UKIP. If that happened in enough marginals Labour


want for a majority, it might cost them Number Ten. It it is not just


UKIP who say they are a threat to Labour. Serious Labour people who


want a victory at the next election have been krnching numbers and


looking at this for sometime. What -- crunching numbers. And what is


interesting, when they presented this to the hierarchy at the top,


they have told me that sometimes, at best the reaction is luke warm, at


worst, openly hostile. At door-to-door level, Labour's


candidate knows general offers and national promises alone aren't going


to cut it and here, issues need to be confronted head-on. I think one


of the most important things we have done since 2010 is admit we made


mistakes on immigration. We did make mistakes on immigration. Let me make


it clear - there is nothing in Labour's values or policy that


should be in favour of unlimited immigration. There is nothing


progressive about that as a policy because the unfairness and of the


impact are really adverse for communities that really struggle.


The poor, the people who don't have very many skills and so forth. We


always believe in managed migration and that needs to be very, very


clearly said, we have learned the lessons of what we did when it went


wrong and we are going to do it differently in the future. A were


posed policy of banning agencies that hire foreign-only workers is an


example of how the campaign in author rock has gone some way to


forging Labour tactics on policy on how to hold on to and convince those


who might be tempted by UKIP but those who pound the pavements can


vansing here know this is a serious task and it is not going to get any


easier in the run of had up to the election next year.


And I'm joined now by the Labour MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk.


How worried are you about UKIP? Well, they certainly pose a


challenge to the Labour Party, as they do to the Conservative Party.


We can't be complacent about them. They are opportunists, and they will


try and score points and try and win votes. We have to work hard against


them. Have you woken up too late to the threat, though? I think we need


to be aware of the threat from UKIP. More than aware. Don't you have to


be combatting it? Absolutely. I think from Ed Miliband today we will


see a raft the policies in terms of the National Health Service,


apprenticeships and house building, and these are the policies that will


appeal to people but we still need to be stronger in terms of


immigration and welfare reform. There is still much to talk about.


But I think we'll get a strong flavour for it today from Ed. Let's


talk about the offer being made, who does Ed Miliband have to appeal to,


in your mind, for Labour to hold on to those seats in the north, where


UKIP are posing a challenge? He has to appeal to everybody. With UKIP


coming into the frame, which could see interesting results. There are


disaffected voters who were anti-the last government. UKIP could take


votes from the Tories and from labour, so we have to work hard for


each vote and aid is committed to doing that. The blue-collar vote.


What direct appeal must he make to those sorts of voters? He has to


talk strongly about immigration and welfare reform. He also has to talk


about what it means to be English and how important it is to be


devolved in the regions. Let's come on to devolution, because that issue


has exploded onto the scene since the result of the Scottish


referendum. At a fringe meeting at this conference, you said Ed


Miliband has to come out with a road map for English devolution in his


speech, or he is in trouble. What should Labour's position be? We


should talk about key principles. We should say it is not acceptable for


Scottish MPs to vote on English-only laws. We should also say we are not


happy with the Barnett formula and how that arranges money in favour of


Scotland but against places like Rochdale. We also want some momentum


in relation to devolution. We can get down to the detail to replace


what we currently have. So you agree with English votes for English laws,


which would of course deprive many Labour Scottish MPs in any future


Parliament of voting on those issues. We were slow off the mark


and we allowed Cameron to get his foot in the door and make his


offer. But all he has offered is very limited. It is just about the


Westminster bubble, moving the deck chairs around in Parliament. People


want more than that. The English people have been talking about this


for some time and they want government to be closer to the


people. The principal has to be that Scottish MPs should not vote on


English-only legislation. But the future could then be very difficult


for Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister of the UK Government when he is


reliant on those MPs in Scotland. You would not have a majority on


things like the Budget. David Cameron set out his all in terms of


devolution. He is playing party politics with it, because he knows


it works to the Tories' advantage. I'm talking about what is best for


England. We want to devolve powers right down to the people. I am sure


Ed Miliband will say something about it today.


Let's pick up on some of these issues now the Shadow Communities


Secretary Hilary Benn. Lebron P Simon Danczuk was saying it is not


acceptable for Scottish MPs to vote on English-only laws. There is an


issue here, we have accepted that. The Prime Minister has not made a


specific proposal. What does his phrase, English votes for English


laws mean? It is not the only anomaly in Westminster. For example,


as a Leeds MP, I cannot vote on transport issues to do with London


because it has been devolved to the mayor. London MPs can vote on


transport issues in Leeds. So there are a number of is to look at. The


Prime Minister was wrong to try and link that honouring the vow to the


people of Scotland that was made in the run-up to the referendum. He has


now had to row back from that. If you are going to change our


Constitution, to answer a question that has been around for 120 years,


you have to take people with you. But it is not complicated. All you


would need is a standing order to say that if the legislation does not


apply to Scotland, that Scottish MPs to vote on it. But would that be on


second reading? It would be throughout. Surely that would only


be democratic? What do you then do, as Simon acknowledged in that


interview when the question was put to him, the Prime Minister has a


majority in the United Kingdom but did not have a majority in England?


You cannot have two centres of power in a single Parliament. Well, it


would mean that the Prime Minister of the day did not have a majority


to enforce all of his or her English agenda and would have to do what


they do in Europe every day, which is come to some agreement to put


together a coalition of support. That is a recipe for deadlock. If


the Prime Minister really thought this was the way forward, he could


argue for an English Parliament. I don't support that, and he says he


does not support that. But if you have not got a majority in England,


save for your education reforms, and you could only put in these


education reforms by depending on Scottish MPs, where is the fairness


of the democracy in that? But how can you explain to the British


people in those circumstances? In fairness, there have only been two


occasions and is 1919 when there has not been a majority in both the


United Kingdom and England. That was between 1916 four and 1966 and


during the elections in 1970. The Prime Minister would have to say,


sorry, I cannot help you because that is being dealt with by another


centre of power. You cannot run a single Parliament on that basis. But


surely the principle is right that if you do not win a majority of MPs


in England, to implement the English part of your manifesto, you should


not be allowed to implement it? What about the West Ealing question? It


does matter. You have to have an answer to the West Ealing question.


It is a principle, because you have got two examples of voting on things


that are going to affect their constituents. Inviting William Hague


to Chequers and saying, let's sort it out now, is not the way to deal


with changes to the British constitution. But the poll suggests


that more people want the English votes for English laws solution than


they want more layers of government. The last time you tried it, you lost


out by 78% of the people against you. But we are not proposing new


layers of government. We are proposing to devolve to the existing


authorities. Manchester has commanding authority, and Leeds has


got one as well. These are local elected representatives think


central government, give us the tools, and we will do the job. But


that is decentralisation rather than devolution. How does it benefit you


if you live in Lincolnshire or a area not covered by that? I want


those areas to be covered. The government has failed to say to


rural England, you get organised and we will devolve power to you. This


is an offer for all parts of England. You are on the wrong side


of public opinion on this. There was overwhelming support for English


votes for English laws. Indeed, most Scots think it is only fair that


Scottish MPs should not vote in English-only matters. I acknowledge


that there is an issue here that we need to look at, but you have to


have a proper process for doing it. The Prime Minister has not brought


forward a specific proposal. There are other anomalies within the


system. We need a national debate and we need to reach an agreement.


But at the same time, Ed's speech will be about what will really make


a difference to the lives of my constituents. Will they have higher


pay if they are on the minimum wage? Will they have an energy price


freeze? Are we going to build more homes? Are we going to provide


childcare? Those are the things that matter.


Now, early this morning, the Shadow Transport Secretary Mary Creagh


outlined Labour's plans on transport. She lauded Manchester's


proud rail history. We are sitting in what used to be a railway


station, reminding constituents of that. Here is what she had to say.


Today, I will set out how Ed Miliband's Labour government will


deliver the big change we need in transport. It changed to deliver our


national infrastructure. Big change to tackle the cost of transport and


to give London-style transport powers to other areas. Big change to


make our roads safer. A Labour government will deliver the biggest


reform of the railways since privatisation to deliver a better


deal for taxpayers and passengers. We will bring Network Rail under new


passenger rail body together to coordinate track and train


operations and to look after passengers. We will tackle the


monopoly market for rail rolling stock. A Labour government will cap


fares, legislate to allow a public sector operators to be able to take


on train operators and we will devolve decisions on rail services


much closer to the communities they serve. We will put the passenger


back at the heart of the railway, not the profit motive. Transport


delivers not just economic prosperity, but also social justice.


Opposition has sharpened, not hold our ambition. Only a Labour


government will make the big change we need to deliver the


infrastructure to support British jobs and growth. Only a Labour


government will make the big change to give cities the powers to bring


back the buses and create a railway that puts passengers before of it.


Only a Labour government will make the big change to tackle the cost of


living crisis, reduce road congestion and give everyone the


freedom to travel safely. Let's get on with it.


That was Mary Creagh. Let's go back to JoCo.


Now we come to the serious part of the show. We are joined by Matt


Ford, a former Labour Party adviser and now comedian. I don't know what


made you turn to comedy after being Labour Party adviser. Does it feel


here that this is the eve of a general election? I have to become


for what I say. But of course it doesn't. Why not? There is not much


of an atmosphere and we all know why that is, because Tony Blair is not


here. Are you missing him? I miss the protesters. Isn't this buddy as


she goes? Know, get some protesters out, it makes people excited. In


terms of Ed Miliband, what has he got to do? What tone has he got to


strike in the hall? He has to set out some sort of vision. The problem


is that I struggled to be inspired by him, and I feel bad for saying


that. I just hope his delivery improves. What sort of delivery


should it be? The way he talks, he is quite camp. Come on a


conference. I want him to do more of that. It makes him funny and


likeable. How does it compare to Tony Blair's delivery? Tony Blair


was bring much about control and emotion, big stuff. Sounding like it


was from the heart. Are you sure you should still be at the Labour Party


conference? My colleagues have said I am not welcome. What about John


Prescott? I will be interviewing him. I will do a bit of stand-up


first and then interview Lescott about what he made of today's speech


and the Blair years. If you give them enough time, you get good


answers out of them. Has he become the darling of the Labour Party


conference? Yes, because he was always outrageous anyway, but now he


is off the leash, he can say what he likes. One wore impression of Ed


Miliband? I really want to sort at Britain's problems, but look, it is


a Syria is issue. And back to Andrew. It is always great to be on


the show and it is great to see you again. I will see you next year,


when I am still leader of the opposition.


Thank you, Ed Miliband(!). We will be back in an hour, with full


coverage of the real Ed Miliband's conference speech through till 345


p.m. . That is on BBC Two. The one O'Clock News is starting on BBC One.


Come back here at two o'clock for further conference coverage.




Download Subtitles