23/09/2014 Daily Politics

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.

Bye-bye.