26/09/2014 Daily Politics

This is not a threat on the far side of the world. Left unchecked we'll

face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean and

bordering a NATO member with a declared and proven determination to

attack our country and our people. Afternoon folks,

welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron has just told the

House of Commons that Britain must join the international military

action against Islamic State The Prime Minister urges MPs to back

a Commons' motions authorising the RAF to join America, France and Arab

nations in airstrikes against ISIS. Labour will support action in Iraq -

but not Syria - as the Defence Decretary warns that UK involvement

will be for "the long haul". Also on today's programme -

UKIP announce a series of tax policies as the party meets for

its autumn conference in Doncaster. We'll talk to UKIP's

deputy leader live. All that in the next hour and with

us for the duration we're joined by the Guardian's Zoe Williams

and the Spectator's Hugo Rifkind. So, just over an hour ago the House

of Commons was recalled for an emergency debate on British

involvement in airstrikes against so-called Islamic State

militants in Iraq. The Prime Minister got to

his feet at 10.30 and set out He said Islamic State posed a direct

threat to the British people and that military action against IS will

take "not just months but years". He said the brutality of Islamic

State militants was "staggering." We'll bring you some of what the PM

has been saying in just a moment. With both front benches supporting

intervention, there's no doubt the motion will be passed, though

there will be rebels on both sides. British airstrikes could

begin before the day is out. Is this sensible, Zoe? Sensible,

wow. There is a word. The diagnosis of is correct, it is an appalling

group, it is an appalling situation, there is no reason to believe their

ambitions aren't what they say they are. Their other ambition is to draw

the West into conflict, as Mali did. All the techniques and all the

pantomime brutality is the same. It is a kind of stated intent to mire

the West in a new Gulf War. I think you need to consider whether you are

just playing into their hands. The British political establishment

regards this as a really important decision. Does anybody really, in

the rest of the world? It is an important decision for Britain T

makes precious little difference to the Islamic state whether Britain is

involved or not. But it matters to Britain whether or not we continue

to have this involved role at America's shoulder. We are way

behind this time. The French are in before. Five Arab nations are

involved. It is their part of the world. The British contribution is

going to be six ageinger to err tore tie know jets. -- six ageing Tor

anyway doe jets. -- Tornadoe jets. There isn't much Cameron could have

done. Are you surprised that Mr Miliband is backing the Government

on this? The problem is, with Labour's situation, that by backing

the Government, they bring their Syria position into scrutiny. What

were the principles by which you refuse intervention in Syria, if

they don't hold here? You are supporting America's intervention in

Syria? A brutal dictator, a savage situation. Then, I think they voted

against in caped of - to redeem themselves over the 2003 Iraq war.

-- voted against in case of. Now they have done all that works

everyone seems to be going in on Al-Sadr's side - Assad's side in

order to fight IS. It looks like a shambles, and unfortunately for the

Labour Party, more of a shambles on their side than it does on

Cameron's. The Defence Minister, the Government, Mr Cameron saying we are

in for the long haul, this could be years. Well, on what basis could

Britain sustain years of this? We only have seven combat-ready

squadrons and we have very little ordnance N Libya there were --.

Ordnance N Libya there were 250 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired.

Britain accounted for seven. I thought Miliband made a good point.

He said there is a world of intervention designed to destabilise

a government in the hope that something comes better and one to

support a government. Labour's position makes more sense than many

credit with. But again, it is a question of whether Britain can have

an effective role. The Saudis have 300 state-of-the-art aircraft. It is

bigger Air Force than the RAF. Where are they? Other than one or two

tokens? It is the bombing Prince. They support ISIS. That's where they

are. They used to. The government doesn't now. They created a monster

earlier on Who hasn't created a monster? That's the problem. ISIS

are using American arms. That's what they took from the Iraqi Army. The

Americans didn't give them the arms This is part of why they keep trying

to draw the West into the debate. What is the evidence they are trying

to draw us in, as opposed to creating a caliphate. You said that

twice. I don't see the evidence. They don't want to be bombed by

F-22s It is a given. Why else would they concentrate on Western hostages

and sending very... Because that's what they do. They are not

concentrating on Western hostages. The media is concentrating on

Western Hodges. -- western hostages. There are Arabs being beheaded and

crucified every day Why would they send those videos to Obama, it is a

standard tactic? It was said when the Americans invaded the fist time

- you have the watches but we have the time. They know they can draw in

firepower and they will be there in ten years when the Western

governments have left. It would have been relatively easy for them to put

out the message - we are establishing our horrific state and

that's not your problem N in the -- in the manner in which the Taliban

tried to do first of all. You are assuming too much agency and plan

here to what is essentially a rag tag of militants and terrorists A

very large rag tag, though. Absolutely. It is well-established

this. Isn't a new group distinct from Al-Qaeda, is it? It is all the

same people, led by a different man. It's Morphed. OK. Let's move on, we

need to take more of a look at the detail of the story.

We Z -- we do.

So let's take a look at this story in more detail.

The motion being debated in Parliament today is narrow

in remit - confining airstrikes against Islamic State to Iraq.

It also rules out ground troops in combat operations.

The Government has said that another Commons? vote would be required

However, earlier this week, Labour leader Ed Miliband suggested

that such action would require a UN Security Council resolution to

The first aircraft to be deployed would likely be six RAF Tornado GR4

fighter bombers, currently stationed in Cyprus.

US Central Command has so far conducted a total

America has the support of five Arab countries for the airstrikes that

And France has launched airstrikes against Islamic State over Iraq

but is considering extending them to Syria.

In the last few minutes we can tell you Denmark is also to commit seven

F-15 fighter jets. Well David Cameron took 45 minutes

to set out the case for action. Isil has murdered one British

hostage and is threatening the lives of two more. The first terrorist

attacks in Europe have taken place with the attack on the Jewish museum

in Brussels. Security Services have disrupted six known plots in Europe

as well as a terrorist attack in Australia, aimed at civilians

including British and American tourists. Isil, is a terrorist

organisation unlike those we have dealt with before. The brutality is

staggering, beheadings, Crucifixions, the gouging out of

eyes, use of rain as a weapon and slaughtering of children. They all

belong in the dark ages. It is not just the brutality. It is backed by

billions of dollars and has captured an arsenal of the most modern

weapons. In the space of a few months, ISIL has taken control of a

territory. It has already attacked Lebanon and boasts of its designs

right up to the Turkish border. This is not a threat on the far side of

the world. Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the

shores of the Mediterranean, and bordering a NATO member, with a

declared and proven determination to attack our country, and our people.

This is not the stuff of fantasy. It is happening in front of us and we

need to face up to it. Next, is there a clear,

comprehensive plan? Yes. It starts at home with tough, uncompromising

action to prevent attacks and hunt down those who are planning them. As

the House knows, we are introducing new powers, these include

strengthening our ability to seize passports and to stop suspects

travel. It includes stripping British nationality from dual

nationals and ensuring airlines comply with our no-fly list. In all

of this we are being clear about the cause of the terrorist threat we

face. As I have said before, that means defeating the poisonous

ideology of Islamist extremism by tackling all extremists not just the

violent extremists. So we are banning preachers of hate, and

stopping people from inciting hatred in our schools, universities and

prisons. Now, of course, some will say any action you take will further

radicalise young people. I have to say this is a counsel of despair.

Threat of radicalisation is already here. Young people have left our

country to go and fight with these extremists. We must take action at

home. But we also also have a comprehensive strategy to defeat

these extremists abroad. Can I ask a question.

Two questions he has not put to himself - how long will this war

last and when will mission creep start? Well, let me answer that very

directly. This is going to be a mission that will take not just

months but years but I believe we have to be prepared for that

commitment. And the reason for that, is I think, quite rightly, America,

Britain and others, are not contemplating putting combat troops

on the ground. There will be troops on the ground but they will be Iraqi

troops, Kurdish troops and we should be supporting them in all the ways

that I will describe. Labour are backing British

airstrikes in Iraq, but not Syria. ! -- Intervention has risks but a

dismembered Iraq will be more dangerous for Britain. I felt

unchecked, as my honourable friend said -- Isil, unchecked means more

persecution of the be innocent. This is this point - if we say it people

we will pass by on this one t makes it far harder to persuade other Arab

countries to play their part. People across the House has been saying it

has to be done in the neighbourhood, we have to engage the region, but if

we say - it is nothing to do with us, we will not intervene, it surely

means we have less moral authority to say - we want you to play your

part as W finally, Mr Speaker, we --. As well. Finally we should pride

ourselves in our part of internationalism. That's when

Britain is at its best. I want to say something about the underlying

reasons and I think we should confront it directly, the 2003 war

in Iraq. I understand why some who were in the House at the time will

wonder if this is a repeat of that experience. In my view it is not,

and it is worth setting out why. First, as the Prime Minister said,

this case is about supporting a democratic state. It is not about

overturning an existing regime and trying to build a new one from the

rubble. A much harder undertaking. Second, there is no debate for legal

action in Iraq as there was in 20003. Thirdly, there is no argument

bomb whether military action is a last resort. Whatever side of this

debate we are on, nobody is saying let's negotiate with IS. They are

not people you can negotiate with. Fourth, there has been brought

international support, not a divided world. All 23 Arab states and the

Arab League providing support and five Arab states taking part in

action. Fifth, there is no question of British ground troops being

deployed. So, I understand the wariness there will be in the House

and in the country about 2003 and whether this is a repeat but on

those five grounds, it is not, and it is demonstrably not.

We can talk now to our assistant political editor, Norman Smith,

We have heard a flavour there from David Cameron and Ed Miliband. Can

you give us a feel of the tone of the debate and the interventions

from MPs, most of whom we assume are backing this motion?

They may be backing it but there is no disguising widespread unease

about where this is going to end. My sense is one should not be fooled by

the skill of the majority Mr Cameron will get tonight. There is real

disquiet about where this is going to end up. If you listen to

Conservative MPs, many of them take a view that the strategy at the

moment is half baked. And why? Because it is confined to Iraq. They

make the point that ISIS's main base is in Syria and in time we will have

to go into there. On the Labour side, there is a fear of Mission

Creep. Mr Cameron sketched out an inordinately long campaign. That's

going on for years, but he said that future prime ministers would also

have to confront Islamist extremism. Already we can see one clear line of

disagreement are merging between Mr Cameron and Ed Miliband, and that is

Syria. Ed Miliband was clear that if there is any move to go into Syria,

which Mr Cameron believes there is, he would want UN authorisation. He

questions, who are the ground troops who are going to fight in Syria? And

he doubts there is a route map. Quickly, you can see how this

consensus over the immediate action in Iraq could fracture as soon as we

go beyond that. Against the background you have just explained,

of disquiet amongst MPs, give us an idea of the scale of what Britain is

contributing militarily compared to the US, for example? It is

miniscule. We are talking about half a dozen Tornado jets flying off from

Cyprus. It is symbolic. It is meant to be politically symbol. Mr

Cameron's view is that if we are serious, we will have to engage in

Syria. That is where the real fighting is taking place at the

moment. Mr Carman was clear that he believes there is more we can do. #

Mr Cameron. He knows he has to come back to Parliament to get the

authorisation and he may face a much tougher struggle. Very briefly, he

did say that if he thought there was a pressing humanitarian situation

and British interests were at stake, he would act first and then come to

parliament for approval. Unhappiness about that. What was the reaction?

That opens up a completely different line of attack, if he can go ahead

under the guise of humanitarian reasons or national-security, he can

go ahead and Britain will join the bombing in Syria before they get any

say-so from Parliament. He was picked up on that by Peter appeared

-- Peter Hain, who believes we will have to go ahead on Syria. Mr

Cameron said that we would have to act but he would come quickly to the

House of Commons to seek authorisation. I would be careful

about reading too much into it. I think he believes there is a

pressing emergency, where the ministry are saying, we have to go

now, and he expects that within hours parliament would confirm the

action. Looking at the other players involved, they are not having to go

through quite the same parliamentary procedure as Britain, when they are

contributing a small might militarily? No one is out from under

the shadow of Iraq. The debate is shaped by the Tony Blair experience

and that is why the government have gone down this very meticulous and

painstaking approach of coming up with a very tightly circumscribed

motion. Only in Iraq, no ground troops, publishing the legal advice,

because they looked at what happened in 2003 to make sure they do not

make the mistakes again. Why are we having to go through this process?

Because of Iraq and Tony Blair. What about the party divisions. OK, they

will pass the motion today, but with divisions within the Labour Party

and Conservative Party, presumably Labour have more of a divide than

the Tories? This could become a real issue for Ed Miliband. The party, at

the moment, the number of people who will vote against tonight are a

campaign group plus a few others, 20 or 30. But there are many who are

deeply uneasy about why they are going. The reason for that is Iraq

and Tony Blair. It is scarred on the soul of the Labour Party. That is

remembered deeply. If we are into another protracted conflict I would

not be surprised if user opposition within the Labour Party here and

also, within the country. You would wonder what the appetite would be

amongst Labour Party activists and supporters for engaging in another

long conflict. Lets talk briefly about the Liberal Democrats. We have

not heard from Nick Clegg and we know they had a firm and her war

stance against Iraq. -- anti-war stance. Now, they are supporting

this? We have only heard from Menzies Campbell at the moment but I

would be interested to hear what Charles Kennedy will make of this.

Nick Clegg when doing his radio show yesterday was indicating that he

also thought they would have to go into Syria. I wonder whether we

might see a gap emerging there between Nick Clegg and those around

him, and the party in the country. One of the reasons the Lib Dems

gained so much support in recent elections was because of their

stance on Iraq. If they do a flip over that, it will only hack away

even more at Lib Dem electoral support. Thank you.

Vernon Coaker joins us live from Westminster. Welcome to the

programme. The Americans have been bombing Iraq for six weeks, with the

most sophisticated air strikes that exist anywhere in the world, yet

Islamic has not lost an inch of ground. What difference will six

British tornadoes make? What has happened as a result of the US air

strikes and Britain, if the vote goes the right way to date will join

in, has been to stabilise the situation and prevent the further

advantage of ISIL in Iraq and as a consequence, give an opportunity to

the ground troops in terms of the Iraqi National Army and the

Peshmerga to organise strikes. Also, they can push back I sought when the

time is right. You say stabilise the situation, Islamic State has not

given up ground and two days ago they captured an Iraqi army base

west of Baghdad. In what way are the strikes making a difference and why

would the tornadoes make a difference? If it weren't for the

air strikes, the situation in Iraq would be far worse in terms of the

advance of ISIL. That is what the Iraqi government have said and what

the Kurdistan regional government have said as well. They have

welcomed the air strikes and said they have made a significant

difference to what has happened. It has given an opportunity for forces

in Iraq to regroup and push ISIL back. I put the point, you can only

imagine what the situation would have been without US air strikes.

The Americans do not think the Iraqi army will not be in shape to fight

properly this side of New Year? Everyone knows there is work to be

done with the Iraqi army. How long? That is a matter for the military

advisers. They have said not this side of New Year. The Iraqi army is

still losing to Islamic State and now six British tornadoes have

become part of its air force. As soon as possible, the Iraqi National

Army will be put into shape to enable them to push back. The

changes I refer to, the Iraqi government needs to demonstrate to

the Iraqi army and the people that they are an inclusive government and

different to the last of mud. That will help to restore morale in the

army, which the air strikes are also doing. It is an important part of

that range of different actions that are being taken, with the Iraqi

government and the Iraqi National Army and the Peshmerga, to push ISIL

back. Do you believe we could be in for the long haul? We are talking

about years, not just months. What we need to recognise is that this is

an action that we are going to be involved with and the important

thing to stay is that we would want to see that through. We would want

to be successful in what we are setting out to do. How long that

takes is a difficult thing to say. Certainly, we need to be sure that

we can work with the military so that success comes as soon as. How

many combat ready error squadrons does the RAF have? There are three

squadrons of tornadoes. On which is going to the knacker's guard next

year? Three squadrons of unavailable to the RAF. -- three squadrons of

available. There are six at the moment, and there is a squadron in

Scotland and in Afghanistan. I am sure the RAF will plan to ensure

there are as many aircraft as we need available. Are the American

attacks on Syria illegal? We believe they are illegal and that is why we

have supported them. -- they are LEGAL. We are looking at a

resolution. Why do you imply that it would be illegal to attack without a

UN resolution? What I said was there a legitimacy for keeping the

broadest possible support for any action in Syria. What we have said

is that we have laid out certain criteria with respect to Iraq. Those

criteria have been met as far as Iraq is concerned. Syria is a much

more complex situation. We have not been invited in the way that we have

in Iraq and we need to find a way forward that is inclusive and will

make a real difference, and that is inclusive and will make a real

difference, but is your party's position that the British cannot

take part in action against Syria unless there is a UN resolution? We

will make a decision... But you talked about a UN resolution, is it

your position that you will need a UN resolution before there can be

attacks on ice is in Syria? -- ISIS in Syria? Having sought the

resolution, and hopefully it will be passed, we can make a judgement at

the time. Of course we need a UN resolution. If it is not passed,

does it mean Labour will not support attacks on Syria? Labour would make

a judgement at that time as to what to do with respect to the situation

in Syria. The debate today is about Iraq. What happens in Syria will be

a matter to discuss at a future date to see if the criteria we have set

out has been met or not. If you make a UN resolution a stumbling block,

you are effectively allowing Vladimir Putin to take hostage

British foreign defence policy, are due? Not at all. If he does it, you

won't do it. We are seeking to maintain support in parliament, in

Britain, and across the region for any action that is taken in Syria.

Obviously, that is an important thing to do. We have all seen and

heard about the war. There is a sense in which international

institutions are not being listened to and that we do not go to them.

The UN is the biggest and most important multilateral organisation

that there is and that is why it is important for us to be seen to be

using every single avenue we can to come to an arrangement by which we

can command the broadest possible support. That is what the British

people expect. The British people expect lots of things but above all,

clarity, particularly when it comes to war or peace. I ask again,

because I am still not clear on the party policy, if there is a UN

resolution to take the war into Syria and the resolution is

defeated, almost certainly because of a Russian veto, what would your

party's policy then be? We would make a judgement according to the

criteria we have laid out. You know the criteria, what would the policy

be? It would be to make a judgement at that time. Why can you not make

it now? You know the facts. I would suggest that we do not know and we

would have to look at them as they evolve over the next days and weeks.

We have to maintain the criteria we have too prissy the UN route. Today

is about Iraq and that is the important thing we need to discuss.

Why are we bothering? Our military commitment is minimal, we are coming

in late, other countries have stepped up to the plate, Britain's

participation is not essential, we are already very war weary. Why are

we bothering to get involved? First of all, because we have been asked

to by the Iraqi government. Secondly, given the careful way in

which we have arrived at this particular position, that commands

the general support of the British people. Thirdly, all of us recognise

that we are in a situation where faced with a barbaric terrorist

organisation determined to set a caliphate, that Britain in terms of

regional and national security interests needs to be involved to

help combat that threat. You say all that, and it may be true, but at a

lot of people forget is not. If it is a Barry caliphate, if you think

we need to step up, we should not -- what is the point? The point is to

make sure we stop their advantage in Iraq and, working with the Iraqi

National Army and the Peshmerga, we will restore the authority of the

Iraqi government across the whole of the territory and minty and the

territorial integrity of Iraq. That is important and that will help

stability and help security and that will help keep our streets safe as

well. Today's recall of Parliament comes

slap-bang in between Labour and the Conservative's autumn party

conferences. It also happens to be the start

of UKIP's conference at Doncaster Racecourse - prompting senior UKIP

figures to suggest that David Cameron had timed the recall to push

their party out of the headlines. In a moment I'll be talking to

UKIP's deputy leader about the party's

fresh policy announcements on tax. First though, Giles Dilnot reports

on UKIP's growing hopes of success UKIP's day at the races is not a

conference of standing still. This is a party that thinks it's made

politics a four-horse race and is galloping with gusto to embarrass

its bigger thoroughbred rivals. Its winning projection is - on On the

east coast of Kent, on the he is Stoury. I think they are realistic.

If you take those seats and some of the others across the south-east and

into Essex, I think realistically, probably 20. That buoyant mood

belies a gamble. Can they truly breakthrough? Can they, as they

boast, hurt Labour, too? Pockets we have had in the past. I think you

will see whole swathes joining together. There is a real

revolution. They have to be frightened. They know they are. So,

how many UKIP MPs might there be? Or will their much-vaunted earthquake

be no more than staggering into second and disappointk the thousands

they claim to speak for. In -- disappointing. In any generation the

stakes are high. UKIP's opponents say they ared grand standing if they

think they are going -- athey are grand standing if think they are

they are going to threaten government. They say they are grown

up. Part of being a grown-up party is understanding, it doesn't matter

how much ambitious you have n a first past the post system, you have

to be realistic. -- UKIP has approached a threshold in its

approach to the general election. It is more realistic about what it can

achieve. It is no longer talking about 40-seats plus, it is talking

about the region of five to eight seats. Even that is a little high

but it is plausible they will walk away from the general election with

around three to five seats. That is That's a hard message it get across

to a party impatient and enthusiastic and some say - why

crush that feeling? Lets gae back to May of this year, in terms of the --

let's go back. In terms of the proportion of votes we had and we

were the lead party in terms the European elections. I don't think

any party would be acting responsibly, if they tried to push

down and say - that is no longer worth generating, innovating and

trying to capture. The big fear of UKIP is coming out with the general

election, with something like 15% of the vote and a lot of second places,

not being able to go over the tlien get the seats. Having said that, the

big message coming down from high in UKIP to grassroots' activists is -

be realistic. I was at a session this afternoon where an organiser

said to activist said - don't worry about losing the seat in 2015. Think

about 2020. What might boost the maths right now, of course, would be

proving its threat to Labour in a by-election. Of course, the question

going around is - what are the odds on another Tory dark horse waiting

to defect to their stable, especially if they burst on to the

political track to ride roughshod over the start of the Tories'

conference next week. UKIP's deputy leader, Paul Nuttal

joins us right now. Welcome back. How many seats is UKIP

aiming to win at the general election in May? I don't know. How

many are you hoping for? It is a long time in politics. We don't

know. What we cannot do, as we have in the past, where we have a scatter

gun approach where we spread our resources and money thinly right

across the country. We have to target sensibly. There has been a

lot of region into what our target seats should be. We will be

ploughing people and money into those seats. On a good day I think

we could do well and send people back to the House of Commons. On a

good day - presumably Clacton will be one of them and presumably the

seat that Nigel Farage will stand will be another, that's two. Are you

thinking much beyond that? Absolutely. We are thinking well

more than two. How many more? Jo, if you look at the places where UKIP

has done well in the council elections and where we now have

bridge heads, right up the east coast of the country, I think there

are a good number of seats ready to go UKIP next year. OK, so talking

about ten seats, maybe? Well, possibly. It could even be more. At

the moment we are fighting a by-election in Middleton and Heywood

and making serious in-roads into the Labour vote there. Who knows, as I

say, a year is a long time in politics. I know you are going to

say I'm talking about a proper politician now, but I will not make

predictions. You are becoming part of the establishment now. Please

don't say that. One of your new policies is to scrap all green

taxes, is that correct? Yes. What green taxes do, in essence, they

hurt the poorest in society. You just look at one of the campaigns

that we ran in the European elections. We equate that green

taxes are putting around ?450 own energy bills across the country. It

hurts pensioners, students and the unemployed T doesn't hurt rich

people. We want to do away with that. -- it doesn't hurt. We want to

set out a fairer tax system for the country. Tell me, what counts in

yours and UKIP's minds as a green tax. Give me the list of green taxes

you are going to scrap? Well, you know, you will have to wait for

those announcements this afternoon, well from Patrick O'Flynn at the

movement we are talking about a lot of Brussels regulations that comes

through at the moment. We had the issues of carbon capture and that.

We want to see a country where tax is fairer, where we can lift every

one on minimum wage out of taxation altogether and help the squeezed

middle. We will do that by raising the 40p threshold to 55,000. We will

put more money in people's pockets. We know people know how to spend

their own money, better than any government. That's clear. What is

not is what you are talking about in terms of scrapping green taxes. If

you want a fair regime, people will want to know what you have to

include. You may not know specifics. Will you include air passenger duty

in one of your taxes to be scrapped? You will have to listen to Patrick

this afternoon, who will announce all these things. At the moment we

are showing, we are... But, Paul, your pledge. I will have to

interrupt you. But, Jo, Jo, we know that green taxes hurt the poorest in

society, they push up energy bills. So are you getting rid of all of

them? We want to put money on people's pockets. It is on the front

page of your website. You are the deputy leader, as I introduced you.

You should know how much we are talking b how much the Treasury will

lose in tax receipts and which green taxes are you talking about? --

talking about. Hang on, we have spoken about this in

talking about. Hang on, we have election. We have said it is putting

on ?450 on everyone's energy bills, and hurting the poorest in society

most. OK, you are not talking about air passenger duty? Well, again, I'm

in the too sure about that. You will have tolies listen to Patrick this

afternoon. It is worth nearly ?3.5 billion a year to the Treasury. It

depends what your definition of a green tax is. Accord together office

of national statistics, it is a tax on petrol or passenger flight that

has a proven negative impact on the environment. To till, in total,

according to the ONS, based on Treasury figures, the amount of

money the Treasury gets is ?43 billion. Are you getting rid of all

of that? Well, actually that can be evened off by doing away with HS2

altogether. What, ?43 billion? Let me make this point. We can raise

money by doing away by 85% of foreign aid which we are giving to

countries like India, China and Brazil which has overtaken us in the

league of economic powers. We can leave the European Union. There is

another ?10 billion per year. The money is there. We want to put that

money back into people's pockets and look after our own people for once.

I thought that money, the ?10 billion you talked about, from

leaving the EU and the ?9 billion spent on foreign aid was going to

pay for your tax changes for your scrapping of inheritance tax and

UKIP is planning to scrap Taj on the minimum wage t couldn't also cover,

?43 billion of green taxes. -- crappage planning to crap.

We can raise money by taking off the rich. We will call for a Treasury

commission into looking at raising VAT to 25% for luxury items. So if

you are going out and buying a car, say over ?75,000 or you are buying a

bag over ?1,000, of course we are looking to put 5% of VAT on that, to

ensure it is rich people paying the taxes and not poor people. Can you

tell me how much scrapping tax on those earning the minimum wage will

cost? About ?12 billion. And that's going to be covered also by leaving

the EU and the foreign aid budget being scrapped s that right? Well,

actually, Jo -- is that right? Well, actually, if we left the

European Union, we would be far better off. I give you an example.

Certain esteemed think tanks estimate that being in the European

Union is costing us ?100 billion per annum, and that's complying with EU

directives and regulations. A Common Agricultural Policy that forces up

the price of food. A Common Fisheries Policy that has halved our

fishing industries since the 1970s. We could save ?100 billion by coming

out of organisation. . Do you think all this sounds like it is costed. I

can't get detail? It is not remotely costed. UKIP is in the process of

doing a strange pivot. They are trying to get their votes now from

Labour voters, rs. They are a state-stripping welfare-cutting

party. They are trying to find a means to present that in a way they

can take votes from the Labour Party. If it doesn't add up or make

sense it is because inherently it doesn't make sense. By pushing

pressure on Labour, Labour will be worried. The reason it does make

sense is an emotional rather than practical one. The far right always

does well in times of difficulty because they make everything sound

very simple. So they are like - everything is to do with the EU or

immigration or both. Everything can be solved with if we pull away from

the rest of the world and stop spending money on foreign aid. Now

there will be Labour voters who won't look at the nitty gritty of

which taxes they are talking about and will think - yes, a lot of our

problems are because Westminster is unresponsive to normal British

people and too responsive to the rest of the world. That is the

emotional position. I can see why they are pushing T what I think is

unfortunate for them... -- pushing T what is unfortunate for them is they

sound as obfuscating as the rest of the politicians, which is why people

liked them. You have spoken about immigration. You have spoken about

it. You said - pull up the draw bridge. No-one is talking about

pulling up any draw bridge. What we are talking about here is having a

points-based system, like Australia, where we can choose who we want and

who we don't want to come into the country. We can look at areas in the

job market where people need to come and fill these places. What we don't

want is a whole deluge of people coming with low skills who put

British people out of work and drive down wages. You add to the bill

there and talk about the welfare bi. The welfare bill goes up as a result

of unfetterred, uncontrolled immigration. Paul, before we say

goodbye to you, can you clear up for us, what is UKIP's official policy

on British air strikes against ISIS in Iraq. Nigel Farage says he

doesn't sport plan to launch air strikes with the Americans and we

heard from the deputy Chairman saying she would support bombing in

Iraq. Who is right? Well, if I was an MP there today I would vote

against air strikes. I tell you why - Audi Arabia have one of the

biggest Air Forces in the world, Turkey has one of the biggest

standing armies. This is an issue for the Middle East to sort out

itself. Bombing doesn't work. Is that UKIP's policy? The fact is that

ISIS have made significant gains while America has been bombing for

the past seven weeks. It is tokenism. I would be voting against.

That's UKIP's official policy. Susan Evans is wrong. Well Nigel Farage,

the leader of the party has made this clear, where he stands I'm the

deputy, I stand behind him. If we were both MPs, we would be voting

against air strikes today. We don't want to see mission creep and

British boots on the ground which would eventually happen. That's

official UKIP policy. All right. Thank you.

Let's get back to the debate in the House of Commons

on air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq.

Here's some more of what's been said.

Countries in the region have to take ownership of this battle because

ISIL threatens them all. The elephant in the room, for me,

remains Syria. ISIL will never be defeated if it is constantly allowed

to regroup from its Syrian base. Without either UN or Syrian covered

authorisation, air strikes in Syria may be illegal, although they could

well be justified under international law. UN air strikes

will not be granted without Assad and Vladimir Putin's agreement,

maybe President Rouhani as well. I agree it is artificial to divide the

problems. There is no doubt that ISIS has to be defeated in both

countries. Given that one of the principles of counterinsurgency is

to deny the enemy a home base, isn't it essential that we back the

American effort in Syria? Otherwise, we will never defeat them in Iraq.

For people to suggest we cannot go to Syria is tying our hands behind

our backs. I agree. President Obama has been open that he is going into

this alliance to launch attacks on Syria and Iraq and it is quite

unrealistic to proceed on any other basis. There will be a lot said

today about military action and I make it clear that I support the

terms of the motion. Personally I think it is rather minimalist and I

have no doubt that in the future, we will have to return to this issue

and we will have to debated again. When you have a UN resolution, you

have to accept the reality that the prospect of a United Nations

Security Council resolution is totally remote. Even putting one on

the table would be a pointless exercise because of the attitude,

undoubtedly to be taken, of Russia and possibly also by China. We can

now talk to Diane Abbott and Gerald Towers. They join us from the Houses

of Parliament. Diane Abbott, how will you vote today? I will vote

against bombing Iraq. I realise that the images we have seen of

beheadings and the awful massacre and genocide carried out has made

people think we have to do something, but I think a joint

bombing operation with America will not crash ISIS. In the end, it is a

political issue and there is not a Western military solution. How will

you vote and white? I will vote for the resolution, which I think Hazel

blears was rightly described as pretty minimalist. I think the Prime

Minister made a compelling case which I hope the public will take

time to study. The reason I will be supporting his motion tonight and

supporting British military intervention is that at the moment,

ISIS, or ISIL, are threatening the integrity of Iraq. If Iraq were to

be taken over by these people, it would be catastrophic not just for

the region, but for the United Kingdom. We have evidence already

from the ground forces that the intervention of the United States

through their use of air power has been instrumental in helping them

contain ISIS. Of course it does not deal with the wider problem of

Syria, but the imperative of securing Iraq so that the new Prime

Minister can get the political process underway which is so

necessary to bring the units of Iraq together, that is why. Diane Abbott,

does it not make a difference that Iraq has asked us to help them? It

was at the request of the sovereign government. It is not just America

we would be joining, we would be joining five other Arab nations in

the region attacking ISIS. The fact that Iraq has asked us makes it like

one, which has to be a consideration. What has threatened

the integrity of Iraq is a corrupt and government which has driven

Sunni Muslims towards ISIL. Unless you fix the political problem you

will not get peace in the region. When we talk about arming the Kurds,

they will fight ISIL in the short-term but in the long time,

they want a Kurdish state and that involves dismembering not just

Iraq, but Turkey and Syria. What makes you think, Gerald Horace, but

airpower can do the job? -- Gerald Howarth. The Iraqi army is not in a

state to fight, purse Maiga in the north, but not the Iraqis, and no

one in the region is offering to help with air strikes, are they? --

the Peshmerga in the north. In this region and given the weapons we

have, airpower can provide the clinical strike necessary to support

the troops on the ground. Efforts are being made... But where are the

troops on the ground? 's efforts are being made to ensure the Iraqi army

and the Peshmerga can provide the voice. I agree with Diane Abbott

that military means will not resolve this problem alone. Let me make this

point, it is terribly important to recognise the contribution that

fellow Sunni countries are now making in in an attack on Sunni

interests in ISIS. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, these are key allies with the

UK and they are in there. Junior Lewis suggested they should be

putting boots on the ground and I think that is the correct approach.

But you might also see pigs flying over your head. Exactly. It is money

from Saudi Arabia and money from the Gulf states that initially funded

ISIL and as for the Iraqi troops, the Iraqi troops have proven

themselves hopeless. More money has been spent on training Iraqi troops

than any army in the world and they have folded. We got that, so what is

the Diane Abbott plan to deal with ISIS? You have to talk to Iran. We

are doing that. We need to step up the diplomatic pressure on Iran.

Also, we need to put pressure on those elements within the Saudi and

Gulf states which are funding ISIL. Only the region can solve this

crisis. There is an overlying Sunni/ Shia split. There is a

regional problem here and they are in the significant players in the

region. In terms of political dialogue, they have to resolve that.

But the immediate is to stop these people from pursuing their medieval

barbarity. It is genocide and we have to stop Iraq from falling to

them. That would be catastrophic for the region and catastrophic for us.

Alongside that, the political negotiations have to go on. We have

got that. We will bring it to an end on that unlikely agreement and let

you both get back to the debate. Thank you.

Time now to cast our eyes back over the past week in politics.

Here's Eleanor with the week, in just sixty seconds.

David Cameron took a troop of Tory MPs to Chequers to pacify

disgruntled backbenchers over Scottish devolution and sort out

This issue of fairness for England, as well as for Scotland, Wales,

Northern Ireland, I think is now one that cannot be avoided.

Ed Miliband admitted he forgot key sections

of his Party conference speech - immigration and the deficit.

If I did the speech again, it would definitely be in there.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage showed his support for Europe,

You, me, everybody should get behind Team Europe.

The SNP's Nicola Sturgeon took the plunge

and announced her bid to replace Alex Salmond as party leader.

And the Prime Minister's going to apologise to the Queen

after being caught on camera saying Her Majesty had purred down

the phone when he told her the Scots had decided to stay in the U nion.

Did it feel like Labour taking the fight to the country do defeat the

Tories? No, it did not feel like that. Somebody described it

yesterday as it seemed like the final meeting before the conference.

They had all had such an amazing falling out, some cataclysmic fight,

that had hamstrung them for the rest of the week. It wasn't just Ed

Miliband. It was Andy Burnham, he fluffed everything. Rachel Reeves

fluffed everything. Lisa Nandi was great but she is not in a cabal.

Where they exhausted from Scotland? Was it true, that they were a bit

dazed by having put all their effort into the referendum? It struck them

existentially. The success of the yes campaign was a research and is

of the left and the Labour Party could not ally with it or do

anything with it. They could not like that fire under their own

supporters, even though they would love that. They were kind of left in

this very 90s position of trying to be the centre left, where all of the

energy is in the left. They were outdone. What about the highlights?

What was the speech of the Labour conference? Good lord, I do not know

act smack the highlights were all low lights. -- I do not know act

smack the speech about the NHS move people to tears. All anyone will

remember the bad stuff, the forgotten passages of the speech and

the weird insults to John Prescott. Just people careering around and

getting nowhere. Zoe, you said it did rather conjure up the images of

what are they going to do about English votes for English laws. What

will they do? I do not think they have a clue. The whole line that

these things have to be established contemporaneously so you cannot do

deform max onto you have worked out what will happen to England, that is

wrong. -- evil Max. David Cameron is just trying to pacify his back

ventures. Was it just a trick? It is Labour's ten year over Scotland.

Miliband needs to sit no, we pledged to the Scots and he needs to go for

Cameron on that. He is nowhere. One Labour MP said to me at conference

that he was surprised they had not thought of a strategy to deal with

the tactic by the Tories after the no vote. Or any other strategy!

Cameron was brittle on this. The fact that he came out of it not

shaken, but straightaway going, well, I will bank that and fight for

England, that was a sudden thing to do. I can imagine them being dazed,

but this problem has been around for a generation. They should at least

think about it. Which is why it may seem strange for David Cameron

fighting for the union and then fighting for England. Does it

matter, when he only has one Tory MP in Scotland? Is that it for a

Scottish referendum campaigns? Tommy Sheridan said 2020, someone else

said they will look at it legally, even with the 10% victory. When will

combat? I should not think before ten years but in ten years they will

be looking at serious opposition. The yes campaign was born by the

kind of mobilisation of votes. Now those people are mobilised, I would

be very surprised if they went back on it. It depends what the SNP does

at the next Westminster election. If they store made the situation has

changed. I'll be back on Sunday on BBC One

at 11, broadcasting live from the Conservative party

conference in Birmingham. We will be speaking to William

Hague. And the Daily Politics will be back

on monday at midday here on BBC Two.