01/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.


With enough MPs behind him, David Cameron calls a vote in the Commons


Will RAF bombers be in action over Syria by the end of the week?


Jeremy Corbyn ties himself and his party in knots over


Labour's position on airstrikes - how badly damaged is his authority?


And the Labour leader faces his first big electoral test


on Thursday in the town that invented fish and chips.


Will the party get battered in Oldham?


David Cameron joins hundreds of world leaders in Paris to show


off their green credentials - but after scrapping environmental


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole


of the programme today, the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas.


So we've been bombing Islamic State in Iraq for months.


By the end of the week, we are almost certain to be hitting


Tomorrow, Prime Minister's Questions has been


cancelled and MPs will spend all day debating the issue before voting.


David Cameron said he would only call for such a vote


That certainty was handed to the PM after a fractious Shadow Cabinet


meeting in which Jeremy Corbyn decided to give his MPs


a free vote - about 50 of them are expected to support the government.


Here's what the Prime Minister had to say last night.


I believe there's growing support across Parliament for a compelling


case to answer the call from our allies to act


The headquarters, in many ways, of the terrorists is in Syria,


and it makes no sense to recognise this border in the action we take


when Isil themselves don't recognise this border.


It's the right thing to do, we will be acting with our allies,


we will be careful and responsible as we do so,


but in my view it's right to do this to help to keep our country safe.


We're joined now by the Labour MP, Mary Creagh,


Are you sure you know what you are doing? Absolutely. I have been very


clear since visiting the Lebanon and saw the humanitarian tragedy in that


country that we have a duty to act in the Middle East, and that the war


in Syria has spilled into Turkey, the bombs in Ankara, Lebanon,


Jordan, all of those countries on the front line of this humanitarian


crisis, and carrying on with business as usual is not the answer.


How does more bombings solve the humanitarian crisis, or even


ameliorated? We have to look at it as one part of a full political and


diplomatic framework. We know how the international serious support


group meeting monthly. The next meeting is in Vienna. Iran, Saudi


Arabia and Russia are engaged in a way they were nothing gauged in the


failed Geneva peace process the last three years. Hope is those peace


talks will lead to democratic elections and the ending of a sad's


rain of terror against his own people. Why not let these peace


takes take their course if you think they are so positive? Why get


involved in the bombing in the interim? We are already involved in


overflying for the coalition of 60 countries already engaged. We are


engaged in Iraq and we are effectively stopping at the border,


a border that Isil does not recognise. Their results or a moral


imperative. We founded the United Nations. My party is an


internationalist party. When the French and Americans are calling on


us to hope them in their hour of need after that terrible attack in


Paris and many other places, that we have a duty to listen to that. And


of course the UN Security Council resolution, supported by countries


as various as China, Venezuela, Angola and New Zealand, calls on


most to use all necessary measures. There is a clear legal basis as


well. Caroline Lucas, the UN has paved the way for action. And our


major allies, including the French, would like us to join them. Why


shouldn't we? I think at the minute we shouldn't. There hasn't been a


big enough case made by the Prime Minister that are getting involved


would either make Britain safer or indeed bring more likelihood of


peace in the region. I think looking at the evidence given to the Foreign


Affairs Select Committee it is really clear that all of the


evidence they received was that if we get involved in this, it is


actually going to feed the ice 's narrative, which they would love to


be able to present them as the guardians of Islam against the


Crusaders from the West. If we play into that, recruits will grow. That


is already happening. Let's look at what is happening from the bombing


so far. Were you against the bombing in Iraq? Just now? Yes, I was. So


you don't think we should be involved militarily at all? I don't.


If you look at the evidence of the bombing that has taken place so far


over Iraq, then basically over the last year we have seen more


recruits, double the number of recruits have gone to Isis since


that bombing has started, because we feeding narrative. They have lost


major ground as well. That is disputed. A lot of it is desert.


They have also gained places like Palmira Silva Palmieri is in Syria.


The US has been bombing Syria for a long time and it has not driven Isis


back. It does risk the narrative that more recruits will come to


Isis. By saying we do not want to drop bombs does not mean we don't


want action. Of course we want action. We could be putting pressure


on Turkey, for example, to seal the border, to stop the weapons and the


oil sales feeding Isis. What does pressure mean? Looking at Saudi in


particular, we could be looking at all kinds of financial measures. We


have been happy enough to take them over Russia in the Ukraine and yet


we are not taking those measures against Saudi Arabia. You want us to


take financial sanctions against Saudi Arabia? That is something we


should certainly consider, yes. Saudi Arabia is not clamping down on


the families and others channelling finance to Isis. We always look at


the military response as the fastest and easiest thing to do. We don't


necessarily look at other ways that Isis is being fed. It is being fed


by finance, weapons and the chaos of the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian


economy has effectively collapsed into a wartime economy funded by


arms funding -- arms smuggling and people smuggling and the distortion


of the 60,000 disappeared people. We have effectively must got a failed


state in Syria. Caroline Todd Sinnott sealing the border with


Turkey. -- Caroline talks about. The last thing people in Turkey wants to


see is the borders sealed. We have huge flows of people out of Syria.


Over half of the population is displaced. 4 million people who have


left, 6 million displaced. It is in a desperate state. As long as we


leave Islamic State there, they now have 30,000 fighters from over 100


different countries. If we are prepared to just allow them to


continue to regroup and recruit in Raqqa, then we will never have peace


in Iraq and we've never have peace in Syria. There were 15,000 recruits


last year from 80 countries. The bombing has led to the increase in


recruits. What you are doing here is actually encouraging more people to


see this as a fight between the West and Islam. Therefore there are an


increasing number of recruits going to that area. Shortly before more


bombing, we should look at the effect the bombing has had so far.


You posit the effect that the bombing has had this effect. I would


argue the effect of having a failed state in Syria, the effect that they


are the only people who seem to be standing up to Assad in his own


country, means that in effect there were 200,000 free Syrian fighters


two years ago. Now they are down to 70,000. There is a lot of fluidity


in Syria. As long as Assad is there, Peter Luff co-opted into fighting


for them. It is that propaganda as well. Where are these phantom 70,000


ground troops who are going to support us? Everybody agrees that


bombing on its own will not work. We need ground forces. David Cameron


came to the Commons and claimed there were 70,000 ground forces who


were not for a sad and were not extremist. That figure has been


absolutely hammered by all of the experts. Robert Fisk yesterday


called it a complete mockery to suggest those ground troops. This is


why the peace process is so important. As the Free Syrian Army


is murdered by a sad they will be fewer people able to protect their


towns and able to stand up for him. -- Assad. We need a multinational


peace framework for the people of Syria to take back their nation from


The Jihadi Spot and the idea that we just let them get on with it... We


found mass graves. They were marching in Baghdad earlier this


year, Islamic State. Let me finish. You have had your say. The idea that


somehow just allowing it all to continue... Nobody is talking about


allowing it to continue. We have allowed it to continue for three


years. They enslaved children as young as five into sexual slavery


and they murder women of our age who are too old to be sold. Summoning


people giving evidence to the furnace 's committee said that by


getting involved in the bombing we reduce our capacity to play a big


role in the diplomatic efforts. Many of those experts say Britain is well


placed because we are not bombing Syria to play a real role in the


peace talks. That would be undermined if we become part of it.


But you don't know that. They don't know it either. It is just a piece


of commentary. It is not the basis of policy. The foreigner 's


committee assembled those experts. They came to the conclusion that the


case had not been made for bombing. The chairman of that committee has


changed his mind. You put this great faith in the peace process, both of


you. The evidence is pretty slight for it. But at the same time you


want to use the non-IS terrorist anti-Assad people. But any peace


process will involve Assad and the Russians. I don't understand how you


can keep the anti-Assad Freedom Fighters happy and still have to


deal with Mr Assad and the Russians. They are on opposite sides. We have


to give Syria backed its territorial integrity, which it no longer has.


It is no longer a functioning state. The second thing is, we have defied


the terrorist factory, The Jihadi Spot three, which is, we have defied


the terrorist factory, The Jihadi Spot three, which eased in Syria has


become. We foiled seven terror attacks in our own country this


year. Let's make sure we don't make things worse. Nobody is denying Isis


does terrible things. We need to move on. You have both had a good


chance to air your eye humans. I'm no -- I know the viewers will be


listening very carefully to both sides.


So, Jeremy Corbyn's implacably opposed to extending air strikes to


Syria, but he's failed to persuade many of his MPs, his Shadow Cabinet


and even the Shadow Foreign Secretary that he's right.


So yesterday he had to abandon plans to whip his MPs and offered them,


It was less than a edifying spectacle.


In a stormy Shadow Cabinet meeting, it was reported that Shadow Home


Secretary Andy Burnham accused Mr Corbyn of trying to "throw MPs


to the wolves", by trying to force them to vote against air strikes.


According to reports afterwards, ministers described


the situation as "embarrassing" and "disgraceful" and accused


Then yesterday evening, the Labour leader had to face backbench MPs.


There were attacks on the party's advisor on defence


was said to have argued, "We cannot unite the party if the leader's


So where does this leave Mr Corbyn's position?


With me in the studio is Matt Wrack, the General Secretary of the


Fire Brigades Union, who have just re-affiliated with Labour.


Mr Wrack says the Labour party has "changed for the better since the


election of Jeremy Corbyn", arguing he has given his members


and supporters "hope that we can shift the political debate


I assume you have joined, you want the union to be affiliated because


you think Labour is much more left-wing under Mr Corbyn We think


that there is an opportunity for politics addresses the issues


affecting working people and trade unionist, we were affiliated from


1926 to 2004. There has been a debate and Jeremy Corbyn has been a


long time ally of our union, he has stood by us in difficult times, and


stood up for trade union rights for public services, against authority


and that resonates with a lots of our people. When you left Labour the


Fire Brigades' Union developed link with far left groups The union


didn't. But individuals did. Individuals still have the right to


do whatever they want to do politically but the union has


policies, it has only ever supported Labour candidates. But you must


think now, or want to be part of the move, that the FBU wants to be part


of a move to make the Labour Party stand for more things like the, like


Tusk rather than the Labour Party under Mr Blair. As I said, the union


has never taken a position on Tusk, it has its policies which reflect


many of the policies of many trade unions against austerity for workers


rights, standing up for public service workers and so on, so as an


affiliate of the Labour Party we will be arguing for those policies


within the structures of the Labour Party. That is what any affiliate


would do. What policies of Mr Corbyn's don't you like? I think we


are supportive of Mr Corbyn's policies is. That was my point. Yes.


That you are. What do you say to the argument... The point is we are an


independent organisation with our own policies and structures that


will determine... I understand that. But what do you say to those who


would point out every time your wing of the Labour Party takes control,


or the Labour Party moves in this direction, you lose electionsome,


does that matter? Of course it matters to win election, I think


that the the experience in our view of the past decade, two decades is


that many core Labour voters have been disenfranchised, feel


disenfranchised and we would want to be part of a movement engages with


traditional Labour voters and with the trade unions, there has been


disquiet among trade unions for many years. But as you are probably to


find out in the Oldham by-election those disheartened Labour voters are


more likely to vote for Ukip than your brand of politics There needs


to be a long-term strategy to engage with many of these people. Whatever


wing of the Labour Party people are on nobody would dispute the need to


edge gauge with the people. Are you happy a strong left-wing voice has


come into the Labour Party? I am delighted the Fire Brigades' Union


has rejoined the Labour Party. It struck me as an anomaly that they


ever left, if you don't mind me saying. It is another strong voice


that will take the party in a direction of which you do not


approve of, broadly. Locally my Fire Service has suffered tremendous cuts


and when I have been briefed by my Chief Fire Officer they have told me


by 2020 most of the firefighters, the majority of firefighters in West


Yorkshire will be over the age of 50. I think there is a real issue,


in the Fire Service, about the fact that we are not recruiting young


firefighter, we are not training them and the closure of fire


stations and it is interesting what you said about different parties, we


have a former firefighter who is a Ukip councillor in my area, so I


look forward to working with Matt on tackling some of the Ukip mythology.


I understand that, but on the broad thrust of Mr Corbyn's direction he


is going in, that is another strong voice you will end up opposing. I


don't oppose the Fire Brigades' Union, I think they do amazing work.


I am not... I, on the question was not do you oppose the Fire Brigades'


Union for being the Fire Brigades' Union, that would be an absurd


question, that would be an equally ludicrous we, me point is this is a


strong well-organised union that is back in the Labour Party, determined


to take the Labour Party in the direction Mr Corbyn wants it to go,


and you are opposed to that. I want the Labour Party to move forward in


the broad coalition and the Broadchurch it has always been. I


welcome the rejoining of the FBU as an historic trade union,


representing thousands of working men and women. I am not sure what my


case is, so we all want to see a Labour Government in 2020. You know,


the more people we have working towards that end, the better it is.


Should Mr Corbyn have whipped the Labour Party against extending


bombing to Syria? You are against it too. Personally I a am. My union


hasn't discussed the current situation, although we have


discussed related matters. We were talking about the safety of British


citizens in relation to terrorism. It is appalling that we are


discussing that at the same time that this week, the London Fire


Brigade is discussing cutting another 13 fire engines on the


instructions of the mayor. So let us, if we are talking about the


safety of British citizens, 7/7 the firefighters were sent down into


tunnels to save people's lives. We are now in a week of -- weaker


position in relation to public safety, firefighters have a great


interest in terrorism. And a great role to play when terrorism... My


question to you was, should Mr Corbyn have whipped the Labour Party


against extending strikes into Syria? I wasn't in that discussion,


that is a matter for Mr Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party to


make. I do think there are a whole host of contradictions in the


position that David Cameron is adopting in relation to Syria, two


years ago he wanted to bomb the other side. Today he wants to bomb a


different side in a nasty Civil War. I don't, I am not personally


convinced there is a realise ticks strategy to address the threat of


Isil. Caroline, you agree with Mr Corbyn on most things, on war and


peace, social justice, environmental issue, rejecting austerity, where


don't you agree on him I am glad he did give a free vote. I think on


matters of such issues of conscience it is right to give a free vote.


What about the wider issues I raised On the issue of Syria on Trident,


yes we have worked closely. Where don't you agree with him? Jeremy is


leading the Labour Party. I know, what don't, I am trying to get the


answer. Where I agree is I think he has strong policies. I didn't ask


you, where do you disagree. I will give you the the answer. On


recognising the imperative of green policies of environmental policy ssm


nuclear power. He says he is a huge environmentalist and I am sure you


were in there you could nudge him more in that direction. You are the


last person to take what someone says as being the gospel truth. You


will address it and interrogate it. I would say that Labour Party that


is up supporting nuclear power is a Labour Party that hasn't recognised


the future of energy needs to be one which is community energy, that is


renewable energy, green energy, the amount of money nuclear energy will


cost us is going to have massive opportunity costs. You have got the


Fire Brigades' Union right but I failed in my attempt to get The


Greens. Nice try. Thank you very much both of you.


It is final for our daily quiz. Caroline Lucas


and other campaigners have been trying to destroy the Lords


for years, but it seems something So our question for today is,


what's eating the House of Lords? I hope none of you are enjoying


your lunch at the moment. At the end of the show Caroline


will give us the correct answer. Now, the Conservative Party board


met yesterday afternoon to decide its next move in the scandal


surrounding allegations of bullying At the weekend


the party's former co-chairman Grant Shapps resigned as minister, saying


that the buck stopped with him - but that failed to stem criticism of


the party's handling of the affair. Let's speak to our Deputy


Political Editor, James Landale. Where are we in this now? I see the


Tories are now had to go to another rather more independent inquiry to


try and hose this down? Yes, what they have done is decided to hand


the entire inquiry over to Clifford Chance, it was in, they were


reviewing the Conservative Party's internal inquiry, that has changed,


clift Chance will take sole charge, that inquiry itself will be sqently


reviewed by a guy called Lord Panick. The report will be


published, when the board discusses the findings of the report, Lord


Feldman and Robert Halfon will. What the party is trying to do, they will


clear their hands of the inquiry so it is more independent than it was


in the past. In a hope that will satisfy some of the critics it has


gone far enough. In other words, grant Shapes has resigned. The --


Grant Shapps has resigned. They hope it will draw a line I sense a


circling of the establishment Tory wagons round Andrew Feldman, is that


right? Does he survive to at least until this report comes out? I think


that is what they will hope will happen. Certainly, the message has


gone out that Andrew Feldman needs to be supported. I have had


unprompted calls from Conservative MPs saying he is a nice chap. He is


a Popular Party chairmanlet one because he is a pleasant individual,


and you know they enjoy, interacting with him, secondly he raises a lot


of money for the Conservative Party. He has got the Conservative Party in


much better shape than in the past, the MPs understand that, because


that filters down through to their local associations, the other thing


that is helping the Government and the Conservative Party is the fact


there are so much attention on Syria at the moment, that it takes some of


the political heat out of this story, so the pressure from The


Papers and elsewhere is hidden inside the newspapers rather than on


the front-page. The key question is this, that is the father of the


young story -- Tory activist who died earlier this year, Ray


Johnston, he is a man who has already you know, expressed his


opinion strongly that Grant Shapps should resign. He has resigned. He


still thinks that Lord Feldman should resign. A lot of papers will


take their cue from that. I don't think the pressure is over yet.


EU leaders met with Turkey at the weekend, and have agreed


a deal to try and stem the flow of migrants travelling through


Turkey has agreed to tighten its border and reduce the number


of people leaving its shores and heading to Greece.


720,000 migrants have arrived in Greece so far this year.


But Turkey won several big concessions in return.


As part of the deal, the EU will give Turkey an initial


three billion euros to help Syrian refugees in the country.


Turkish citizens will be able to travel to Europe visa-free within


a year, as long as certain conditions are met.


And negotiations on Turkey joining the EU will be re-opened.


The Turkish Prime Minister said it was an "historic day"


Some say the EU has been too generous, but


German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Turkey should not be "left alone"


And we're joined now by the Ukip MP, Douglas Carswell.


Welcome. What is wrong with this deal? I can see from turkey's point


of view why it is good. First of all they get EU membership negotiations


to resume now, I wouldn't want EU membership on a friend and I am a


friend of Turkey. It would be bad for them. They get 2 billion a year,


3 billion euro, ?400,000, sorry 400 million of which we contribute to.


400,000 refugees a year will be shared out among the Shengen


country, we are not in Shengen, but once you have been allocated to a


Shengen country, and you have got your residency papers you will have


the right to come and live in this country. Imagine you are part of the


quota that gets allocated to Portugal our Italy. The moment you


get your papers you can move from Portugal to heck ham or Italy to


Ipswich. No-one is asking whether we agree. It's a bad deal for us.


Caroline Lucas what do you say? I have serious misgivings as well.


Turkey's human rights record is appall, I think that the role they


are praying in the crisis in Syria is unhelpful and so the idea we are


going to open doors now, to them, seems to me to be wrong. If they


were going to be part of negotiations to be part of the EU,


there are all kinds of things they would have to put in place first.


The independence of the judiciary, human right, a range of qualities.


For all these reasons no-one ex Presidents Turkey to be a member of


the EU in the foreseeable future They are getting a key benefit which


is the act to move round the EU at will without having to show papers


or have restriction, that is the concern. The fact that 75 million


Turks will have unreTricketted non-visa access from October. People


say that doesn't confer perm negotiate right of residence. They


are going to stay in. How do we know that people coming into the Shengen


area from October are not going to remain there? Once they have


obtained residency right, they will, I am sure, move to this country. So,


why didn't the British Government oppose this? Indeed. You may notice


I am not a defender of the current Government. I have noticed that. I


think that David Cameron has allowed the European Union to negotiate on


our behalf, with Turkey and it is yet one more reason why we are


better off leaving the European Union, the European Union has lost


control of its migration policy itself has lost the ability to


negotiate well. We would be wetter -- better off taking control. You


don't agree with that, but, the European Union clearly felt it has


to do something to try and at least get a grip of this uncontrolled


migration that is currently coming in, and even though we we have moved


now as of today into the winter months it will be become I suspect a


humanitarian crisis, even worse now, they felt they had to do something,


and didn't they use what tools they have available, which is money and


some agreement. They know that they can't put a fence up. They know it


can't be fortress Europe. They are right to recognise the situation in


the refugee camps is getting desperate. People are in poverty and


cold and hungry and yes, finances should be going to support people in


those refugee camps and Britain ought to be doing more as well,


although with have a good record. I would like us to talk to our EU


counterparts to step up the finance they were putting into the pot


rather than opening the doors to a country with such an appalling human


rights record and would not be in a position to join the EU given that


record. If a Turkish national takes the advantage of this, they will


still have two show their Turkish passport at the British border,


while they? Correct. But if you are allowed into Europe and there is no


system to log people in, you will just stay. In America they have a


technology driven system which means you are logged in and logged out.


The London Underground logs you in and out. Europe simply does not have


it. It is allowing people entry into Schengen was no way of locking them


in or out. Was there a sense of desperation from Europe on this?


That is an interesting point about the login and logged out. There is


no real political will, even in Germany, which used to be a big


supporter of Turkey, to give Turkey full membership but it has been


dangled there. The idea that President Hollande, this side of a


difficult election, would agree to Turkish membership is inconceivable.


I think that is right. It is a Turkish membership is inconceivable.


slightly cynical move. People are very worried about vast numbers of


refugees coming and they are trying to outsource the problem, to leave


it to the Turkish, give them some benefits and close our eyes to it.


It is really worrying. A few years ago the problem with Europe not


being able to handle its currency, now we see Europe not been able to


provide basic leadership over the migration crisis. Maybe Europe


simply cannot organise the affairs of half a billion people this way.


Maybe we should leave the European Union and take control. It is such a


shame that is where you always end up! The people we're blaming the


current governments of the EU. I don't blame the EU. I blame


successive British administrations that have signed us up. A quick


question. Have you made up your mind how you are going to vote in the


Syrian motion? I am genuinely undecided. Will you win Oldham? We


are still the underdog but it could happen, let's wait and see.


World leaders are meeting in Paris to try and reach international


agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.


In his speech to the conference yesterday, David


Cameron said we need "global action to deal with a global problem".


But closer to home green campaigners are angry at changes made


in the summer budget and recent spending review that will


reduce the subsidies available to renewable energy, once famously


Last week, Chancellor George Osborne announced that the green levies paid


by consumers on their energy bills will be reduced.


He also scrapped a ?1 billion competition to develop carbon


And exempted energy intensive industries, like steel, from


the cost of environmental tariffs, while cutting the day-to-day budget


for the Department for Energy and Climate Change by 22%.


This is on top of plans already announced to raise


hundreds of millions in taxes from renewable energy companies by making


And cuts in the subsidies available for solar power and onshore wind.


Offshore wind still gets its subsidies.


Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd insists the government is


still on course to meet its emissions targets, and says it is


doubling funding for innovation and research in the energy industry,


while taking action to keep the cost of energy down.


We're joined now by the former Conservative Cabinet


Welcome. When you see that list of changes the Government has made,


particularly in subsidies to renewable energy, quite hard to


claim to be the greenest government ever, isn't it? They are being even


greener than they intended. They said forward a certain budget to


reach a certain target for renewables. The subsidies were


generous and people signed up too fast. The budget was fully used up.


And they were ahead of schedule in meeting their targets. I am


sceptical about the whole business. But to give them credit, it is not


because they wanted to do too little, but they had done more than


they intended. You think there is no doubt we meet our renewable targets?


I don't think there is. Caroline may have a sceptical view. In the short


term we will meet them but longer term it looks likely that we will


not. The idea of cutting the subsidies to solar right now is what


is just so lacking in any sense. The bit of support could have gone on


for another few years. Solar would have been at a stage where it would


not have needed that extra support. It would have been able to compete


with other fossil fuels and other markets. Just for the sake of


another few years of that support, we have sacrificed a growing


industry. In Brighton there are solar companies going out of


business. Thousands of people are being laid off, possibly up to


20,000, as a result of this short-sighted move. Another couple


of years would have done the job? It is always a couple of years. Even if


they reach grid parity, the cost of producing electricity by solar is


the same as delivering it to the grid, unfortunately solar delivers


it only at The Times we do not need it. We need it most in winter and in


the evenings. The sun does not shine very much in the summer for the


evenings. Electricity is much less valuable at that time. To be


competitive it would have too produced between 30 and 50% less


cost than conventional fuels. There is no chance of that on the horizon.


You know there are huge strides happening when it comes to energy


storage. One of the decisions this government has taken is to lock us


into this huge contract with building a new nuclear power station


at Hinkley Point. The evidence is clearly there that that power


station will lock us into those funds for 35 years. If you look at


what solar could have done, we would have been getting electricity far


more cheaply than from nuclear. I understand the economics. But that


does presuppose we will crack the storage issue. The power generated


by solar, when the sun is shining, we can then store insufficiently


large quantities to feed it into the grid. It does not exist yet. Not in


any large scale. It may one day. We are always making breakthroughs, we


are always on the edge things. It would not matter if we had subsidies


for the next few years are not, but it is not remotely close. I hope


they do develop these storage things and they become cheaper. But at the


moment they are only dreams of the Greens. They do not exist in the


real world. The Paris climate talks are already talking about an


international group of scientists stepping up the work on this. It


would be done far faster than when you get the first bit of electricity


coming out of Hinkley Point. I will lay a bet on it. Back to Hinkley


Point, people have criticised onshore and offshore wind for being


expensive. It is a fair bet that Hinckley power station will be the


most expensive power station ever built in the world and need time


anywhere. -- any time. That is assuming it is on-time and budget,


which given EDF and France's record, will probably be a stupid


assumption to make. I agree. I am rather sceptical on it. I used to be


keen on nuclear energy. As a child I decided to be an scientist because


nuclear -- because nuclear energy had just been discovered. Now it is


too extensive to contemplate. It is one of those things where the


assumption that costs always goes down does not prove to be true. I


may recruit Peter to the anti nuclear cores. I would be in favour


of looking at small modular areas. At least the industry would be


home-grown and capable of exporting. On the wider issue of what is going


on in Paris, you don't really think it is important, is that right? It


is not terribly important. Even if it achieves what it claims to


achieve, the only two studies I have seen which have fed through all of


the commitments that governments are planning to make through the


computers, forecasts for the future climate, I am sceptical. That this


will mean that the world at the end of the century is 0.2 degrees cooler


than it would otherwise be. An expenditure of trillions of dollars.


I would certainly say that Bjorn Lundberg is hardly an independent


expert. Surely he is as independent as you, me or Andrew. What is


happening in Paris is incredibly exciting. I think these are the best


chances we have had of getting an agreement to keep warming as close


below 2 degrees. We want to keep below two Celsius warming. At the


moment if you add up what the different countries have pledged, it


is still looking more like 2.7. The good thing is they were building a


ratchet mechanism whereby these could be reviewed regularly so that


as the science and technology progresses, we could also ratchet up


the ambition. Will it be binding? I fear that it will not be binding.


That is a weakness, isn't it? It is certainly a weakness. But if you


compare where we are now with Copenhagen, that disintegrated in


such chaos. Now we have a good text in front of negotiators that can be


improved. We have do hope the political will is there. Copenhagen


handed -- ended without resolution. There are higher hopes for the Paris


meeting. There is a sense there with the agreement will stop They will


always agree to agree. It is agree to something because it is not


binding. Most countries, as they develop, will start using energy


more efficiently. They will be able to make commitments to reduce the


amount of energy per unit of GDP. China will do that automatically. It


has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. That has been happening in


America. Yes. The fact that China and the US are absolutely on-board,


the fact that businesses are lobbying... China is now the biggest


place for renewable energy. Is also going to build 100 new coal


stations. It is also doing a lot on renewable energy. It is not a great


policy to have. It helps to create that huge smog. They are moving away


from that very fast. I would be very surprised if 100 new ones happen


because of the smog but because their local people cannot live in


it. There could be an opportunity for you there in China! Have you


made up your mind how you will vote on the Syrian motion tomorrow? No. I


start sceptical but I would like to be persuaded there are credible


reasons for doing what we clearly will do but I am not yet convinced.


You are the second one. Douglas Carswell was in the same position.


We hear that the Cabinet is at last going to come to a decision on


another runway in the south-east. And the money seems to be on


Heathrow. What is your view on that? We should get on and do it. I don't


particularly care where it is but let's build it. You don't want a


runway anywhere in the south-east? Aviation is the fastest-growing


source of gas house emissions. I think basically what we need to do


is to reduce demand, that means getting a lot more freight going in


other ways. It means also having a proposal for a frequent fry -- Flyer


Levy, so it would penalise people who fly a lot, not people who fly


less. Do you think it will be Heathrow? Yes, I'm sure it will. Up


against Boris Johnson, Zac Goldsmith... We have got more older


Tony Evans than they have got! The idea of this government happily no


confirmed. Now,


this Thursday the polls open for a by-election in the constituency


of Oldham West and Royton, which the long-serving left-wing Labour


MP Michael Meacher represented The ballot will prove the first


electoral test of Jeremy Corbyn's We sent our Adam to see how


the battle for Oldham is unfolding. Oldham was a boom town in the Cawson


era. A quarter of the population has


Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage, and it has been a safe Labour seat


for decades, held by Michael Meacher at the last election with


a majority of more than 14,000. Labour's candidate in this


by-election is the leader of the local council, but he's having to


answer a lot of questions about his leader, because it's the party's


first election with Jezza in charge. He's a man of principle


and substance, There is big stuff happening


in the world at the moment. There's no doubt people will


raise that on the door. It's on the news every night


when people come home from work and And we had those conversations,


and what I'm pleased about is how It's up beat and the challenge


for us is to make sure people turn Ukip mention Jeremy Corbyn


as often as they can. This is the third by-election


in this area What's with this


Presidential podium here? That's for when


our leader comes up to support me. I wouldn't dare present from there


when I know Nigel is coming up. It's not that three by-elections


have gone to your head? I'm going to see the doctor after


this one, because I must be mad. I'm doing it


because I really believe in what we stand for, and what we're trying to


go to get our country back. The Tories were beaten


into third place by Ukip in May. This time their leaflets


are resolutely local. It's a local plan,


it's a three point plan. It's a plan based upon issues that


affect people every day, and have First, it's tackling crime


and anti-social behaviour. Secondly,


it's better public transport and more investment, and thirdly,


it's cleaning up our streets. Dealing with the blight of potholes,


fly-tipping and littering. While the Liberal Democrats are


campaigning at the local mosque, We were the only party in Parliament


that stood up Thankfully, the Tories have come


onboard with our campaign to stop the tax credit cuts,


but we are still concerned there is And the Green candidate,


who is deaf and speaks through an interpreter, took me to a local


spot that is about to be built on. This is being planned now to build


a warehouse and houses. So this whole area is going to


be affected with more traffic. It will create employment,


but the people that live in this local area are really going


to miss this beautiful environment. They all want to represent


an area of the north-west of England where Winston Churchill began


his Parliamentary career. It's also claimed to be the place


where fish and chips were invented. There is even a Blue Plaque


commemorating here in the town centre, which gives me an idea for


a Daily Politics by-election quiz. When was the last time you went to


the chippy and what did you have? About three days ago,


fish chips and peas. There's one next door here, and I


have to stop myself going in because I have a terrible diet, so yes,


I eat far too many chips. Like, is it a a very green thing,


fish and chips? I'm a dietician by profession, what


we need is a mixed balanced diet, with lots of fruit and vegetables,


and did you know mushy peas count If I'm honest,


there is more appetite for fish and We will find out who tastes victory


in the early hours of Friday And a full list


of candidates standing in the Oldham West and Royton by-election


can be found on the BBC website. And to discuss Thursday's


by-election there we're joined by Like to The you take a this seat, it


is in solid Labour Terry, it has only been two years it hasn't been a


Labour seat. It's the kind of seat only been two years it hasn't been a


that a Labour opposition, emphasise being in opposition, a by-election


it should just automatically win? It is interesting because Oldham is


where Ed Miliband faced his first electoral test in Oldham East. When


he fought that by-election, the majority went up strongly, whereas


everyone expects the majority in Omid ham west to fall. The question


is how far, and does the seat fall into the ground of being in jeopardy


Do we know if there was much of a personal vote for Michael Meacher?


He represented that seat forever, and he was well-known locally. They


have another strong local candidate fighting Labour this time, from the


sort of centre-right of the party, does the Labour candidate, the lack


of Michael Meacher is that a factor? It could be. Long-term MPs


of Michael Meacher is that a factor? personal follows, they become part


of the local furniture and it may play into an issue that Labour have


to worry about, which is turn out. We have this election at the begins


of December. The weather is awful there, there may have been voters


who would have been willing to turn out for Michael but not for a


candidate who is perhaps not as familiar to them. We are all here,


just, obsesses isn't the word, we are amazed at what is going on at


the Labour Party at the minute and following every move that Mr Corbyn


makes, is there evidence thosing having cut through to the voters in


a constituency like Oldham. That is one of the things we will watch the


results for. There is two things we want to watch for, firstly what


happens to Labour vote in white working class areas where a lot of


the polling suggests Mr Corbyn is not popular and what happens to the


Conservative vote. It is about 20% Conservative vote. We don't know how


they will react, whether they will back a Ukip candidate on the basis


when we look at the national polls Conservatives dislike Mr Corbyn a


lot. Will they vote for Ukip on an anyone but Jezza vote. They might do


that? That is what happened in the late 90s when people were hack off


with the give it Government. The Liberal Democrats benefitted, with


northern Conservative voters say we can't win round here but we can send


a message about rejecting the current Labour leadership by voting


for the Ukip candidate. So we are looking at three variables here,


whether the Tory vote collapses in favour of Ukip, how big the turn out


will be in the British Asian community. Voting still loyally for


Labour and how bill the defections of the white working class Labour


vote to Ukip, is that the way to look at it. That is is right. That


is the big searabouts, I would add what pre-Budget reportion of the


white working class vote, and stay home. You are right. Tory tactical


voting, and turn out among the south Asian community will decide the


seat. It makes it hard to, I mean, we all think that the Labour


majority will be substantially reduced. It is 14,000, o -- 14700 at


the last election. It is hard to be sure how the cookie crumbles.


Exactly. You would have to say Labour go in favourites because of


the sheer size of that cushion. It is a 35% majority. You shouldn't be


losing seats like that under any circumstances but we don't know if


it will be a narrow hold. If it is, that is a big problem, if they lose


the seat it is a huge problem. Losing would be huge but narrow, a


win is a win kind of thing, even if it is a bit embarrassing you count


hold it by thousands of votes. I think that is is right. Labour might


do better than we are hearing here. The kind of policies that Michael


Meacher espoused are close to Jeremy Corbyn's. For people who want a


candidate who is more to the centre, someone who appears to be popular


and well-known Labour candidate locally. It might not be as grim as


we have been haring. We shall see. Thank you for coming on. We will see


the outcome and viewers will know we off the back of This Week on


Thursday night, we will morph into the this Week the by-election


special. We will be with you all through the night until we get the


count from Oldham. It is turning out to be an interesting by-election.


That is one for night owls. Some of you have to join us, we don't like


to talk to ourselves. Time now to give you


the answer to our quiz. The question was what's eating


the House of Lords. Car line, do you know the answer? I


was going to say a combination of all of them. I think I would put my


money on the moths. And your money would be right on the moths. That is


what is happening. Indeed, they are apparently devouring the soft


furnishing in the upper chamber, including the famous Woolsack, which


the Lord speaker, is that the name, sits on? That is the one who chairs


the Lord's, his Woolsack is in trouble. What should they do. We are


joined by a Lepidopterist. Welcome to the programme. Do woe


know why the moths are suddenly started to appear like this in the


Lords and cause this problem? It is a perfect place for them to live


really because of all the natural fibre, you have the wool in the wool


seat, you have got horse hair in all the benches and everything, and they


just like dull, dusty dinghy places, perfect, -- dingy places.


Why has it taken them so long to find out? Every now and again


populations do explode, and, so every now and again the conditions


are great for them. I the populations explode and they are a


big problem. We have 2,500 species of moth in the UK and only six like


to eat natural fibres and only two which is the case bearing clothes


moth get big enough numbers to cause damage. Do you think maybe they came


in on some of the members' clothes? I mean, I don't really know. I


suppose it is possible if they have an old suit. A lot have old suits.


They have big ermine things as well. It must be like a holiday for moths.


Stay in the ermine for a couple of week, enjoy myself, the. It is warm,


damp humid and there are dark nooks and crannies under the bench, so if


you don't get in with the vacuum cleaner it's a perfect breeding


ground for them. When word gets round it is will more than the


moths. Who knows what could come in here next. It will be like a horror


movie. It is probably a great echo system. How do you get rid of it.


Because I work for a conservation organisation it is not my forte,


what they can do is they can clean, be very clean, Hoover in the nooks


and crannies. Keep the place clean... Any jumpers or anything


like that, if they have egg ones, wash them and freeze them. They tend


to like dirty jumpers over clean ones. The place is riddled with


them. I am not surprised they are there. Does a moth have any function


for humans? Completely. Moths are really important pollinctors of


plants. Even knows that bees are important, but butterflies and moths


are too an they are really important food for bats and birds. I need to


stop you. Leave them alone is the message. The One O'Clock News is


starting on BBC One. I will be here for Jo tomorrow at the earlier time


of 11am. We will go through to 1.00. A Daily Politics special on that big


debate on Syria. '..Viking, North Utsire,


South Utsire, East Forties, 'southeasterly four or five,


increasing six or seven,


Download Subtitles