29/09/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the headlines with Kirsty Wark. Evan Davis talks to David Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Party conferences in the run up to a general election usually lack edge,


they are dull, stage managed affairs. But you know what? Times


right now are far from usual. Here at the Conservative conference,


the familiar fight against Labour is on. But David Cameron tells us that


is not his only concern. I have a double battle on my hands, I have to


win a blue-red fight against Labour, which is about growing with our


economy and dealing with the deficit. But I also have to win back


people who have left my party. We ask if rebellion is in the air and


if we are seeing a slow decline of the old parties in Britain.


We go to Hong Kong where maybe something similar is going on.


Welcome to Birmingham, lots of Conservative blue this week, and


early blues for the party this weekend, today it seems to have


cheered up. 219 days until the next general


election. But they will go by in a flash. Time for a self-respecting


political party to rally round the leader and suppress any hint of


self-doubt. The Conservatives, needless to say, are a


self-respecting political party. I'm trying to get a grip on how the


conference is going? Everyone is feeling enthusiastic for next year.


Some really positive news coming out today, I hope the public are


listening. I think we have more chance now than we have ever had


before to put a good Conservative Government in next year. It was


better than I was expecting. Really? Absolutely. What were you expecting?


Slightly gloomy and I don't feel gloomy any more. I can't lie, there


wasn't a single dissenter among those I spoke to on and off


microphone. If success for a political party requires the members


to have self-belief, even perhaps when the polling evidence is a bit


ambiguous, then the Conservatives are obviously having a very


successful event so far. But the truth is, this conference is


occurring at a very strange time. Not only is a lot going on in the


world, the country is at war, but the divisions within the right of


politics in the UK are more intense than they have been for many years.


Seasons observers of these events recognise that something is


different this year. This is very, very unusual, it is basically a


four-way run in which one of the parties probably won't win any seats


but may influence 100 seats, you know. One of the parties will be


trying to prop up the haemorrhage, namely the liberal party because of


the post-tuition fees issue, and the other two parties trying to fight in


the current. There are no linear routes to victory in this. Well, it


really makes or breaks the mood, so really makes or breaks the mood, so


here. We will hear what he has to say in a moment. First Allegra is


with me. There is a sort of happy party out there, but anxious as


well? It is jolly a febrile. It is not so much the hunt for the red


under the bed it is the purple under the bed. You had Mark Reckless who


defected on Saturday and there is the question of who is next. I don't


think they are stupid enough to be here, they would be lynched. There


are people looking towards the south coast, and the constituencies where


there is large UKIP component. People have spoken to the MPs and


said is it you that's next, they have sworn know. No. I have spoken


to those people and their friends and they swear it is not them. When


Mark Reckless defected he was denying to the last moment. Also


UKIP are keen, the choreography is very important, the idea you would


purpose announce it just before the Prime Minister's speech, so the


maximum pain. I do think it is beginning to backfire, where you


once upon a time might have had a Tory Party that this week was


flirting with UKIP's ideas, I get the sense they are thinking we will


fight you and hard. The by-election that Reckless has triggered in


Rochester, the Tories will put everything into that. You might have


a situation where they lose Clacton, and UKIP will be riding high, the


Tories have loads of money, if they put everything into it and it is a


different seat and Mark Reckless is very different from Douglas


Carswell, he doesn't have as much personal follow, you can see a


status where they keep that and stop the UKIP bandwagon. I sat down with


the Prime Minister this morning to speak about the political divisions,


but we started on the pressing foreign policy question,


intervention in Iraq. Looking at the interventions of the last decade,


Iraq, Sierra Leone, Libya, Afghanistan. What is the success


rate, what sort of hit rate are we getting? You have what to look at


each individual case. The ones where I have been particularly involved I


am happy to defend. Afghanistan, not something I started but something I


have been involved in finishing, we will leave that country in a better


state than we found it. Where I think we will be drawing the wrong


lesson is we thought that the difficulties with these


interventions meant that Britain should some how turn entirely away


from the world. The reason why we have sometimes to get involved is


that otherwise these issues come and bite us here back at home. It was


terrorism on the streets of Britain that caused us to be involved in


Afghanistan. The same, I would say, applies in the case of Iraq today.


One of the things I brought was the National Security Council that


brings together the domestic concerns about security and


terrorism with foreign policy. That is the prism through which we should


see these things. The one that was purely, purely yours was Libya. Do


you think, looking at Libya, that we left that country having ousted


Gadaffi, we left in a better state than it was? We left it in a better


state in that we enabled the Libyan people to do something they wanted


to do, which was to get rid of Gadaffi. But you have to go back to


why did we intervene? We were facing a situation where there was going to


be a humanitarian catastrophe. Gadaffi was bearing down and


threatening to kill the people like rats. We intervened and that led to


the end of Gadaffi. The state of Libya today is not good, I accept


that. Our responsibility was to help the Libyan people in their hour of


need, we did that. We now need them to lead and sort out proper


governance of their country. If you said to the population of Britain


that the current effort in Iraq and the Syria and Iraq, if that is as


successful as it was in Libya I would be a happy Prime Minister and


say we were right to get involved? Of course not. These are two


different situations. In Iraq and Syria today we see a terrorist


organisation that has taken control effectively of a state that has huge


amounts of munitions and oil, huge amounts of money, and it has already


been carrying out terrorist plots and trying to carry out terrorist


plots in Britain. This is a direct threat to us. There isn't really a


walk on by option, even if we want it to. Have we got a strategy in


Syria? Yes, we do. A strategy that isn't we hope the Free Syrian Army


will come back from nowhere and strike Assad? It starts with action


at home, in terms of keeping our own people safe, stopping people from


travelling, making sure our antiterrorism laws are as strong as


they can be. It involves working with other countries and partners in


the region, building up local forces so they can take on ISIL. Some


people say it can't be a strategy if all you are doing in Iraq or Syria


is air strikes, because where are the boots on the ground, which I


would argue it is better, isn't it, if the boots on the ground are local


boots on the ground, even though that may take more time. But there


aren't local boots on the ground and not enough of them. If anything the


Sunnis are uniting around ISIS? In Iraq there is the Iraqi security


force. It is a joke, we spent years building them up and they fled at


the first sign of fighting? At the end of the day the only way you can


make these countries safe is by those countries themselves taking


responsibility for their governance and security. As Ban Ki-Moon said a


missile can kill a terrorist, in the end it is only good governance that


can kill terrorism. Iraq and Syria need the same thing, which is


functioning Government that backs the whole of the country, with


functioning Armed Forces backed by the whole of the country. You may


that is immpossibly difficult to deliver. What is the strategy for


delivering that? I'm not sure it is in our power to deliver functioning


Government to Syria and Iraq, any more than Libya? It is in our power


to help train up Iraqi security forces and that needs to happen. It


is in our power to help train up Kurdish forces and that is in our


power, and in Syria we are, with the Americans, helping to build up the


Syrian national opposition, who should provide a counter point to


the unacceptable inlegitimate regime. In time I believe there will


be a transition from that regime to one that can better represent the


whole country. If you are saying this is difficult, yes, it will take


time, yes, absolutely. There are lots of ways in which it can go


wrong, of course. But the threat to our country as such, that actually


even though it is complicated, difficult and needs a comprehensive


plan is not a reason to walk away. Let's go on to domestic politics, it


is an interesting time, I wonder whether you think that the greatest


divisions in British politics at the moment are within the right between,


if you like, anti-Europe, anti-immigration, sometimes rather


anti-business, antiforeign intervention, anti-overseas aid,


wing of the right, many in your party. One might think it is more


the Financial Times right-wing, which is more pro-Europe and


pro-business, it has a lot of Conservative values but nowhere


near? I don't see it like that. I would say the divide is still on the


centre right and right, you have parties and people who believe you


grow an economy through free enterprise. You have to tackle


problems like deficits. You do need to control immigration, our


relationship with Europe needs to change. We need to a dress the


things in the modern -- address the things in the modern world that


leave people feeling uncertain in a globalised world. That is a centre


right approach, when you compare it with the centre left approach which


doesn't care much about the deficit and is very for Europe, and very


poor in its support for free enterprise and business and making


anti-business noises. I have a double battle on my hands. I have to


win a double battle on my hands. I have to


which is about growing our economy, dealing with our deficit, taking on


the problems, but I also have to win back a people who have left my party


the problems, but I also have to win who are concerned and worried about


the pressures in our modern world. I have to reassure them. I absolutely


do get the problems of uncontrolled immigration. I do want to change our


relationship with Europe, I want to build a sense of national pride that


this country can be a success again in this modern world. I think it is


often about those divisions on the right, as you put t I would say a


lot of them are about reassurance and understanding, and going back to


your values about what makes you tick, rather than a fundamental


division which is what we have with Labour. The basic dilemma facing you


is a bit to the right to win the UKIP voters ore tack left to win the


centre ground. The argument is move to the right you still don't win any


UKIP voters, they will just ask for more, move to the left and you can


win a lot of centrist voters, how do you see that dynamic, you don't


recognise the dilemma? The left-right terms have had relevance


in the past. I don't feel that at the moment. I feel it is much more


about trying to get across our economic plan for Britain is not


actually from the pages of the Financial Times, just dry and dusty


economic, it is actually a plan to make sure people can feel if I work


hard I can get a job and buy my own house, my kids will get decent


schooling. The problem is people can feel disconnected from economic


success and we have to reconnect them. That is not actually just


about policies, it is about what is in here, it is about explaining we


need your aspirations and we can deliver them. That is not a left or


right thing. I think part of the potential problem you have then,


trying if you like to ride both these horses on the wings of your


party at the same time is that people are left a little bit


confused as to whether the real David Cameron is one who was talking


about green issues in opposition, and was trying to modernise the Tory


Party, or the one who is now banging on about Europe having said he


wasn't going to do that. There might be a lack of clarity to where you


are heart is? I have been party leader for eight years, Prime


Minister for four, people get a clear idea. I don't see the two


things in contradiction. People are worried is this country going to


deliver for me, is there a good job for my child, a good school place,


and is there going to be a clean and safe environment? Are we going to be


a country that keeps our promises to the poorest in the world does


Britain mean something to the world. I think a modern and compassionate


Conservative can appeal to all of those. People have had long enough


to work out what I'm for. I had an argument that if I asked you


specific questions about particular interesting litmus test about


whether you are a moderniser or Conservative or socially


Conservative person whether you would give a clear argument. Let me


try. Children at school, should they primarily be taught when they are


doing weight about kilograms or caught about pound and ounces and


stones? I think I would still go for pounds and ounces. Would you? Yes I


do. What about this one, you are in a public park. Rather like miles and


pints. You are in a public park, two men, recently married are kissing


each other. Is that sweet or is that mildly inappropriate? That's fine. I


have been very clear about this, this is where I do, as it were,


marry traditional and modern values. I believe in the family and


marriage. It is such great institution I think men should be


able to marry each other and women marry each other. And kiss each


other in public if they want? I kiss my wife in public I don't see why


you can't kiss your husband in public. We are get to go the heart


of it. You are a pharmaceutical company, based in Britain, competing


on the world stage, you have two candidates for a mid-level job, one


is a British one who is OK, the other is Latvian, graduate who is


really, really good, which one would you like that pharmacompany to


employ? I want to make sure the pharmaceutical company has good


British people to employ. In the end they have to chose. This is where I


think the answer to immigration is education and welfare as well as


border controls. I will summarise, you have given us one Conservative


answer, pounds and ounces, one modernising answer, gays kissing in


public, and the other sitting on the fence? Not really, I would rather a


pharmaceutical company. I'm no clearer about which side of the


fence you are on. The Carswelles and Recklesses don't believe you are one


of them, you will never deliver? I'm not sure, there are lots of things I


disagree with about Douglas Carswell. I want the company to


employ British people that is a clear answer. If they had the chance


between an OK Brit and good Latvian you would say take the British


candidate? It is up to them what they would do. I want them to employ


British people, and I want British people adequately trained, with a


welfare system that supports them into work to take the jobs. We are


having great success with this, 1. 8 million more jobs in Britain, the


majority going to British people. It is only when we fix education and


welfare we will have the problem cracked. I wonder if you are in


danger. It is a problem for you? That was a pretty clear set of


answers, if you love each other get married, when I bake a cake I do it


in pounds and ounces, I want British people employed. I said you would


give straight answers, but you were on both sides of the argument? I was


explaining myself, the politics is about definition. People don't quite


know if you are Mr Moderniser, Mr Centrist, going for the Labour


voters? They have had four years of modern, compassionate Conservatism,


that is how I describe it. No-one would agree with every bit. Some


people say I like what you say about cutting tax, but I don't agree with


you about gay marriage, and some people say I love HS 2, I think it


is absolutely brilliant, but you shouldn't be changing the planning


system. You have to present what you believe in and say to people come


with me and I can deliver these things. No-one will like the whole


package but you should be consistent. I know you don't see it


this way, when you are trying to hold the party together, and there


are disparate wings in your party, quite a long way apart. Does the


fact that you have that situation and you are managing a Government, a


bit like John Major had to, does it make it very difficult to be


strategic and to think things through? Because unone of -- one of


the criticisms of your style of Government is you are shooting from


the hip, and you are great at putting out fires but there are a


lot of fires? I would say party and political management is important,


and parties are broad church, it is a team, you try and take with you.


That is an important part of politics. I would challenge the idea


this Government hasn't been strategic. When it comes to getting


the deficit down, long-term strategic decision, reforming the


pensions system, reforming welfare and our schools. Often things that


have been quite unpopular in the short-term, long-term strategic


changes for our country. I mentioned HS 2, fabulously unpopular with some


in our country, but I think undoubtedly the right thing to have


modern infrastructure. In politics you have to make decision, sometimes


you can't go ahead in the way you want to and all the rest of it. I


would say this Government has been very long-term and strategic. Rachel


Sylvester, the Times columnists describes how Theresa May was going


to make a statement in the Commons but told to make it on the Radio 4


programme because otherwise we would lose the next three hours, as an


awful way of doing Government. I don't know if it is the real


description? It doesn't ring any bells. It would be terrible if


someone said that? It is if you are saying every day in modern politics


you are fighting battle of handling the media and answering questions.


Yes you are. I said I wanted to run a country not a 24-hour television


channel. You are trying to handle that tough but keeping your eye on


the long-term horizon, I would argue when it comes to the big decisions


about the future of the country that is what we have done. I often walk


into the Cabinet Room and I look at the chair where Churchill said in


May 1940, and the famous five days in May when Britain had to decide to


fight on or give in, today it wouldn't be five minutes before you


were outside wanting the interim decision from the cabinet. Life in


modern politics with a news cycle that does last half an hour puts


additional pressure on it, you have to deal with those things but keep


your eyes on the prize. Thank you very much Prime Minister. Thank you.


Some debate over whether the Prime Minister was wearing a purple


UKIP-coloured tie, it might have been taken as a blue. A quote that


Cameron says his economics doesn't come from the FT, and the phone is


abuzz with insulted reader. In Hong Kong the business of


politics is handled different, it is not much politics in public, more


place for business. The leader of Hong Kong is called a chief


executive. Since the British left in 1997 the chief executive is elected


by a committee of a few hundred people. There has long been a


promise that change will come, but Beijing will pick the candidates. It


is like you can have any colour you like as long as it is black. The


protests resulting from the decisions could be the greatest


since Tiananmen Square. The occupation of central Hong Kong


is growing. Early this evening there was talk of 100,000, as work finshes


the numbers swell each night. With two days public holiday coming up


later this week, concerns are building about a possible


confrontation. There is definitely a big, big worry, the last thing


Beijing and Hong Kong wants. But there is a fear that some activists


may well like to push the situation to that extent, in order to get


through their objectives. That is the danger, because that's the whole


stability of Hong Kong. The whole image of Hong Kong and China at


stake. So I think that Beijing is really worried about that. And


that's the last thing that the Beijing leadership wants. The


authorities are in a corner, faced with protests, many of which


unauthorised, they have little choice but to deploy. When they


dowsed activists with teargas yesterday it escalated things, and


the umbrellas they used to shield themselves was a symbol of the


movement. The danger of this, and there is a good probability of this


is the Chinese leader, who is a very muscular leader, he asserts himself


very strongly, he will see what happened at the weekend as a threat


to the first of the two systems, the Chinese system. We can't allow this


to happen on Chinese sovereign territory because it might give


other people ideas within mainland China, the Hong Kong disease as it


is called would spread, therefore you would get a toughening of the


official line in Hong Kong, that will mean even more polarisation and


things will not get any better. What this boils down to is a trial of


strength over how Hong Kong's new chief executive or leader will be


elected. Beijing has agreed that everyone will get a vote on that in


2017. But from a list of candidates chosen by a committee, something the


protesters oppose. Some people have criticised Beijing and said it has


gone back on its word. I'm not so sure about that. I think what the


central Government or technically the legislature in Beijing has come


out with on various occasions since 1990 has been consistent with the


original intention. This was the President's idea in the 1980s, you


need someone you can trust running Hong Kong and that involves some


sort of screening process for the position of chief executive. China


ever sensitive about its image in the world must now deal with a


fiercesome problem. These protests are assuming a mass character, but


among the demonstrators are activists with hardened views


likened to the type of power exercised in Beijing. It brings to


mind Tiananmen Square, but also the protests that brought down the


Government of Ukraine. Tonight the police are largely absent from the


centre of Hong Kong, and protesters control swathes of the financial


district. The atmosphere is peaceful and even public transport has come


to a halt. But this will alarm party leaders in Beijing, for it is a


brazen challenge to their system. It is coming up to 6.00am in Hong Kong,


we can briefly chat to Johnson Yeung, one of the organisers behind


the Occupy Central movement. Thank you very much for joining us. Tell


us what level of support do you think your group has, your movement


has among the population in Hong Kong? Well, I believe that there are


more than 15,000, I mean 500,000 people who marched on the streets


and they still stand firm on their stronghold. I believe it creates


great pressure on the Government and Beijing. They have to decide to


withdraw their rifle police from the streets and reorganise their own


strategies. So this movement is stunning for me now. I never


believed or anticipated Hong Kong people are so firm on fighting for


democracy, even when the police shoot teargas or pepper spray or


even use weapons to hurt them. So I believe this will create a huge


political tension to the Government to decide whether they should listen


to the people fighting for democracies. Where does this end?


Because of course they are not going to give in very easily, how long do


you go on with the protests? Well, I believe the supporting force of the


Hong Kong people to this movement is still growing. On Saturday there


were about 50,000 people on the street, there are more than 150,000


people on the streets. Also the movement has spread. On Saturday


there was only Occupy Central in the commercial centre in Hong Kong, but


right now they expanded to the bay and even across the harbour to


another urban area. So the force is expanding and I believe this will


create more pressure on them so we have hoped that there is hope for


the Government to compromise and listen to the demands of the people.


Thank you very much, we will try to stay in touch with you to keep


abreast of the story. Back to events here at the


Conservative Party Conference. In terms of policy the big topic of the


day has been welfare and how to cut it. We look at what George Osborne


had to say. It is the last Conservative


conference before the general election next year. The Tories need


to propose some big cash-saving measures, so they have turned to a


rather familiar stories of savings. Working age benefits in Britain will


have to be frozen for two years. This is the choice Britain needs to


take to protect our economic stability and to secure a better


future. The fairest way to reduce welfare bills is to make sure that


benefits are not rising faster than the wages of the tax-payers who are


paying for them. I can't recall him saying anything about freezing the


cost of living for two years. So that's going to have a real knock-on


effect, because obviously if the cost of living carries on rising.


And the benefits have been frozen. Then the majority of the country


will end up in a worse position than they are, so in reality I don't


think he will be helping them at all. The starting point is the


coalition have set themselves a target of cutting the definite by


?37 billion by 2018/19. It told us it wants to cut the first ?12


billion by cutting spending on benefits. They got the detail today.


The freeze will take ?3 billion off the benefit bill, but it comes after


other benefit cuts have been implemented. In to 10 the coalition


decided that working age benefits should not move at retail price


inflation but the lower consumer price inflation rate. In 2012 they


overrode the decision and squeezed the growth rate for benefits down to


1% a year for three years. Why have the Conservatives gone for the


working age benefits bill again? One of the most important reasons is the


party would have calculated it is not a popular form of spending. When


people think of benefits they think of unemployment, media depictions


like Shameness and Benefits Street, filmed on this street in Birmingham.


In truth, most people affected by the cuts don't live in places like


this. If I was looking for people who would be affected by the working


age benefits squeeze I would come somewhere like here, anywhere with a


lot of people. Back in 2012 last time there was a big squeeze in a


similar way, the IFS estimated 9. 5 million families would be affected


by the change. Seven million with people in work, and 2. 5 million


where no-one was employed. There is a perception that there is one group


that funds the been fits and another who lives off it. It is much more


complicated. There is a growing number of people in work receiving


state support, primarily driven by low pay and getting stuck there, and


high-cost housing. The state is bailing these people out all the


time. We have to deal with those root causes rather than seeking to


cut, cut, cut from the working age population. A wide swathe of


households is being affected, but there is one group that isn't. What


we have heard today is consistent with what has been done over the


last five years in particularly in terms of benefit changes and tax


changes. The old have been fully protected whilst the young, those of


working age, particularly young people of working age have continued


to lose significantly. Why aren't incomes for working age families


falling in the period up to 2012, but for retired households they


rose. They are pursuing a policy of we are all in it together and you


cannot exclude the pensioners who are so far protected. Why do they do


it? There are votes in this, and we are months away from a general


election. Benefit cuts aren't so much about unemployed and employed,


the bigger divide is between the young and old. Our economics


correspondent is with me, Duncan Weldon, put all the welfare cuts


into the context of the fiscal challenge facing the next


Government, particularly a Conservative Government? George


Osborne was speaking about the budget deficit, the fiscal situation


today, and he had good news and bad news. The good news, half the


deficit has been eliminate, and the bad news the other half has to be


eliminated in the next parliament. To put numbers on it, George Osborne


is looking at a ?25 billion hole to plug under his parts. ?25 billion,


welfare cuts is ?3 billion, he wants to ?12 billion of welfare cuts, ?3


billion, only a quarter, all that pain and only a quarter he's looking


for next parliament. Can he hope that economic growth, it has taken


off to some very substantial degree, can he hope that will release him


from the constraints? That is always the hope. As the growth comes back


the budget deficit looks after itself. Growth is strong and


employment is strong. Inflation is low, what is missing is wage growth.


Because wage growth is missing that means income tax receipts are


missing too. Looking at the recent figures it is pretty much flat year


on year, spending is in line with where they want it to be but tax


revenues not so much. There is no money coming in even though they


have growth that is the issue. Thank you very much indeed. For a


while the Sunday mirror thought it was boss of Fleet Street taking a


ministerial scalp at the start of the Conservative Party Conference.


There was the issue of texting photos to what he thought was a


young party worker. Many think the scandal is from the newspaper rather


than the party itself. It is entrapment and the question that the


public interest was nailed on. Thirdly the journalists used


pictures of two women who had not given their permission for the


pictures to be used in this way. Steve can tell us more in London.


Give us the where we are on this story as of now? What we know as of


this evening is that the story was initially offered as a complete


package, in other words the investigation had been done, the


subterfuge enacted and the wicked pictures of the MP, of the minister


were found, it was initially offered to the Sun and the Mail on Sunday,


both turning it down and the Mirror picked it up. Why did they do that?


The Telegraph has been criticised in the past by. The Press Complaints


Commission about similar issues. The likelihood is that IPSO, the new


independent press standards organisation which has taken over,


if you like from the PCC, will follow the similar line. As things


stand it looks pretty likely unless their evidence is very strong that


IPSO will fight against the Mirror for having done it. Steve, what can


you tell us about who the reporter was, the freelance reporter? I can


tell you that Sophie Whittams the Twitter character, the 20-something


Tory PR girl, #team 2015. Was Alex whittam working for the website


order, order. There was a comment that they were looking forward if


Evan was wearing a tie on the first night on Newsnight. What that will


mean to him I'm not sure. The Mirror have issued a statement saying they


stand by the story, there was clearly public interest. They are


acknowledging that some of the pictures used by Alex Wickham,


belonged to real people and not posed by model, therefore they are


doing something to fix that. If you want to see the story of one of the


women whose pictures were used without their permission you can


read it in the Sunday Mirror. Thank you very much indeed. I'm joined


here in Birmingham by Jim Waterson the deputy editor of Buzzfeed in the


UK, and John Whitingdale. Good evening, the role of Buzzfeed in


uncovering what this journalist had done in terms of defusing various


MPs or attempting to was pretty good. Tell us what you guys did?


What it was is this story was out there and there were many defences


for it. We looked back at the account that was used to uncover and


to encourage the MPs to send pictures. It is worth noting the MPs


didn't need that much encouragement, particularly the one who was caught


out, he engaged willingly. We looked back at the account that had been


deleted and tell how the story came out. You can trace deleted tweets?


Yes, even though it had been deleted nothing on-line is delighted. Leted.


We want to know the technique she was using to try to entrap these


guys? Some were approached over pictures of a Jack Russell, they


would say it was a beautiful picture and in the hopes that it would be


taken in. So Brooks Newmark was flattered and that got him. Who sent


the first saucy picture? My understanding is Brooks who said he


has no-one to blame but himself, didn't much encouragement to start


sending the pictures. Do you think he should have gone, in your view?


He has no-one to blame, he takes responsibility and certainly he was


sending pictures of things he shouldn't have been to people on


Twitter. Do you think he should have gone? The problem would have been,


you and I know the way politics operates. If he hadn't this entire


conference would have been dominated by the with question about his


survival. He probably put the interests of the Conservative Party


first, recognising the story was as big as it was. Having said that


there are very serious questions, which have been raised about the


tactics used. Let's just, does somebody have to go for doing


something that isn't illegal, she wasn't under age or she wasn't


unwilling. He wasn't posting the pictures out to women who didn't


want to. Apparently it is a guy who appears to be having an affair or


trying to have an affair. Is that a resigning issue, that will exclude


an awful lot of people? That is a matter for Brooks, and he has been


very up front and said right from the start he has behaved like an


idiot. I don't think any of us would disagree with that. I think he did


decide that in the interests of the party he wanted us to have a good


conference and it shouldn't be the issue. Let's talk about the paper


what do you think about that? I think the Mirror have to justify why


this was in the public interest. On the face of it they employed tactics


in breach of the rules. Both the fact that it appears to have been a


fishing exercise and a number of MPs were targeted. And secondly that it


was clearly entrapment. The fact that two other newspapers, who have


never previously shown much reticence in publishing stories of


this kind, had decided not to run it, does I think raise serious


questions. It is a matter for the new regulator. How how old is that


OK regulator? It is the first big test of them. This is a bigger


issue, a bigger matter to determine than perhaps they would have chosen.


But it will be a test. Are they ready to take it on? That is a


question which you have to put to Alan Moses, he's doing a fringe


meeting with me tomorrow morning. I hope so, they said they are in place


and said they will be more independent, they will be tougher,


we wait to see how they will determine the case. How did it go


down with your readers? There is enormous global interest in the


story. We have been getting traffic from all over the world. I think


people both love the original story and as we are worrying about how it


came about it is still the story of the conference and a story that


people want to know more about. Over the decade and centuries, there


have, just occasionally, been a few great realignments in British


politics, moments when the coalition of supporters that make up the


political parties shift and fracture, on an issue that becomes


so divisive that it transforms the landscape of politics from then on.


We offer then a new party, but a new approach to politics. Most recently


the break-away SDP, led by the infamous gang of four, nearly beat


Labour in the popular votes in 1983, there by guarnteeing a major victory


for Margaret Thatcher. In the early 1900s, the rise of Labour helped


drain support away from the old liberal party, and transformed


politics for the rest of the century. In both of these cases the


left's vote was split and the right's united. It can happen the


other way. Joseph Chamberlain, the great son of Birmingham, where the


Tories meet today, split the Conservatives over tarrif reform in


the early part of the last century, and guaranteed his party's


irrelevance for the next century. The Corn Laws split the


Conservatives in half and helped consign them to opposition for a


decade. Today the right vote is once again split, the issue is Europe.


The question has to be whether the rise of UKIP is a mere flash in the


pan, a blip soon forgotten, or another moment where party support


does fracture irreconcilely, and in the ensuing mess British politics is


transformed for a long time to come. We have the assistant editor of the


Spectator, a former editor of the Telegraph, and a columnist for the


Times. Charles, do you think the right in British politics at the


moment is falling apart? I think the real history of what is happening


now is the right has grown stronger, particularly on the issue of Europe.


If you look over 30 years it is stronger and stronger, because it


moves up from the bottom, it is a genuine popular movement. It is


resisted by the establishment. This keeps coming to a head whenever


there is an electoral or referendum question, because the establishment


wishes to evade it and the wide opinion, which is to have the issue,


I noticed Matthew's paper this morning said the question of Europe


can wait. That is classic establishment view of the matter.


That wouldn't be the view of the people who care about the subject.


The reassignment and the event is simply the right asserting itself a


bit more and saying what it really thinks and that is the end of it? It


is not hard right or sectarian right, it is the Conservative Party


as opposed to the leadership has become a euro-sceptic party. Now


Matthew, you wrote a piece suggesting really that David Cameron


could let those UKIP defectors go and the party would be better off


without them. The departure of Mark Reckless the air in the room got a


great deal fresher. There are two or three more who ought to go, I hope


they will, they should be pushed if they don't go. I don't agree with


Charles, it is true that the right is flexing its muscle, but the


Conservative Party always had a hard right. On the whole in the past it


has learned to resist them, it needs to do that this time. What is the


view in the hierarchy of the Conservative Party about where this


is all going? I think within the hierarchy there is a desire to shut


it down, to tell those people perhaps your views aren't welcome in


the party and maybe you would be more comfortable in UKIP and good


rid dense. They don't want any more defections because it is hugely


important to them. Some of those backbenchers feel pushed by the


establishment ignoring, which is what Charles was saying. David


Cameron isn't particularly go at listening to backbenchers, and he


gives the impression they are I idiots. I'm puzzled by Matthew on


this subject, surely it is a major issue of policy on the future of the


country, it is a European issue that really matters. It is not weird


sectarian matters, it is of first importance. Obviously people get


frustrated if their leadership is reluctant to talk about T We were at


a point in the 1980s, the SDP came along and you had Margaret Thatcher


for a decade. She was electorally getting 45% of the vote. Are we at


the point that we have the danger that the right splits and you get a


left-wing Government. The left seems very united, the claps of the Lib


Dems means the left has one party? It would be a splinter rather than a


split. The greater danger is the Conservative Party moves sharply to


the right in order to stop the splinter and ends up losing a lot of


votes from those who might otherwise see themselves as Conservatives. It


will lead to a split in the Conservative Party. I noticed in


conversations I have been having with euro-sceptic ministers who


started to say after 2015 if the hard write in the parties starts to


agitate and we have lost the election, they don't want to be part


of that group any more. They want to move away either to send the guys


out of the party or form their own, not liberal


out of the party or form their own, view as a more sensible party. There


is a sense of frustration on both sides, there is


is a sense of frustration on both opening up, not in the next few


months but possibly the next few years, with more voices calling for


a bigger split. Charles you would like a coalition or pact between


UKIP and the Conservative Party? It doesn't look at all probable. Some


people in the Conservative Party are more distant from UKIP than the


Labour Party? With Keneth Clarke heaving are the Government, there is


no strong Europhile at the top of the Government. The shift over the


years. You are bringing it back to Europe? I do think fundamentally, it


is two things, Europe and the feeling of disaffection of people


who don't see themselves at the top of society. That is why UKIP has an


appeal to Labour voters as well. You haven't mentioned immigration? It is


related to the immigration question. A lot of UKIP people are very


unreasonable, but the fundamental issues are very important issues.


The sense they are being suppressed is extremely damaging for politics.


It would be a sad day for the Tory Party if Keneth Clarke couldn't


really be thought of as any more a Conservative. Wouldn't it? They


would be losing a very large chunk of their centrist support, if Keneth


Clarke is told he's not welcome where does it leave the Conservative


Party? It is the case on both sides of the party, the important thing if


they want to continue to win votes rather than splitting into fragments


so the left always wins. They need to unite and find out how to do


that. There is a party management issue, both sides don't feel they


are getting on but don't feel united by the leadership. What was the


advice to sensible people to the Labour Party when it looked in


danger of lurching to the left. There was a sense of the hard right


of the Labour Party going in there. The advice was to take no notice and


stay in the centre. I would give the same advice to the Conservative


Party now? There is an issue of bad faith here people are told by the


Conservative leadership there are answers on Europe and the


Conservatives are a euro-sceptic party. But when people try to put


flesh on the bones they are accused of being bad people. There will be a


reign dumb? Reverend come. Referendum. There is, but it is not


a good idea to go in and not say where you stand on things. There is


an odd neutrality. The debate hasn't been resolved here, we look forward


to it continuing and maybe it will be resolved before long. Gentleman


thank you. That is it for tonight. Last week in his conference speech


Ed Miliband used the word "together" 51 times. Today George Osborne


unveiled his political philosophy in one word, see if you can spot it.


Good night. Choose life. Choose jobs. Choose a career. Choose a


family. Choose prosperity. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc


players and electrical tin openers. Choose security, choose prosperity.


Choose good health. Choose David Cameron, choose the Conservatives.


Choose fixed interest mortgage repayment, choose a starter home,


choose your friends.


Evan Davis talks to David Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.

Download Subtitles