:00:07. > :00:15.What's good about party conference is that you can first see if a party
:00:16. > :00:18.is up to winning an election, and two, whether it has ideas what to do
:00:19. > :00:22.if it does. We are with the Conservatives to look at both.
:00:23. > :00:25.David Cameron has been out and about in Birmingham, where the arguments
:00:26. > :00:31.of the next election are taking shape. Here we go, Ed Balls. We want
:00:32. > :00:35.a more strategic approach to the rails definitely. Having watched
:00:36. > :00:40.clips of politicians making their arguments, Boris Johnson thinks the
:00:41. > :00:45.language needs to improve. More people listening to are short
:00:46. > :00:48.Anglo-Saxon words that readily correspond to an object in the
:00:49. > :00:53.universe they can identify. Here in Hong Kong we are an hour away from
:00:54. > :00:56.dawn, the protests are getting bigger and more complicated. Where
:00:57. > :01:00.once they were calling for democracy, they are calling for an
:01:01. > :01:04.end to the Government who turned tear gas on their own people. Hong
:01:05. > :01:08.Kong democrats think they have seen it all before. They must listen and
:01:09. > :01:19.if they have a bloody crackdown here there will be hell to pay.
:01:20. > :01:20.if they have a bloody crackdown here Hello there, well, the serious
:01:21. > :01:23.bidding is under way here in Birmingham. As it
:01:24. > :01:25.bidding is under way here in Conservative conference it is senior
:01:26. > :01:26.Conservatives who have been laying out their offers, trying to outbid
:01:27. > :01:31.the opposition out their offers, trying to outbid
:01:32. > :01:36.year. We have had Home Secretary, Theresa May, on outlawing the
:01:37. > :01:39.obnoxious. Banning orders and extremism disruption orders will be
:01:40. > :01:43.in the next Conservative manifesto. LINEBREAK APPLAUSE
:01:44. > :01:47.More on that later in the programme. We have also had Health Secretary,
:01:48. > :01:51.Jeremy Hunt, trying to get the doctors in England to dock around
:01:52. > :01:56.the clock. I commit that at the end of the next parliament a
:01:57. > :02:02.Conservative Government will make sure every NHS patient, across the
:02:03. > :02:10.whole country, will be able to get weekend and eight till eight
:02:11. > :02:12.appointments. The words for David Cameron's leader's speech that
:02:13. > :02:17.journalists are turning their mind to. Allegra, do we have insight into
:02:18. > :02:20.what David Cameron will say? It is expected he will announce they will
:02:21. > :02:25.continue to ring-fence the NHS. They did it in the last parliament, quite
:02:26. > :02:27.a lot of conternation in their own Conservative Party, they will pledge
:02:28. > :02:32.to do it again. Remember when he was first leader he said there were
:02:33. > :02:36.three letters that mattered to him, the NHS. It seems tomorrow with his
:02:37. > :02:39.three letters that mattered to him, last speech before the election he
:02:40. > :02:42.will use another pledge on the NHS to say I don't want this to be my
:02:43. > :02:47.last as Prime Minister. He will place that centrally. It would be
:02:48. > :02:53.very draconian to the NHS if you didn't ring-fence it and give it at
:02:54. > :02:57.least flat spending in real tells. -- terms. It must have implication
:02:58. > :03:01.for other departments? If they continue the ring-fence they will go
:03:02. > :03:03.further in other places. The Conservatives always say
:03:04. > :03:07.ring-fencing is not always that brilliant for departments, it means
:03:08. > :03:10.they don't reform. So they have a muscular debate about this, lots of
:03:11. > :03:13.people on their own side would like them not to ring-fence it. It is
:03:14. > :03:16.controversial. There is something viewers should perhaps look out for
:03:17. > :03:20.which is a debate perhaps in the months ahead about will they make
:03:21. > :03:24.this department do more? Will they say you have got this ring-fence,
:03:25. > :03:28.now will you please do social care as well. It is making that
:03:29. > :03:33.department sweat more while it headlines they have kept it the
:03:34. > :03:38.same. So NHS in the speech tomorrow, tell us about the terrain on which
:03:39. > :03:44.it will be fought on over the next few weeks? The NHS is the centre
:03:45. > :03:55.piece, ?2. 5 billion more from Labour. Labour has a ginormous lead
:03:56. > :04:01.on the NHS. The strange thing was Ed Miliband doubling down on a
:04:02. > :04:06.strength. And the Conservatives are saying we will fight you on this.
:04:07. > :04:11.This issing that that those still thinking that maybe, maybe I will
:04:12. > :04:15.back David Cameron at the next election the NHS matters to them a
:04:16. > :04:19.lot. They want something in that area. They have prebriefed something
:04:20. > :04:23.about the NHS, anything else? I think it will be much more, if you
:04:24. > :04:26.think the NHS was targeted at our viewers, people outside the hall,
:04:27. > :04:31.tomorrow there will be more to tickle the tummies of the people in
:04:32. > :04:35.the room. Thank you. The leader's speech is the climax of the
:04:36. > :04:38.conference, one of the highlights of the event is the speech by Boris
:04:39. > :04:42.Johnson, it is this morning, and a demonstration for anyone who hadn't
:04:43. > :04:47.spotted it that the London mayor is a formidable communicator. He is
:04:48. > :04:51.able to obfuscate and fudge like the rest of them, but he can sum things
:04:52. > :04:56.up more colourfully than most. Today he talked about his economic vision
:04:57. > :05:05.of Britain, exporting weapons grade chillies to India, bus stops to last
:05:06. > :05:09.vague carriages come better bands to China -- cumberbands to China. He
:05:10. > :05:12.speaks well and popular, but not popular enough to get those who
:05:13. > :05:16.think the Tories are toxic to vote for emthis. I sat down with Boris
:05:17. > :05:19.Johnson at lunchtime to talk Conservatives, communicators and
:05:20. > :05:25.disconnected voters. Boris Johnson, do you have a theory as to why the
:05:26. > :05:29.Conservatives can't get more than 35% apparently in the poll, that the
:05:30. > :05:33.65% who didn't vote for them at the last election show no interest in
:05:34. > :05:37.voting for them in the next? I don't think you need any kind of theory to
:05:38. > :05:42.address this question, this is really something that could change
:05:43. > :05:46.very fast. If you look at what happened last week in Manchester,
:05:47. > :05:52.and you look at the way I think the Labour programme for the country
:05:53. > :05:56.looked so frail and so eminently attackable, I any you could see in
:05:57. > :06:01.the course of the next few months you could see a change in those
:06:02. > :06:05.numbers. Look at the numbers, you talk about the 35%, look at the
:06:06. > :06:11.numbers which assess economic competence and prime ministerial
:06:12. > :06:18.qualities, and as the great Australian Linton Crosby says, the
:06:19. > :06:22."qal leads the quant mate". What it means is those things that are the
:06:23. > :06:25.Tory approach, David Cameron and George Osborne are doing, it
:06:26. > :06:30.massively outshine what is Labour are doing, those things will
:06:31. > :06:34.translate into quantity of polling into support for the Conservatives
:06:35. > :06:39.as the election gets closer. That is an optimistic view isn't it. I know
:06:40. > :06:44.MPs in man chest e Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and no sign any of
:06:45. > :06:47.MPs, and that is even with the poll, people say yeah they are better at
:06:48. > :06:50.the economy, we prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband, but no we are not
:06:51. > :06:54.going to vote Conservative in the swathes of the country? There are
:06:55. > :07:01.actually huge parts of the country that we are winning back. I was just
:07:02. > :07:04.out yesterday in Newcastle-under-Lyme in a seat we
:07:05. > :07:09.haven't held in hundreds of years where we were at 3% now. A huge
:07:10. > :07:13.brick-making industry and potteries and things like that. Don't rule us
:07:14. > :07:20.out in the cities. I think the message we have got to get across is
:07:21. > :07:24.the Conservatives are there for everybody. The broad idea is the way
:07:25. > :07:28.to sort out the problems of the country is not to punish success but
:07:29. > :07:35.to stimulate people to do their best. And if you get people, if you
:07:36. > :07:39.get business and industry really motoring that will supply the wealth
:07:40. > :07:43.to pay for the poorest and the neediest. That is one-nation
:07:44. > :07:48.Conservatism. The problem is you have been saying it for a couple of
:07:49. > :07:51.decades now. The problem of toxic Tories in large parts of the
:07:52. > :07:57.country, and you have left it very late to solve it by next May haven't
:07:58. > :08:02.you? I wonder, because I think that if you look at, it is certainly the
:08:03. > :08:05.case that in large parts of the country there was post-industrial
:08:06. > :08:09.decline, there were parts of the country that didn't benefit from
:08:10. > :08:15.many of the great supply-side reforms that came through in the
:08:16. > :08:18.1980, the things that have made London go gangbusters at the moment,
:08:19. > :08:21.there were things that didn't benefit from that. For instance if
:08:22. > :08:25.you look at the motor manufacturing industry now, we are about to become
:08:26. > :08:30.the second-biggest in Europe. Look at what's happening in our tech
:08:31. > :08:33.sector, where all that funny stuff that's happening in London that you
:08:34. > :08:38.know six years ago you or I barely understood is all fizzing and
:08:39. > :08:45.popping now, in Manchester, in Leeds, here in Birmingham, you know,
:08:46. > :08:50.if things are changing and I think that politics is about you know not
:08:51. > :08:55.panicking about polls, but about trying to show what your message is
:08:56. > :08:59.and to keep driving away. I think our polls are very strong when you
:09:00. > :09:06.consider that we have been through the worst recession for 100 years,
:09:07. > :09:10.and the Labour Party is barely a whisker above us just in the current
:09:11. > :09:16.who would you vote for poll, let alone who is better on the economy.
:09:17. > :09:24.Let's you know, poll, I was much further behind, I think, in London
:09:25. > :09:27.in 2007 and then went on to win in 2008, according to the strict
:09:28. > :09:30.opinion polls. You make the point that Labour are not doing very well
:09:31. > :09:33.either, I wonder whether we are in the midst of a slightly bigger
:09:34. > :09:37.picture of the decline of the two main parties, and there is just
:09:38. > :09:40.enormous political disengagment from the message they have. You know you
:09:41. > :09:44.will know that the number of people who will say they are all the same.
:09:45. > :09:47.There is this huge sense of disenchantment? I think there has
:09:48. > :09:51.been a lot of that. I think the answer is that we have just got to
:09:52. > :09:54.do what we say we are going to. Do and so like on this Europe business,
:09:55. > :09:59.we have got to mean it. We have got to go in there and you know with the
:10:00. > :10:02.Lisbon Treaty we will have a referendum, we didn't have one and
:10:03. > :10:06.that was a mistake. We should go in there and make sure we get a proper
:10:07. > :10:09.reform, get a renegotiation and then put it to the people of this
:10:10. > :10:17.country. You think it could be about broken promises or a sense that
:10:18. > :10:21.people are like that. I think Iraq was massively corrosive. The
:10:22. > :10:25.financial crash might have left people feeling they were sold that.
:10:26. > :10:29.I wonder also, you are regarded as one of the best communicators in
:10:30. > :10:33.politics, I wonder whether there is a communication... That is a hotly
:10:34. > :10:38.contested field. That's an interesting point, let's have a look
:10:39. > :10:41.at a few clip, we have assembled clips of politician, one from each
:10:42. > :10:45.party, they are not the most awful clips we have picked these almost at
:10:46. > :10:49.random, we didn't have much time to get them together. Watch them and
:10:50. > :10:53.give me a comment. Clips. One from each party, just sort of random
:10:54. > :10:59.clip, we will start with one from Ed Balls, here we go, Ed Balls. We want
:11:00. > :11:03.a more strategic approach to the railways, definitely, the fact that
:11:04. > :11:05.Network Rail has now come back on to the Government balance sheets
:11:06. > :11:10.provides an opportunity for that. But I think actually the franchising
:11:11. > :11:13.process over the last ten years has delivered more passenger numbers,
:11:14. > :11:17.there has been big public investment as well, but in the east coast they
:11:18. > :11:28.are a public operator who has been doing a really good job. This is one
:11:29. > :11:31.froEd spaced Davy the Liberal Democrat minister. Whether it is
:11:32. > :11:36.water issues which the Environment Minister has a robust regime on.
:11:37. > :11:40.Whether it is the integrity of the wells dug, independent well
:11:41. > :11:46.examiners. Whether it is methane emissions and so on, we have taken a
:11:47. > :11:50.very robust approach. And let's do last one, we have a Conservative
:11:51. > :11:56.here too, this is William Hague. Often considered a very good orator,
:11:57. > :12:00.let's listen to Hague. I think these events make even clearer the need
:12:01. > :12:05.for what we are proposing. That it is essential to have change in
:12:06. > :12:10.Europe and what has happened here, which is an increasing power for the
:12:11. > :12:15.European Parliament at the expense of the council and heads of
:12:16. > :12:20.Government, makes the need for that even clearer. Let me give you my
:12:21. > :12:27.thoughts about that before you ask me. I think one thing that is
:12:28. > :12:31.incredibly important is to try to speak, and I fail totally in this,
:12:32. > :12:39.and I catch myself endlessly on the radio, you are waffling and blurbing
:12:40. > :12:44.and using all sorts of words in that way. What people listen to are short
:12:45. > :12:48.Anglo-Saxon words that readily correspond to some object in the
:12:49. > :12:53.universe that they can identify. So, in other words, talk simple lie, use
:12:54. > :12:58.plain English. Talk about stuff in the real world. Now you knows
:12:59. > :13:02.Winston Churchill when he made his great speeches with the things that
:13:03. > :13:07.really shot through into the public consciousness, what were they? It
:13:08. > :13:10.was "we shall fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the
:13:11. > :13:17.landing grounds, we will fight them on the hills and the streets, we
:13:18. > :13:22.will never surrender". Which is the only Latinate word in that chunk,
:13:23. > :13:28.which is the only word derived from a romance language. Subjecter.
:13:29. > :13:35.Correct, all the rest are simple English words. That people
:13:36. > :13:39.understand absolutely clearly. With the pattern with the franchising and
:13:40. > :13:44.the blah, blah, blah fish cake, nobody, it just turns into great
:13:45. > :13:50.mush. And Thatcher actually was clear. She would go on the Today
:13:51. > :13:55.Programme and say, "yesterday we had a piece of cheese and it was very
:13:56. > :13:59.good", or something like that. And it would be unbelievably clear and
:14:00. > :14:05.you knew what she was on about. I wonder with the Ed Balls clip, I
:14:06. > :14:10.wonder sometimes whether the message isn't clear, or whether essentially,
:14:11. > :14:14.the sentences come out like that because you are trying not
:14:15. > :14:23.obfuscate. Completely right, what is going on is politicians are using
:14:24. > :14:32.complicated words and concepts in order to polyfiller a bit of the
:14:33. > :14:37.argument. That cheeses people off, to get back to cheese. They can
:14:38. > :14:42.detect that and spot it. They want to hear it put more simply. I mean
:14:43. > :14:48.I'm a terrible offender myself. A terrible offender. I know I do it. I
:14:49. > :14:52.try not to. But you do it with more aplomb, and you are funnier than the
:14:53. > :14:59.others. If you want to be heard, you have to speak plainly. And I believe
:15:00. > :15:05.that. Completely. And that is, I think, at the heart of much of the
:15:06. > :15:08.problem. But what it is about, it is a problem, I think it is a problem
:15:09. > :15:19.of language. It is a problem of style. But that reflects an
:15:20. > :15:28.unwillingness to be honest about the issues. You know. Suppose we have
:15:29. > :15:34.got to close 70 police stations in London, now it would be much easier
:15:35. > :15:38.to talk about reform and improvement of the estate, or some such waffle.
:15:39. > :15:41.It is interesting because we were having this discussion earlier if
:15:42. > :15:47.everybody was like you and a little bit more open, and perhaps a little
:15:48. > :15:52.bit funnier and willing to make gaffes and speak off script. If they
:15:53. > :15:55.were maybe that would, the world would fall in and there would be
:15:56. > :15:59.disorder for the party? I think it would be much more interesting, I
:16:00. > :16:04.think the arguments when you dig into it, people want to engage in
:16:05. > :16:08.the argument. And you can't engage in the argument if it is cloaked and
:16:09. > :16:11.swaddled in a lot of waffle that nobody can get to grips with. I
:16:12. > :16:16.wonder if there is a question over your style, this is an interesting
:16:17. > :16:20.question, whether it is hard to both be very engaging and statesmanlike,
:16:21. > :16:25.it is really conspicuous on the polling for you. You score so highly
:16:26. > :16:33.on likability and incredibly low on statesmanship. C'est la vie. Do you
:16:34. > :16:38.worried about not being taken seriously? No I would much rather be
:16:39. > :16:41.understood and get my case across than to jazz everything up into a
:16:42. > :16:47.load of meaningless waffle. Boris Johnson, thank you very much. Thank
:16:48. > :16:53.you. Boris with a little testing of my Latin in that. Given that in
:16:54. > :16:57.recent years we have had the Terrorism Act 20000, the
:16:58. > :17:03.antiterrorism and secure act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act
:17:04. > :17:07.2005, the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, and the protection of freedoms
:17:08. > :17:10.act 2012, you might have thought we covered most of the useful ground in
:17:11. > :17:14.dealing with threats to our society. But Home Secretary Theresa May
:17:15. > :17:18.thinks we have overlooked something. Have a listen to this, at conference
:17:19. > :17:22.today setting out the gaps she wants to fill. I want to see new banning
:17:23. > :17:27.orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws in
:17:28. > :17:33.terrorism. I want new civil powers to target extremist who is stay just
:17:34. > :17:37.within the law but still spread poisonous hatred, so both policies,
:17:38. > :17:42.banning orders and extremism disruption orders will be in the
:17:43. > :17:47.next Conservative manifesto. The essence of it is to outlaw those,
:17:48. > :17:51.treatmentists not extremist enough to be illegal. The banning orders
:17:52. > :17:56.would curtail the activities of groups that want to spread hatred or
:17:57. > :18:03.overthrow democracy. If there is one individual it is thought they are
:18:04. > :18:08.aimed it is radical preacher Anjem Choudary. This is his reaction? The
:18:09. > :18:12.biggest radicalising is not me talking about Sharia, it is the
:18:13. > :18:15.foreign policy of torturing and slaughtering people in Muslim
:18:16. > :18:21.countries that is having a backlash for people here. We have been
:18:22. > :18:24.propagaging the same thing for the last 30 years, we have never
:18:25. > :18:29.changed, the same demonstrations are taking place that long ago. The only
:18:30. > :18:32.thing that has changed was the British Government's laws, we have
:18:33. > :18:39.never asked permission to propagage Islam and we will not ask permission
:18:40. > :18:47.now. I'm joined by Afzal Amin working with the Foreign Office on
:18:48. > :18:48.counter extremism and former army captain, and Zubeda Limbada, from
:18:49. > :18:52.ConnectJustice. She captain, and Zubeda Limbada, from
:18:53. > :18:58.evening to you both. I will start evening to you both. I will start
:18:59. > :19:03.with you, how would this work, a minister thinks an individual is
:19:04. > :19:08.promoting hate, very annoying, bit irritating, what happens? We all
:19:09. > :19:12.know the extremism we see on our television screens, what Theresa May
:19:13. > :19:15.wants to do is turn off that tap of propaganda towards terrorism,
:19:16. > :19:18.because if people are allowed in our country. I went to Iraq and
:19:19. > :19:22.Afghanistan when the British Army was fighting terrorists. We don't
:19:23. > :19:30.want to come home and find that people propagaging on behalf of the
:19:31. > :19:35.terrorists are free -- propogating on behalf of the terrorists are free
:19:36. > :19:41.to do that on our streets. We see a handful but very extreme people, I
:19:42. > :19:43.think it is disgusting a that the British broadcasting corporation
:19:44. > :19:47.bring on Anjem Choudary and other extremists again and again, and
:19:48. > :19:50.ignore the millions of Muslim people who live in Britain peacefully and
:19:51. > :19:54.serve in the Armed Forces. This is something that has to be recognised,
:19:55. > :19:58.those not happy here and want to bring about extremist and terrorist
:19:59. > :20:01.approach to how to settle differences I would advocate go even
:20:02. > :20:05.further than stopping them working here but prosecute them, those that
:20:06. > :20:09.are guilty, strip them of nationality and return them to
:20:10. > :20:14.countries of parental origin. If you don't like it here, please leave.
:20:15. > :20:18.You are not an Anjem Choudary fan, I am assuming. The majority of Muslims
:20:19. > :20:23.are not. What do you want to do about him if you don't like him?
:20:24. > :20:28.First of all it is not to give him the oxygen of publicity which he is
:20:29. > :20:32.currently enjoying. Especially for someone who has around 100
:20:33. > :20:38.followers, there is a disproportion nationality to the voice and
:20:39. > :20:41.airspace's given. More I would say moderate voice, the majority of
:20:42. > :20:46.voices need to be given some traction within the media to hear
:20:47. > :20:51.those voices. But banning Anjem Choudary, using him as an example,
:20:52. > :20:54.we could pick other names, banning him does it help reduce his
:20:55. > :20:57.influence over however many followers he has? The last time I
:20:58. > :21:02.checked we lived in a democracy and we still live in a democracy, so
:21:03. > :21:05.banning people and ideas is not conducive as a way forward. It may
:21:06. > :21:10.appeal as a temporary measure, but it is certainly not a long-term
:21:11. > :21:15.solution. You have to listen to the narrative of what is being said. In
:21:16. > :21:19.terms of ideas and what grievances are, and listening to ideas that we
:21:20. > :21:24.may not like, but within the realm of what is being discussed as well.
:21:25. > :21:27.What is being proposed is to top propaganda towards terrorism, and
:21:28. > :21:31.that is what Anjem Choudary and his ilk do, that is what needs to be
:21:32. > :21:34.stopped. Free speech is fine, disagree with foreign policy,
:21:35. > :21:40.domestic policy, stop and search whatever, have a civilised
:21:41. > :21:44.discussion. What they do is promote and propogate for terrorists. But
:21:45. > :21:49.that is illegal already? If you are prosecuted. There is another law to
:21:50. > :21:53.get rid of that? You have just argued about deporting people, how
:21:54. > :21:58.do you deport people if you are born here. If you are not happy in our
:21:59. > :22:03.country, why are you still here? If you want to go and live under the
:22:04. > :22:06.ISIL terrorists, do so. That reduces a discussion, so if you say ban
:22:07. > :22:10.them, send them home, that reduces the discussion. I'm not saying send
:22:11. > :22:16.them home, some are born here. I'm saying if people are in this country
:22:17. > :22:19.advocating on behalf of ISIS and other terrorists groups, they should
:22:20. > :22:25.be taken and sent back to where their parents come from. You can't
:22:26. > :22:30.have... That is not what we are talking about, this is a measure of
:22:31. > :22:34.potentially the banning of individuals or groups we are not
:22:35. > :22:39.talking about deporting. But countering the propaganda is what
:22:40. > :22:42.this is about. Could you use this measure against the English Defence
:22:43. > :22:47.League for example? It depends what we were advocating. If they were
:22:48. > :22:52.advocating what Anjem Choudary advocates. Who makes the decision,
:22:53. > :22:55.it seems to be reasonable belief on behalf of the minister? We have a
:22:56. > :23:01.court of law, we try it with a jury. We don't, the judge has to decide
:23:02. > :23:07.whether it is a reasonable view on the part of it? The system that we
:23:08. > :23:11.set up with the number of judges that make a decision that is the
:23:12. > :23:14.system we use. We have to step back and listen to what we need to talk
:23:15. > :23:18.about here. There is election time and the rhetoric steps up in terms
:23:19. > :23:24.of who will be tough on crime and extremism. I must interrupt. Please
:23:25. > :23:27.don't interrupt. Two Americans were beheaded by a terrorist group whose
:23:28. > :23:31.sympathisers are operating in our societies, they must be stopped.
:23:32. > :23:35.What do you propose to stop them. 2014 around 28,000 images were
:23:36. > :23:40.removed from the Internet, that is one example, but can we legally just
:23:41. > :23:45.stop removing things. You haven't used the one argument I thought you
:23:46. > :23:52.would use is this might give these folks the oxygen of a persecution
:23:53. > :23:57.complex that makes them more virulant in their abuse, is that
:23:58. > :24:00.something? The feeling that of not banning things as a way out, we are
:24:01. > :24:05.not looking at the underlying causes, which I have mentioned. If
:24:06. > :24:09.you start looking at the internet saying we don't like these images
:24:10. > :24:13.and ban nonviolent extremists and their ideas. It is the dangerous
:24:14. > :24:18.aspects of what happens to ideas, you can't stop the flow of ideas. We
:24:19. > :24:26.do that already with so many things. Theresa May got hid of Abu Qatar and
:24:27. > :24:30.Abu Hamza, that was a great thing. Something needs to be done, but with
:24:31. > :24:35.the history of the IRA we tried to ban people and it doesn't work. We
:24:36. > :24:41.need to leave it there. Thank you very much. Well, enough talk about
:24:42. > :24:44.policy the burning question for Conservatives here is can they win
:24:45. > :24:47.the election next year. Boris Johnson told us earlier they could,
:24:48. > :24:55.Allegra has been looking more closely at the maths.
:24:56. > :25:00.The Tories in Birmingham are chirpy and they don't quite know why. They
:25:01. > :25:04.know how terrible the polling is for them. Labour is much closer to
:25:05. > :25:08.victory in 2015 than the Tories, but still they are upbeat. They think Ed
:25:09. > :25:12.Miliband had a flat conference, the maths may be bad, they say, but the
:25:13. > :25:21.music, the music is much, much better. Right now the Conservatives
:25:22. > :25:25.have 303 seats, Labour 256, the Liberal Democrats 56. Opinion polls
:25:26. > :25:35.suggest in an election tomorrow Labour would win way over 300 and
:25:36. > :25:39.the Tories much less. Richie Emily Maitlis may have whizzy graphics but
:25:40. > :25:43.we only have paper weights and markers. We did find an expert to
:25:44. > :25:47.discuss the maths. Tell me the problem for the people out there,
:25:48. > :25:52.they are in a God mood but they know the map isn't looking that good for
:25:53. > :25:56.them? While they are in a good mood and the Conservatives have a good
:25:57. > :26:00.narrative and ahead on the leadership, they are behind on the
:26:01. > :26:03.votes. The reason is the Liberal Democrat support has collapsed and
:26:04. > :26:06.over towards Labour. There is lots of seats where the Conservatives
:26:07. > :26:10.fell just short of Labour in the last election, but now Labour will
:26:11. > :26:19.be bolstered by the support of lots of people who voted Liberal Democrat
:26:20. > :26:25.last time. Their on opponents are up what else? Their own support is
:26:26. > :26:28.leaking to UKIP. On the east coast is the UKIP strongest points, the
:26:29. > :26:33.Conservatives are worried about losing seats there. Clacton, Thanet
:26:34. > :26:38.South where Nigel Farage is standing. At the same time trying to
:26:39. > :26:43.winning seats off Labour they have to make sure they don't win too many
:26:44. > :26:48.votes to UKIP. So what on earth has put the spring in their step at Tory
:26:49. > :26:55.Conference? The Tories are targeting the Lib Dems aren't they? Yes, that
:26:56. > :27:01.is why where they hope to win most in the election. In the south west
:27:02. > :27:08.it is the key battle ground between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.
:27:09. > :27:14.Somewhere like Wells or Chippenham. Some of your colleagues think that
:27:15. > :27:20.if everything else was equal and that the Tories held on to
:27:21. > :27:22.everything they had, and they had a Liberal Democrat sweep, they could
:27:23. > :27:29.form some kind of minority Government. It is a big if? Yes, it
:27:30. > :27:33.is a big if. Their big problem has been that everyone expected UKIP to
:27:34. > :27:38.get squeezed after the European election and attention went
:27:39. > :27:40.elsewhere, but the defection of Carwell and the forthcoming
:27:41. > :27:46.by-election, there is more publicity for UKIP, if that keeps on rolling
:27:47. > :27:54.the Conservatives are in trouble. Their hope is not to use go where
:27:55. > :27:57.that defection went, it is a much less UKIP friendly, if the
:27:58. > :28:03.Conservatives hold that in the by-election it will put a lid on
:28:04. > :28:07.UKIP. The Conservative Party are targeting not just a lot of Liberal
:28:08. > :28:12.Democrat seats but Labour seats they just missed out on last time. The
:28:13. > :28:28.place they just missed out on last time, so where John Denham are
:28:29. > :28:31.standing down, so Labour losing the Ince -- incumbency place. They are
:28:32. > :28:36.hoping the final push will push it to Conservative. On current polls
:28:37. > :28:39.they wouldn't pick up any at all. In his interview with Evan yesterday,
:28:40. > :28:43.the Prime Minister talked about fighting a double battle, a blue-red
:28:44. > :28:49.one against Labour, and a purple-blue one against UKIP. As you
:28:50. > :28:53.have seen it is a three-way battle, Lib Dems, UKIP and Labour, no
:28:54. > :28:58.general likes to fight battle on two fronts, let alone three.
:28:59. > :29:02.Let's ask ourselves, can the Conservatives possibly win the next
:29:03. > :29:08.election. I'm joined by journalist and commentator Isabel Oakeshott,
:29:09. > :29:14.who is currently co-writing David Cameron's autobiography with Lord
:29:15. > :29:19.Ashford, a Phil Collins from the Times. Can the Conservatives
:29:20. > :29:23.possibly win an election? Possibly but the chances are very slim. I
:29:24. > :29:28.agree, very unlikely indeed. The best we are talking about is largest
:29:29. > :29:31.party in a new parliament. How much chance do they have of being the
:29:32. > :29:35.largest party? I think the key thing you have to look at is the
:29:36. > :29:39.battleground seats. And Lord Ashcroft who does the most detailed
:29:40. > :29:44.polling on this has only in the last couple of days released the latest
:29:45. > :29:48.information, that shows that the Conservatives are behind in 24 key
:29:49. > :29:53.marginals and they only really have scope to lose 22. So that is pretty
:29:54. > :29:58.bleak. Do you share that analysis? Not really. I mean in a way the next
:29:59. > :30:03.election is so tight that predicting it is a foolish thing to do. Let me
:30:04. > :30:06.try. I think that the Tories will double down very hard on the
:30:07. > :30:11.analysis that the economy is going well and Ed Miliband is too great a
:30:12. > :30:15.risk. I think those two are extremely strong. I think what
:30:16. > :30:20.Isabel says is correct today, I don't think anybody thinks that the
:30:21. > :30:23.poll that is we have today will be the verdict come the general
:30:24. > :30:26.election. We have to think where will it go, my own sense is very
:30:27. > :30:31.probably Ed Miliband won't be Prime Minister. And the reason for that is
:30:32. > :30:33.that he won't be Prime Minister. Right but the maths is very
:30:34. > :30:36.difficult for the Conservative Party. It is almost like what you
:30:37. > :30:40.are saying he can't be Prime Minister but the maths don't say
:30:41. > :30:45.that? They are difficult and the big political error of this parliament
:30:46. > :30:49.was to lose the boundary changes. That was a colossal political error,
:30:50. > :30:52.if that had gone through and the Tories had 15 or 20 seats we would
:30:53. > :30:56.be in a very different place. Even so the maths are not impossible to
:30:57. > :31:00.just get over the line to be the largest single party. How much do
:31:01. > :31:04.those poll, you are doing polls in marginal constituencies and UKIP are
:31:05. > :31:07.scoring 15% something like that. They are scoring 15%, come election
:31:08. > :31:13.day, you just don't know what those people are really going to do. They
:31:14. > :31:18.may all wither down to 3%, what did they get the last election, 3%?
:31:19. > :31:21.Absolutely not, Lord Ashcroft would say polls are a snapshot, not a
:31:22. > :31:25.prediction. One of the fascinating questions is, when people get into
:31:26. > :31:30.the polling booth, are they going to vote for their local candidate? Are
:31:31. > :31:34.they thinking in that polling booth who do I want to be Prime Minister?
:31:35. > :31:40.If it is the second then David Cameron is quids in, if you like,
:31:41. > :31:43.because what we know is that people consistently see him as a more
:31:44. > :31:46.viable prime ministerial candidate than Ed Miliband, but if it is about
:31:47. > :31:53.a local vote it will be very different. As I understand it, it is
:31:54. > :31:58.the Lib Dem voters from 2010 so crucial here. You only need a few of
:31:59. > :32:02.them to go over to Labour, and the Lib Dems won't do as well as last
:32:03. > :32:06.time, only a few to go to Labour and Labour get more votes than last
:32:07. > :32:12.time? Yes, without a doubt. It is about seven points worth. It is the
:32:13. > :32:18.impossible hurdle? That seems there is no churn from last time. You
:32:19. > :32:25.can't simply add 7% to what Labour got last time to produce 36% and
:32:26. > :32:31.think that is a stable outcome. That is in a sense is a Labour strategy,
:32:32. > :32:36.which is hang on to what we have got and a few Lib Dems and get over the
:32:37. > :32:45.line. That may be the case. The Lib Dems got 24% last time and down to
:32:46. > :32:48.6-7%, that is a lot of people to be redistributed to different place, it
:32:49. > :32:52.is not all Labour. The Conservatives may win Liberal Democrat seats too.
:32:53. > :32:56.The Conservative case is they will take Liberal Democrat cases too.
:32:57. > :32:59.When you ask them how will you add seats to what you have after 2010
:33:00. > :33:03.with a Government of austerity. They say they will take seats from the
:33:04. > :33:06.Liberal Democrats too. What is the chance the Tories will be the
:33:07. > :33:10.biggest party on votes and the smaller party on seats? Crumb, that
:33:11. > :33:14.is getting into way too much technical detail for me. I think
:33:15. > :33:17.look there is all to play for, basically. And I think that is why
:33:18. > :33:21.there is a mood of some optimisim here at this conference, there is a
:33:22. > :33:26.feeling that yes, although the odds look stacked against us, we could
:33:27. > :33:30.just scrape through. And as Phil was saying, the great strange is the
:33:31. > :33:34.economic card that they have to play. That is the ace and in David
:33:35. > :33:42.Cameron's speech tomorrow that is what he will be very much trying to
:33:43. > :33:46.focus on. Do you believe in sort of the determinism, the idea that the
:33:47. > :33:49.maths makes something impossible and you can't do it however hard you
:33:50. > :33:53.try. There does seem to be a bit of that around the Tories doesn't it?
:33:54. > :33:58.Only 50% of the population will even think of voting for them? There is a
:33:59. > :34:01.lot of it around Labour too. Because they are absolutely convinced they
:34:02. > :34:05.have a bedrock vote and they get the numbers from the Lib Dems and that
:34:06. > :34:10.means they can't lose. The numbers don't lie, it would be foolish to
:34:11. > :34:15.say the numbers lie and I have a finger in the air that isn't
:34:16. > :34:19.contained in the numbers. I'm not suggesting that, what I'm suggesting
:34:20. > :34:21.which is something that happened in Scotland, you contemplate one
:34:22. > :34:25.outcome and at the last minute you think actually that is not what I
:34:26. > :34:30.meant at all. And you end up just about ending somewhere else. As I
:34:31. > :34:33.said at the start it is foolish prediction. Thank you very much
:34:34. > :34:39.indeed. Now while we have been on air
:34:40. > :34:42.doctors in Texas have confirmed they are treating a patient for Ebola, it
:34:43. > :34:48.is the first case of the disease to be diagnosed in the United States.
:34:49. > :34:51.It is an unidentified patient, being treated in an isolation unit at a
:34:52. > :34:58.hospital in Dallas. We don't know a huge amount. We are joined by
:34:59. > :35:07.Alastair Leithead in Los Angeles. What do we know about this man? We
:35:08. > :35:11.know he's man who flew from like beeria Liberia to the US ten days
:35:12. > :35:16.ago. He was visiting family in this country were the words head of the
:35:17. > :35:19.CDC, the centre for disease, control and prevention, just in the last few
:35:20. > :35:24.minutes. We don't know as yet if he's American. Yet he is the first
:35:25. > :35:28.person to come and develop the symptom, to develop the Ebola virus
:35:29. > :35:32.on American soil. Previously of course there have been aid workers
:35:33. > :35:36.who contracted the virus and brought to the US under very controlled
:35:37. > :35:42.conditions. But this is someone who arrived ten days ago, four days
:35:43. > :35:46.later he started to show symptoms of the Ebola virus and four days after
:35:47. > :35:49.that he was put into hospital, the tests came back a few hours ago
:35:50. > :35:53.proving that he was positive with the Ebola virus. Now of course the
:35:54. > :36:03.press conference has been shown in the last few minutes, it's all on
:36:04. > :36:06.the TV network, the big thing is the reassurance of Americans saying this
:36:07. > :36:11.is not a problem and it can be controlled. The point being Ebola
:36:12. > :36:15.can't be passed on by someone breathing on someone, it is direct
:36:16. > :36:18.contact. It can't be passed on until that person shows symptoms. What the
:36:19. > :36:22.doctors are saying people on the flight from Liberia to the US should
:36:23. > :36:26.be OK. It is the people who have been in contact with this man over
:36:27. > :36:30.the last six days they need to track down. They need to establish whether
:36:31. > :36:35.they had contact with him and then put them into this 21-day period of
:36:36. > :36:45.monitoring and isolation to ensure that they haven't been infected as
:36:46. > :36:48.well. Thank you very much. We leave the Conservative Party Conference
:36:49. > :36:52.now. You might say it is democracy in action over here, but I pass you
:36:53. > :36:55.to Hong Kong where action in support of democracy is under way. It is the
:36:56. > :37:02.start of an important day for the city and Emily is there. We're
:37:03. > :37:06.minutes away from dawn mere and today's crowds are expected to swell
:37:07. > :37:12.still further with that national holiday, which marks the founding of
:37:13. > :37:16.communist China. The protests have grown bigger in the last 72 hours,
:37:17. > :37:19.but become more complicated. Where once they were calling
:37:20. > :37:22.but become more complicated. Where democracy, now we are also calling
:37:23. > :37:27.for an end to the Government that turned teargas on some of its own
:37:28. > :37:31.young people. Today Ban Ki-Moon said he wished Beijing would stop
:37:32. > :37:35.interfering with Hong Kong affairs, Nick Clegg summoned the ambassador
:37:36. > :37:40.of China to London to express his dismay and alarm. But is Beijing
:37:41. > :37:47.listening to any of this? We spent the day with protesters, some of
:37:48. > :37:50.them straight from school. If Beijing thought these protesters
:37:51. > :37:59.were quietly going away, they are not. Noisy but scruplously polite.
:38:00. > :38:05.It is hard to know where the protesters stop and the volunteers
:38:06. > :38:10.begin. But don't mistake affability for insouscience, there is anger
:38:11. > :38:15.here. They call this an awakening for Hong Kong, it is a protest
:38:16. > :38:20.brought out by student, school kids, without great organisation, but from
:38:21. > :38:24.their own free will. It is a protest that has come out for one single
:38:25. > :38:27.reason, that a promise made to them in the basic law by Beijing has been
:38:28. > :38:33.broken. As China watches in the basic law by Beijing has been
:38:34. > :38:39.scenes, captured by drone, no less, it may be regretting its pledge of
:38:40. > :38:44.universal suffrage to Hong Kong. Last month it changed the rules
:38:45. > :38:53.insisting the People's Party would vet everyone who stood for the top
:38:54. > :38:56.job. That is when everyone saw red. They will be worried, anyone would
:38:57. > :39:01.be, with the amount of people on the streets. We say to the Hong Kong and
:39:02. > :39:07.Beijing Government, listen to the people, make a positive response,
:39:08. > :39:11.the ball is in Beijing's court. They played a heavy hand meeting
:39:12. > :39:16.protesters with teargas, this tent was set up in anticipation of
:39:17. > :39:20.trouble. We found Keith there, 16 who defied his parent to come down.
:39:21. > :39:28.The Hong Kong Government is not giving us the freedom that we have.
:39:29. > :39:31.And they threaten our freedom. It seems that a rubicon has been
:39:32. > :39:35.crossed. There are people who say they don't trust their own
:39:36. > :39:39.Government, they are not talking about China, they are talking about
:39:40. > :39:48.Hong Kong. That is crucial for one very specific reason, whilst this
:39:49. > :39:53.protest might be hashtaged #occupycentral, this is powered by
:39:54. > :39:59.the kids of the Tiananmen Square generation. What is Some of them are
:40:00. > :40:03.still in uniform. What is the mood here? We are angry with the
:40:04. > :40:06.Government, how they used the violence against us and how they
:40:07. > :40:13.ignore our feelings. They don't come out and talk to us. The skyscrapers
:40:14. > :40:17.that ring these protests are a constant reminder we are one in one
:40:18. > :40:23.of the most affluence cities in the world. It is no coincidence says the
:40:24. > :40:29.father of democracy Professor Joseph Chan. People also understand that
:40:30. > :40:34.they need a democratic political system instead of just maintaining
:40:35. > :40:41.the status quo because they see a widening of the gap between the rich
:40:42. > :40:44.and poor, they see increasing collision between big business and
:40:45. > :40:50.the Government and they see deteriorating corruption. So they
:40:51. > :40:54.understand that democracy may not be a panaseer but democracy is
:40:55. > :40:59.essential to the solution. But it is not everyone's solution. Yes, there
:41:00. > :41:03.may be thousands on the street, but there are plenty more still at home
:41:04. > :41:08.in the seven million-strong city. They don't all agree that Hong Kong
:41:09. > :41:12.needs change, some thing it will damage the city irreparably, that
:41:13. > :41:15.has offered so many Chinese undreamt of opportunities. But try telling
:41:16. > :41:21.that to the crowd huddled here tonight. The umbrella has become a
:41:22. > :41:25.symbol, originally to fight off pepper spray, then rain. It speaks
:41:26. > :41:33.of a quiet determination and a patience to sit things out come what
:41:34. > :41:38.may. If they are not going away and if Beijing is not backing down, then
:41:39. > :41:43.what next? Joining me now Kelly Yang, the columnist for the South
:41:44. > :41:47.China Morning Post, and a very familiar face among democrats who
:41:48. > :41:53.has been campaigning on this for many years. My question is Emily is
:41:54. > :41:57.Beijing listening to this? I hope so, they better do, October 1st is a
:41:58. > :42:02.national day and it is a big deal. Many people will rush into the
:42:03. > :42:05.square where there will be a flag-raising ceremony, and many more
:42:06. > :42:09.people as you can see are congregating. The people want to
:42:10. > :42:13.turn out in big force to tell Beijing we want democracy. Now I can
:42:14. > :42:16.understand that many Governments over the world are speaking out,
:42:17. > :42:21.including Cameron, which is a bit late. But still, so I hope Beijing
:42:22. > :42:28.will listen. Many journalist, foreign journalists have been asking
:42:29. > :42:32.me, are we going to see another Tiananmen Square massacre, I say no
:42:33. > :42:37.way, we won't allow this to happen. You don't think this is good? I
:42:38. > :42:43.think the cause is very good, and I definitely support democracy and I
:42:44. > :42:48.support universal suffrage. I think that the method of causing this much
:42:49. > :42:52.disruption, especially in a place like Hong Kong, heavily dependent on
:42:53. > :42:57.the economy and markets. How would you do it then? I think really you
:42:58. > :43:01.know one of the things that we need to think about appealing to are
:43:02. > :43:04.business leaders. Because Hong Kong is a place that is valuable to China
:43:05. > :43:10.because of the economy. Is there anything in that Emily Lau, they
:43:11. > :43:13.would listen to business leaders? I have been talking to business and
:43:14. > :43:18.political leaders in the Beijing camp saying come on, you speak out,
:43:19. > :43:22.you see there is a lot at stake, your pocket book is at stake. Tell
:43:23. > :43:26.Beijing if you trust the Hong Kong people, allow us to have elections
:43:27. > :43:29.in which the voters can have genuine choice, the sky is not going to
:43:30. > :43:32.collapse. The Hong Kong people will choose someone that can work with
:43:33. > :43:37.Beijing and can defend our interests. Doesn't it worry you even
:43:38. > :43:40.to be thinking in those terms that you need business leaders to sort
:43:41. > :43:44.this out instead of the voices on the street. This is about democracy,
:43:45. > :43:47.this is about a vote? Absolutely, I think there are other ways for
:43:48. > :43:50.people to voice their opinions. I think that when you cause disruption
:43:51. > :43:53.you have to think about whether it is going to work and it is going to
:43:54. > :43:58.be effective. You don't think this is working? This is how Hong Kong
:43:59. > :44:01.has worked for decades, even under British rule, they only listen to
:44:02. > :44:07.the rich. Now Beijing, whenever they want to hear the views of Hong Kong
:44:08. > :44:11.they summon a few dozen richest tycoons and that is it. This is a
:44:12. > :44:18.tragedy and the British never helped us to have democracy. So, OK, listen
:44:19. > :44:22.to the Beijing elites, the pro--Beijing business people. But
:44:23. > :44:25.these people should stand out now. I think they don't want Hong Kong to
:44:26. > :44:29.descend into chaos either. Where do you think this is going? If you are
:44:30. > :44:34.dealing with a superpower like China, which is not going to back
:44:35. > :44:38.down, and you have this kind of protest. You call them a superpower,
:44:39. > :44:42.but it is your own Government? Think about the President, he won't back
:44:43. > :44:50.down. There is no way he will. How do you know Kelly. I don't think
:44:51. > :44:53.that China if Beijing respects the wishes of the Hong Kong people there
:44:54. > :44:59.would be chaos on mainland China, please don't say that. We cannot
:45:00. > :45:03.assume that Beijing will never back down, it is difficult but not
:45:04. > :45:10.impossible. Have you ever seen an example of Beijing backing down? In
:45:11. > :45:15.2010 when we were talking about political reform, my party proposed
:45:16. > :45:19.an amendment, Beijing said no, the whole thing is set and sealed and
:45:20. > :45:24.delivered, and a week later changed its mind. Maybe there is method in
:45:25. > :45:30.this? You have to see how effective the protest will be, if it is not
:45:31. > :45:34.big enough it will hurt the little business owners, that will hurt the
:45:35. > :45:37.economy, the big guys will survive this, the big shops, the banks they
:45:38. > :45:41.have contingency plans, it is the little business owners who won't
:45:42. > :45:45.make it. If it gets too big you might also have another problem on
:45:46. > :45:49.your hand. It is hard to balance. Kelly Yang and Emily Lau, thank you
:45:50. > :45:52.very much indeed. We will be here watching the protests tomorrow. But
:45:53. > :45:57.we leave you tonight with some of the faces and the images of what
:45:58. > :45:59.they are now calling the Umbrella Revolution, from wherever you are in
:46:00. > :46:35.Hong Kong city, good night. Lots of cloud around overnight. A
:46:36. > :46:36.grey start in the morning, misty too, but not a