30/09/2014 Newsnight


Evan Davis talks to Boris Johnson at the Conservative Party Conference and Emily Maitlis is live in Hong Kong.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



What's good about party conference is that you can first see if a party


is up to winning an election, and two, whether it has ideas what to do


if it does. We are with the Conservatives to look at both.


David Cameron has been out and about in Birmingham, where the arguments


of the next election are taking shape. Here we go, Ed Balls. We want


a more strategic approach to the rails definitely. Having watched


clips of politicians making their arguments, Boris Johnson thinks the


language needs to improve. More people listening to are short


Anglo-Saxon words that readily correspond to an object in the


universe they can identify. Here in Hong Kong we are an hour away from


dawn, the protests are getting bigger and more complicated. Where


once they were calling for democracy, they are calling for an


end to the Government who turned tear gas on their own people. Hong


Kong democrats think they have seen it all before. They must listen and


if they have a bloody crackdown here there will be hell to pay.


if they have a bloody crackdown here Hello there, well, the serious


bidding is under way here in Birmingham. As it


bidding is under way here in Conservative conference it is senior


Conservatives who have been laying out their offers, trying to outbid


the opposition out their offers, trying to outbid


year. We have had Home Secretary, Theresa May, on outlawing the


obnoxious. Banning orders and extremism disruption orders will be


in the next Conservative manifesto. LINEBREAK APPLAUSE


More on that later in the programme. We have also had Health Secretary,


Jeremy Hunt, trying to get the doctors in England to dock around


the clock. I commit that at the end of the next parliament a


Conservative Government will make sure every NHS patient, across the


whole country, will be able to get weekend and eight till eight


appointments. The words for David Cameron's leader's speech that


journalists are turning their mind to. Allegra, do we have insight into


what David Cameron will say? It is expected he will announce they will


continue to ring-fence the NHS. They did it in the last parliament, quite


a lot of conternation in their own Conservative Party, they will pledge


to do it again. Remember when he was first leader he said there were


three letters that mattered to him, the NHS. It seems tomorrow with his


three letters that mattered to him, last speech before the election he


will use another pledge on the NHS to say I don't want this to be my


last as Prime Minister. He will place that centrally. It would be


very draconian to the NHS if you didn't ring-fence it and give it at


least flat spending in real tells. -- terms. It must have implication


for other departments? If they continue the ring-fence they will go


further in other places. The Conservatives always say


ring-fencing is not always that brilliant for departments, it means


they don't reform. So they have a muscular debate about this, lots of


people on their own side would like them not to ring-fence it. It is


controversial. There is something viewers should perhaps look out for


which is a debate perhaps in the months ahead about will they make


this department do more? Will they say you have got this ring-fence,


now will you please do social care as well. It is making that


department sweat more while it headlines they have kept it the


same. So NHS in the speech tomorrow, tell us about the terrain on which


it will be fought on over the next few weeks? The NHS is the centre


piece, ?2. 5 billion more from Labour. Labour has a ginormous lead


on the NHS. The strange thing was Ed Miliband doubling down on a


strength. And the Conservatives are saying we will fight you on this.


This issing that that those still thinking that maybe, maybe I will


back David Cameron at the next election the NHS matters to them a


lot. They want something in that area. They have prebriefed something


about the NHS, anything else? I think it will be much more, if you


think the NHS was targeted at our viewers, people outside the hall,


tomorrow there will be more to tickle the tummies of the people in


the room. Thank you. The leader's speech is the climax of the


conference, one of the highlights of the event is the speech by Boris


Johnson, it is this morning, and a demonstration for anyone who hadn't


spotted it that the London mayor is a formidable communicator. He is


able to obfuscate and fudge like the rest of them, but he can sum things


up more colourfully than most. Today he talked about his economic vision


of Britain, exporting weapons grade chillies to India, bus stops to last


vague carriages come better bands to China -- cumberbands to China. He


speaks well and popular, but not popular enough to get those who


think the Tories are toxic to vote for emthis. I sat down with Boris


Johnson at lunchtime to talk Conservatives, communicators and


disconnected voters. Boris Johnson, do you have a theory as to why the


Conservatives can't get more than 35% apparently in the poll, that the


65% who didn't vote for them at the last election show no interest in


voting for them in the next? I don't think you need any kind of theory to


address this question, this is really something that could change


very fast. If you look at what happened last week in Manchester,


and you look at the way I think the Labour programme for the country


looked so frail and so eminently attackable, I any you could see in


the course of the next few months you could see a change in those


numbers. Look at the numbers, you talk about the 35%, look at the


numbers which assess economic competence and prime ministerial


qualities, and as the great Australian Linton Crosby says, the


"qal leads the quant mate". What it means is those things that are the


Tory approach, David Cameron and George Osborne are doing, it


massively outshine what is Labour are doing, those things will


translate into quantity of polling into support for the Conservatives


as the election gets closer. That is an optimistic view isn't it. I know


MPs in man chest e Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and no sign any of


MPs, and that is even with the poll, people say yeah they are better at


the economy, we prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband, but no we are not


going to vote Conservative in the swathes of the country? There are


actually huge parts of the country that we are winning back. I was just


out yesterday in Newcastle-under-Lyme in a seat we


haven't held in hundreds of years where we were at 3% now. A huge


brick-making industry and potteries and things like that. Don't rule us


out in the cities. I think the message we have got to get across is


the Conservatives are there for everybody. The broad idea is the way


to sort out the problems of the country is not to punish success but


to stimulate people to do their best. And if you get people, if you


get business and industry really motoring that will supply the wealth


to pay for the poorest and the neediest. That is one-nation


Conservatism. The problem is you have been saying it for a couple of


decades now. The problem of toxic Tories in large parts of the


country, and you have left it very late to solve it by next May haven't


you? I wonder, because I think that if you look at, it is certainly the


case that in large parts of the country there was post-industrial


decline, there were parts of the country that didn't benefit from


many of the great supply-side reforms that came through in the


1980, the things that have made London go gangbusters at the moment,


there were things that didn't benefit from that. For instance if


you look at the motor manufacturing industry now, we are about to become


the second-biggest in Europe. Look at what's happening in our tech


sector, where all that funny stuff that's happening in London that you


know six years ago you or I barely understood is all fizzing and


popping now, in Manchester, in Leeds, here in Birmingham, you know,


if things are changing and I think that politics is about you know not


panicking about polls, but about trying to show what your message is


and to keep driving away. I think our polls are very strong when you


consider that we have been through the worst recession for 100 years,


and the Labour Party is barely a whisker above us just in the current


who would you vote for poll, let alone who is better on the economy.


Let's you know, poll, I was much further behind, I think, in London


in 2007 and then went on to win in 2008, according to the strict


opinion polls. You make the point that Labour are not doing very well


either, I wonder whether we are in the midst of a slightly bigger


picture of the decline of the two main parties, and there is just


enormous political disengagment from the message they have. You know you


will know that the number of people who will say they are all the same.


There is this huge sense of disenchantment? I think there has


been a lot of that. I think the answer is that we have just got to


do what we say we are going to. Do and so like on this Europe business,


we have got to mean it. We have got to go in there and you know with the


Lisbon Treaty we will have a referendum, we didn't have one and


that was a mistake. We should go in there and make sure we get a proper


reform, get a renegotiation and then put it to the people of this


country. You think it could be about broken promises or a sense that


people are like that. I think Iraq was massively corrosive. The


financial crash might have left people feeling they were sold that.


I wonder also, you are regarded as one of the best communicators in


politics, I wonder whether there is a communication... That is a hotly


contested field. That's an interesting point, let's have a look


at a few clip, we have assembled clips of politician, one from each


party, they are not the most awful clips we have picked these almost at


random, we didn't have much time to get them together. Watch them and


give me a comment. Clips. One from each party, just sort of random


clip, we will start with one from Ed Balls, here we go, Ed Balls. We want


a more strategic approach to the railways, definitely, the fact that


Network Rail has now come back on to the Government balance sheets


provides an opportunity for that. But I think actually the franchising


process over the last ten years has delivered more passenger numbers,


there has been big public investment as well, but in the east coast they


are a public operator who has been doing a really good job. This is one


froEd spaced Davy the Liberal Democrat minister. Whether it is


water issues which the Environment Minister has a robust regime on.


Whether it is the integrity of the wells dug, independent well


examiners. Whether it is methane emissions and so on, we have taken a


very robust approach. And let's do last one, we have a Conservative


here too, this is William Hague. Often considered a very good orator,


let's listen to Hague. I think these events make even clearer the need


for what we are proposing. That it is essential to have change in


Europe and what has happened here, which is an increasing power for the


European Parliament at the expense of the council and heads of


Government, makes the need for that even clearer. Let me give you my


thoughts about that before you ask me. I think one thing that is


incredibly important is to try to speak, and I fail totally in this,


and I catch myself endlessly on the radio, you are waffling and blurbing


and using all sorts of words in that way. What people listen to are short


Anglo-Saxon words that readily correspond to some object in the


universe that they can identify. So, in other words, talk simple lie, use


plain English. Talk about stuff in the real world. Now you knows


Winston Churchill when he made his great speeches with the things that


really shot through into the public consciousness, what were they? It


was "we shall fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the


landing grounds, we will fight them on the hills and the streets, we


will never surrender". Which is the only Latinate word in that chunk,


which is the only word derived from a romance language. Subjecter.


Correct, all the rest are simple English words. That people


understand absolutely clearly. With the pattern with the franchising and


the blah, blah, blah fish cake, nobody, it just turns into great


mush. And Thatcher actually was clear. She would go on the Today


Programme and say, "yesterday we had a piece of cheese and it was very


good", or something like that. And it would be unbelievably clear and


you knew what she was on about. I wonder with the Ed Balls clip, I


wonder sometimes whether the message isn't clear, or whether essentially,


the sentences come out like that because you are trying not


obfuscate. Completely right, what is going on is politicians are using


complicated words and concepts in order to polyfiller a bit of the


argument. That cheeses people off, to get back to cheese. They can


detect that and spot it. They want to hear it put more simply. I mean


I'm a terrible offender myself. A terrible offender. I know I do it. I


try not to. But you do it with more aplomb, and you are funnier than the


others. If you want to be heard, you have to speak plainly. And I believe


that. Completely. And that is, I think, at the heart of much of the


problem. But what it is about, it is a problem, I think it is a problem


of language. It is a problem of style. But that reflects an


unwillingness to be honest about the issues. You know. Suppose we have


got to close 70 police stations in London, now it would be much easier


to talk about reform and improvement of the estate, or some such waffle.


It is interesting because we were having this discussion earlier if


everybody was like you and a little bit more open, and perhaps a little


bit funnier and willing to make gaffes and speak off script. If they


were maybe that would, the world would fall in and there would be


disorder for the party? I think it would be much more interesting, I


think the arguments when you dig into it, people want to engage in


the argument. And you can't engage in the argument if it is cloaked and


swaddled in a lot of waffle that nobody can get to grips with. I


wonder if there is a question over your style, this is an interesting


question, whether it is hard to both be very engaging and statesmanlike,


it is really conspicuous on the polling for you. You score so highly


on likability and incredibly low on statesmanship. C'est la vie. Do you


worried about not being taken seriously? No I would much rather be


understood and get my case across than to jazz everything up into a


load of meaningless waffle. Boris Johnson, thank you very much. Thank


you. Boris with a little testing of my Latin in that. Given that in


recent years we have had the Terrorism Act 20000, the


antiterrorism and secure act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act


2005, the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, and the protection of freedoms


act 2012, you might have thought we covered most of the useful ground in


dealing with threats to our society. But Home Secretary Theresa May


thinks we have overlooked something. Have a listen to this, at conference


today setting out the gaps she wants to fill. I want to see new banning


orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws in


terrorism. I want new civil powers to target extremist who is stay just


within the law but still spread poisonous hatred, so both policies,


banning orders and extremism disruption orders will be in the


next Conservative manifesto. The essence of it is to outlaw those,


treatmentists not extremist enough to be illegal. The banning orders


would curtail the activities of groups that want to spread hatred or


overthrow democracy. If there is one individual it is thought they are


aimed it is radical preacher Anjem Choudary. This is his reaction? The


biggest radicalising is not me talking about Sharia, it is the


foreign policy of torturing and slaughtering people in Muslim


countries that is having a backlash for people here. We have been


propagaging the same thing for the last 30 years, we have never


changed, the same demonstrations are taking place that long ago. The only


thing that has changed was the British Government's laws, we have


never asked permission to propagage Islam and we will not ask permission


now. I'm joined by Afzal Amin working with the Foreign Office on


counter extremism and former army captain, and Zubeda Limbada, from


ConnectJustice. She captain, and Zubeda Limbada, from


evening to you both. I will start evening to you both. I will start


with you, how would this work, a minister thinks an individual is


promoting hate, very annoying, bit irritating, what happens? We all


know the extremism we see on our television screens, what Theresa May


wants to do is turn off that tap of propaganda towards terrorism,


because if people are allowed in our country. I went to Iraq and


Afghanistan when the British Army was fighting terrorists. We don't


want to come home and find that people propagaging on behalf of the


terrorists are free -- propogating on behalf of the terrorists are free


to do that on our streets. We see a handful but very extreme people, I


think it is disgusting a that the British broadcasting corporation


bring on Anjem Choudary and other extremists again and again, and


ignore the millions of Muslim people who live in Britain peacefully and


serve in the Armed Forces. This is something that has to be recognised,


those not happy here and want to bring about extremist and terrorist


approach to how to settle differences I would advocate go even


further than stopping them working here but prosecute them, those that


are guilty, strip them of nationality and return them to


countries of parental origin. If you don't like it here, please leave.


You are not an Anjem Choudary fan, I am assuming. The majority of Muslims


are not. What do you want to do about him if you don't like him?


First of all it is not to give him the oxygen of publicity which he is


currently enjoying. Especially for someone who has around 100


followers, there is a disproportion nationality to the voice and


airspace's given. More I would say moderate voice, the majority of


voices need to be given some traction within the media to hear


those voices. But banning Anjem Choudary, using him as an example,


we could pick other names, banning him does it help reduce his


influence over however many followers he has? The last time I


checked we lived in a democracy and we still live in a democracy, so


banning people and ideas is not conducive as a way forward. It may


appeal as a temporary measure, but it is certainly not a long-term


solution. You have to listen to the narrative of what is being said. In


terms of ideas and what grievances are, and listening to ideas that we


may not like, but within the realm of what is being discussed as well.


What is being proposed is to top propaganda towards terrorism, and


that is what Anjem Choudary and his ilk do, that is what needs to be


stopped. Free speech is fine, disagree with foreign policy,


domestic policy, stop and search whatever, have a civilised


discussion. What they do is promote and propogate for terrorists. But


that is illegal already? If you are prosecuted. There is another law to


get rid of that? You have just argued about deporting people, how


do you deport people if you are born here. If you are not happy in our


country, why are you still here? If you want to go and live under the


ISIL terrorists, do so. That reduces a discussion, so if you say ban


them, send them home, that reduces the discussion. I'm not saying send


them home, some are born here. I'm saying if people are in this country


advocating on behalf of ISIS and other terrorists groups, they should


be taken and sent back to where their parents come from. You can't


have... That is not what we are talking about, this is a measure of


potentially the banning of individuals or groups we are not


talking about deporting. But countering the propaganda is what


this is about. Could you use this measure against the English Defence


League for example? It depends what we were advocating. If they were


advocating what Anjem Choudary advocates. Who makes the decision,


it seems to be reasonable belief on behalf of the minister? We have a


court of law, we try it with a jury. We don't, the judge has to decide


whether it is a reasonable view on the part of it? The system that we


set up with the number of judges that make a decision that is the


system we use. We have to step back and listen to what we need to talk


about here. There is election time and the rhetoric steps up in terms


of who will be tough on crime and extremism. I must interrupt. Please


don't interrupt. Two Americans were beheaded by a terrorist group whose


sympathisers are operating in our societies, they must be stopped.


What do you propose to stop them. 2014 around 28,000 images were


removed from the Internet, that is one example, but can we legally just


stop removing things. You haven't used the one argument I thought you


would use is this might give these folks the oxygen of a persecution


complex that makes them more virulant in their abuse, is that


something? The feeling that of not banning things as a way out, we are


not looking at the underlying causes, which I have mentioned. If


you start looking at the internet saying we don't like these images


and ban nonviolent extremists and their ideas. It is the dangerous


aspects of what happens to ideas, you can't stop the flow of ideas. We


do that already with so many things. Theresa May got hid of Abu Qatar and


Abu Hamza, that was a great thing. Something needs to be done, but with


the history of the IRA we tried to ban people and it doesn't work. We


need to leave it there. Thank you very much. Well, enough talk about


policy the burning question for Conservatives here is can they win


the election next year. Boris Johnson told us earlier they could,


Allegra has been looking more closely at the maths.


The Tories in Birmingham are chirpy and they don't quite know why. They


know how terrible the polling is for them. Labour is much closer to


victory in 2015 than the Tories, but still they are upbeat. They think Ed


Miliband had a flat conference, the maths may be bad, they say, but the


music, the music is much, much better. Right now the Conservatives


have 303 seats, Labour 256, the Liberal Democrats 56. Opinion polls


suggest in an election tomorrow Labour would win way over 300 and


the Tories much less. Richie Emily Maitlis may have whizzy graphics but


we only have paper weights and markers. We did find an expert to


discuss the maths. Tell me the problem for the people out there,


they are in a God mood but they know the map isn't looking that good for


them? While they are in a good mood and the Conservatives have a good


narrative and ahead on the leadership, they are behind on the


votes. The reason is the Liberal Democrat support has collapsed and


over towards Labour. There is lots of seats where the Conservatives


fell just short of Labour in the last election, but now Labour will


be bolstered by the support of lots of people who voted Liberal Democrat


last time. Their on opponents are up what else? Their own support is


leaking to UKIP. On the east coast is the UKIP strongest points, the


Conservatives are worried about losing seats there. Clacton, Thanet


South where Nigel Farage is standing. At the same time trying to


winning seats off Labour they have to make sure they don't win too many


votes to UKIP. So what on earth has put the spring in their step at Tory


Conference? The Tories are targeting the Lib Dems aren't they? Yes, that


is why where they hope to win most in the election. In the south west


it is the key battle ground between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.


Somewhere like Wells or Chippenham. Some of your colleagues think that


if everything else was equal and that the Tories held on to


everything they had, and they had a Liberal Democrat sweep, they could


form some kind of minority Government. It is a big if? Yes, it


is a big if. Their big problem has been that everyone expected UKIP to


get squeezed after the European election and attention went


elsewhere, but the defection of Carwell and the forthcoming


by-election, there is more publicity for UKIP, if that keeps on rolling


the Conservatives are in trouble. Their hope is not to use go where


that defection went, it is a much less UKIP friendly, if the


Conservatives hold that in the by-election it will put a lid on


UKIP. The Conservative Party are targeting not just a lot of Liberal


Democrat seats but Labour seats they just missed out on last time. The


place they just missed out on last time, so where John Denham are


standing down, so Labour losing the Ince -- incumbency place. They are


hoping the final push will push it to Conservative. On current polls


they wouldn't pick up any at all. In his interview with Evan yesterday,


the Prime Minister talked about fighting a double battle, a blue-red


one against Labour, and a purple-blue one against UKIP. As you


have seen it is a three-way battle, Lib Dems, UKIP and Labour, no


general likes to fight battle on two fronts, let alone three.


Let's ask ourselves, can the Conservatives possibly win the next


election. I'm joined by journalist and commentator Isabel Oakeshott,


who is currently co-writing David Cameron's autobiography with Lord


Ashford, a Phil Collins from the Times. Can the Conservatives


possibly win an election? Possibly but the chances are very slim. I


agree, very unlikely indeed. The best we are talking about is largest


party in a new parliament. How much chance do they have of being the


largest party? I think the key thing you have to look at is the


battleground seats. And Lord Ashcroft who does the most detailed


polling on this has only in the last couple of days released the latest


information, that shows that the Conservatives are behind in 24 key


marginals and they only really have scope to lose 22. So that is pretty


bleak. Do you share that analysis? Not really. I mean in a way the next


election is so tight that predicting it is a foolish thing to do. Let me


try. I think that the Tories will double down very hard on the


analysis that the economy is going well and Ed Miliband is too great a


risk. I think those two are extremely strong. I think what


Isabel says is correct today, I don't think anybody thinks that the


poll that is we have today will be the verdict come the general


election. We have to think where will it go, my own sense is very


probably Ed Miliband won't be Prime Minister. And the reason for that is


that he won't be Prime Minister. Right but the maths is very


difficult for the Conservative Party. It is almost like what you


are saying he can't be Prime Minister but the maths don't say


that? They are difficult and the big political error of this parliament


was to lose the boundary changes. That was a colossal political error,


if that had gone through and the Tories had 15 or 20 seats we would


be in a very different place. Even so the maths are not impossible to


just get over the line to be the largest single party. How much do


those poll, you are doing polls in marginal constituencies and UKIP are


scoring 15% something like that. They are scoring 15%, come election


day, you just don't know what those people are really going to do. They


may all wither down to 3%, what did they get the last election, 3%?


Absolutely not, Lord Ashcroft would say polls are a snapshot, not a


prediction. One of the fascinating questions is, when people get into


the polling booth, are they going to vote for their local candidate? Are


they thinking in that polling booth who do I want to be Prime Minister?


If it is the second then David Cameron is quids in, if you like,


because what we know is that people consistently see him as a more


viable prime ministerial candidate than Ed Miliband, but if it is about


a local vote it will be very different. As I understand it, it is


the Lib Dem voters from 2010 so crucial here. You only need a few of


them to go over to Labour, and the Lib Dems won't do as well as last


time, only a few to go to Labour and Labour get more votes than last


time? Yes, without a doubt. It is about seven points worth. It is the


impossible hurdle? That seems there is no churn from last time. You


can't simply add 7% to what Labour got last time to produce 36% and


think that is a stable outcome. That is in a sense is a Labour strategy,


which is hang on to what we have got and a few Lib Dems and get over the


line. That may be the case. The Lib Dems got 24% last time and down to


6-7%, that is a lot of people to be redistributed to different place, it


is not all Labour. The Conservatives may win Liberal Democrat seats too.


The Conservative case is they will take Liberal Democrat cases too.


When you ask them how will you add seats to what you have after 2010


with a Government of austerity. They say they will take seats from the


Liberal Democrats too. What is the chance the Tories will be the


biggest party on votes and the smaller party on seats? Crumb, that


is getting into way too much technical detail for me. I think


look there is all to play for, basically. And I think that is why


there is a mood of some optimisim here at this conference, there is a


feeling that yes, although the odds look stacked against us, we could


just scrape through. And as Phil was saying, the great strange is the


economic card that they have to play. That is the ace and in David


Cameron's speech tomorrow that is what he will be very much trying to


focus on. Do you believe in sort of the determinism, the idea that the


maths makes something impossible and you can't do it however hard you


try. There does seem to be a bit of that around the Tories doesn't it?


Only 50% of the population will even think of voting for them? There is a


lot of it around Labour too. Because they are absolutely convinced they


have a bedrock vote and they get the numbers from the Lib Dems and that


means they can't lose. The numbers don't lie, it would be foolish to


say the numbers lie and I have a finger in the air that isn't


contained in the numbers. I'm not suggesting that, what I'm suggesting


which is something that happened in Scotland, you contemplate one


outcome and at the last minute you think actually that is not what I


meant at all. And you end up just about ending somewhere else. As I


said at the start it is foolish prediction. Thank you very much


indeed. Now while we have been on air


doctors in Texas have confirmed they are treating a patient for Ebola, it


is the first case of the disease to be diagnosed in the United States.


It is an unidentified patient, being treated in an isolation unit at a


hospital in Dallas. We don't know a huge amount. We are joined by


Alastair Leithead in Los Angeles. What do we know about this man? We


know he's man who flew from like beeria Liberia to the US ten days


ago. He was visiting family in this country were the words head of the


CDC, the centre for disease, control and prevention, just in the last few


minutes. We don't know as yet if he's American. Yet he is the first


person to come and develop the symptom, to develop the Ebola virus


on American soil. Previously of course there have been aid workers


who contracted the virus and brought to the US under very controlled


conditions. But this is someone who arrived ten days ago, four days


later he started to show symptoms of the Ebola virus and four days after


that he was put into hospital, the tests came back a few hours ago


proving that he was positive with the Ebola virus. Now of course the


press conference has been shown in the last few minutes, it's all on


the TV network, the big thing is the reassurance of Americans saying this


is not a problem and it can be controlled. The point being Ebola


can't be passed on by someone breathing on someone, it is direct


contact. It can't be passed on until that person shows symptoms. What the


doctors are saying people on the flight from Liberia to the US should


be OK. It is the people who have been in contact with this man over


the last six days they need to track down. They need to establish whether


they had contact with him and then put them into this 21-day period of


monitoring and isolation to ensure that they haven't been infected as


well. Thank you very much. We leave the Conservative Party Conference


now. You might say it is democracy in action over here, but I pass you


to Hong Kong where action in support of democracy is under way. It is the


start of an important day for the city and Emily is there. We're


minutes away from dawn mere and today's crowds are expected to swell


still further with that national holiday, which marks the founding of


communist China. The protests have grown bigger in the last 72 hours,


but become more complicated. Where once they were calling


but become more complicated. Where democracy, now we are also calling


for an end to the Government that turned teargas on some of its own


young people. Today Ban Ki-Moon said he wished Beijing would stop


interfering with Hong Kong affairs, Nick Clegg summoned the ambassador


of China to London to express his dismay and alarm. But is Beijing


listening to any of this? We spent the day with protesters, some of


them straight from school. If Beijing thought these protesters


were quietly going away, they are not. Noisy but scruplously polite.


It is hard to know where the protesters stop and the volunteers


begin. But don't mistake affability for insouscience, there is anger


here. They call this an awakening for Hong Kong, it is a protest


brought out by student, school kids, without great organisation, but from


their own free will. It is a protest that has come out for one single


reason, that a promise made to them in the basic law by Beijing has been


broken. As China watches in the basic law by Beijing has been


scenes, captured by drone, no less, it may be regretting its pledge of


universal suffrage to Hong Kong. Last month it changed the rules


insisting the People's Party would vet everyone who stood for the top


job. That is when everyone saw red. They will be worried, anyone would


be, with the amount of people on the streets. We say to the Hong Kong and


Beijing Government, listen to the people, make a positive response,


the ball is in Beijing's court. They played a heavy hand meeting


protesters with teargas, this tent was set up in anticipation of


trouble. We found Keith there, 16 who defied his parent to come down.


The Hong Kong Government is not giving us the freedom that we have.


And they threaten our freedom. It seems that a rubicon has been


crossed. There are people who say they don't trust their own


Government, they are not talking about China, they are talking about


Hong Kong. That is crucial for one very specific reason, whilst this


protest might be hashtaged #occupycentral, this is powered by


the kids of the Tiananmen Square generation. What is Some of them are


still in uniform. What is the mood here? We are angry with the


Government, how they used the violence against us and how they


ignore our feelings. They don't come out and talk to us. The skyscrapers


that ring these protests are a constant reminder we are one in one


of the most affluence cities in the world. It is no coincidence says the


father of democracy Professor Joseph Chan. People also understand that


they need a democratic political system instead of just maintaining


the status quo because they see a widening of the gap between the rich


and poor, they see increasing collision between big business and


the Government and they see deteriorating corruption. So they


understand that democracy may not be a panaseer but democracy is


essential to the solution. But it is not everyone's solution. Yes, there


may be thousands on the street, but there are plenty more still at home


in the seven million-strong city. They don't all agree that Hong Kong


needs change, some thing it will damage the city irreparably, that


has offered so many Chinese undreamt of opportunities. But try telling


that to the crowd huddled here tonight. The umbrella has become a


symbol, originally to fight off pepper spray, then rain. It speaks


of a quiet determination and a patience to sit things out come what


may. If they are not going away and if Beijing is not backing down, then


what next? Joining me now Kelly Yang, the columnist for the South


China Morning Post, and a very familiar face among democrats who


has been campaigning on this for many years. My question is Emily is


Beijing listening to this? I hope so, they better do, October 1st is a


national day and it is a big deal. Many people will rush into the


square where there will be a flag-raising ceremony, and many more


people as you can see are congregating. The people want to


turn out in big force to tell Beijing we want democracy. Now I can


understand that many Governments over the world are speaking out,


including Cameron, which is a bit late. But still, so I hope Beijing


will listen. Many journalist, foreign journalists have been asking


me, are we going to see another Tiananmen Square massacre, I say no


way, we won't allow this to happen. You don't think this is good? I


think the cause is very good, and I definitely support democracy and I


support universal suffrage. I think that the method of causing this much


disruption, especially in a place like Hong Kong, heavily dependent on


the economy and markets. How would you do it then? I think really you


know one of the things that we need to think about appealing to are


business leaders. Because Hong Kong is a place that is valuable to China


because of the economy. Is there anything in that Emily Lau, they


would listen to business leaders? I have been talking to business and


political leaders in the Beijing camp saying come on, you speak out,


you see there is a lot at stake, your pocket book is at stake. Tell


Beijing if you trust the Hong Kong people, allow us to have elections


in which the voters can have genuine choice, the sky is not going to


collapse. The Hong Kong people will choose someone that can work with


Beijing and can defend our interests. Doesn't it worry you even


to be thinking in those terms that you need business leaders to sort


this out instead of the voices on the street. This is about democracy,


this is about a vote? Absolutely, I think there are other ways for


people to voice their opinions. I think that when you cause disruption


you have to think about whether it is going to work and it is going to


be effective. You don't think this is working? This is how Hong Kong


has worked for decades, even under British rule, they only listen to


the rich. Now Beijing, whenever they want to hear the views of Hong Kong


they summon a few dozen richest tycoons and that is it. This is a


tragedy and the British never helped us to have democracy. So, OK, listen


to the Beijing elites, the pro--Beijing business people. But


these people should stand out now. I think they don't want Hong Kong to


descend into chaos either. Where do you think this is going? If you are


dealing with a superpower like China, which is not going to back


down, and you have this kind of protest. You call them a superpower,


but it is your own Government? Think about the President, he won't back


down. There is no way he will. How do you know Kelly. I don't think


that China if Beijing respects the wishes of the Hong Kong people there


would be chaos on mainland China, please don't say that. We cannot


assume that Beijing will never back down, it is difficult but not


impossible. Have you ever seen an example of Beijing backing down? In


2010 when we were talking about political reform, my party proposed


an amendment, Beijing said no, the whole thing is set and sealed and


delivered, and a week later changed its mind. Maybe there is method in


this? You have to see how effective the protest will be, if it is not


big enough it will hurt the little business owners, that will hurt the


economy, the big guys will survive this, the big shops, the banks they


have contingency plans, it is the little business owners who won't


make it. If it gets too big you might also have another problem on


your hand. It is hard to balance. Kelly Yang and Emily Lau, thank you


very much indeed. We will be here watching the protests tomorrow. But


we leave you tonight with some of the faces and the images of what


they are now calling the Umbrella Revolution, from wherever you are in


Hong Kong city, good night. Lots of cloud around overnight. A


grey start in the morning, misty too, but not a


Download Subtitles