:00:37. > :00:39.Morning folks and welcome to The Sunday Politics,
:00:40. > :00:45.live from the Conservative Conference in Birmingham.
:00:46. > :00:47.There will be one less Conservative MP here after Mark Reckless defected
:00:48. > :00:52.He joins us live from his constituency, where he has
:00:53. > :01:00.It has not been the best of starts for the Prime Minister, as he
:01:01. > :01:02.arrives in Birmingham for the last Tory conference before the election.
:01:03. > :01:05.On top of the Reckless defection, a junior Tory minister has resigned
:01:06. > :01:14.RAF jets have carried out their first mission over Iraq
:01:15. > :01:28.And should we be targeting Syria, too?
:01:29. > :01:33.In London, how the richest 1% are pulling further away, and why those
:01:34. > :01:38.priced out are choosing to move away.
:01:39. > :01:42.And joining me, three of the country's most loyal journalists,
:01:43. > :01:45.who sadly have yet to resign or defect to our inferior rivals.
:01:46. > :01:51.Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.
:01:52. > :01:55.And, of course, they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.
:01:56. > :01:58.And you too can get involved by using the hashtag #BBCSP.
:01:59. > :02:01.At the current rate of Tory resignations,
:02:02. > :02:04.Mr Cameron could be speaking to an empty hall when he makes his keynote
:02:05. > :02:08.address to the Tory conference here in Birmingham tomorrow.
:02:09. > :02:12.It's been a classic car crash of a start to the conference, with a UKIP
:02:13. > :02:15.defection, a minister shamed into resignation by a sex scandal and
:02:16. > :02:22.Ed Miliband's memory lapses now look like a little local difficulty.
:02:23. > :02:29.Here's what the Prime Minister had to say
:02:30. > :02:41.These things are frustrating and frankly counter-productive and
:02:42. > :02:45.rather senseless. If you want to have a European referendum, if you
:02:46. > :02:47.want to get the deficit down, if you want to build a stronger Britain
:02:48. > :02:52.that we can be proud of, there is only one option, which is to have a
:02:53. > :02:54.Conservative government after the next election.
:02:55. > :03:02.And Mark Reckless joins me now from Rochester.
:03:03. > :03:09.Welcome to the programme. Why did you lie to all your Conservative
:03:10. > :03:13.colleagues and mislead those who elected you? Well, I am keeping
:03:14. > :03:17.faith with my constituents and keeping my promises to them. You
:03:18. > :03:20.heard the Prime Minister saying that the Conservative led government was
:03:21. > :03:25.dealing with the deficit and cutting immigration. The reality is, we have
:03:26. > :03:29.increased the national debt by more in five years than even Labour
:03:30. > :03:33.managed in 13, and immigration is back up to the levels we saw under
:03:34. > :03:38.Labour. I believe in the promises I made in 2010, and I want to keep my
:03:39. > :03:41.words to my electorate, not least to deal with the deficit, cut
:03:42. > :03:46.immigration, reform the political system, to localise powers back to
:03:47. > :03:49.the community, particularly over house-building. The government has
:03:50. > :03:54.broken its word on all those things are. I want to keep my word to my
:03:55. > :04:00.voters here, and that is why I have done what I have done, by moving to
:04:01. > :04:04.UKIP. You have not kept your words to your Conservative constituency
:04:05. > :04:08.chairman. You assured him 48 hours ago that you would not defect, and
:04:09. > :04:13.you left his voice mail on the Conservative Party chairman's office
:04:14. > :04:18.telephone, missing to come to Birmingham to campaign for the
:04:19. > :04:39.Tories. This is your voice mail .. I have just picked up your e-mail ..
:04:40. > :04:44.So, Friday night, telling Grant Shapps you are coming to Birmingham
:04:45. > :04:51.to campaign for the Tories. The next day, you are joining UKIP. Why did
:04:52. > :04:55.you are a? I sounded a bit more hesitant on that call than I usually
:04:56. > :04:58.do, and I am not sure if that was the full conversation. But you
:04:59. > :05:02.cannot discuss these things in advance, you have to make a
:05:03. > :05:06.decision. I have decided the future of this country is better served by
:05:07. > :05:12.UKIP then it is by the Conservative Party under David Cameron. I made a
:05:13. > :05:21.lot of promises to my constituents, and I want to keep those promises.
:05:22. > :05:26.That is why I am moving to UKIP so I can deliver the change this
:05:27. > :05:33.country really needs. In May of this year, you said that Nigel Farage,
:05:34. > :05:38.quote, poses the most serious threat to a Tory victory at the election.
:05:39. > :05:44.So, you agree, voting UKIP means a Labour government? I think voting
:05:45. > :05:47.UKIP means getting UKIP. While in the past a disproportionate number
:05:48. > :05:51.of UKIP people were ex-Conservatives, now, they are
:05:52. > :05:54.winning a lot more people, from all parties. People are so disillusioned
:05:55. > :05:57.with the political class in Westminster, that they have not
:05:58. > :06:02.voted often for a generation. Those are the people Nigel Farage is
:06:03. > :06:07.inspiring, and frankly, he has also inspired me. What he has done in the
:06:08. > :06:12.last 20 years, building his party, getting people from all walks of
:06:13. > :06:15.life, sending up for ordinary people, I think deserves support.
:06:16. > :06:22.That is a key reason why I am moving. UKIP are now the agents of
:06:23. > :06:27.change. You said it poses them a serious threat to a Tory victory? My
:06:28. > :06:30.ambition is not a Tory victory. We made all of these promises in 2 10
:06:31. > :06:34.as Conservatives, and they have been broken. We now hear from David
:06:35. > :06:39.Cameron about English votes for English laws, supported by Nick
:06:40. > :06:42.Clegg as well, but that is what we said in our manifesto in 2010, and
:06:43. > :06:46.we have done absolutely nothing about it. It is not credible now to
:06:47. > :06:52.pretend that you are going to do those things. They have omitted to
:06:53. > :06:59.give every Scot ?1600 per year in definitely. If you want to stand up
:07:00. > :07:08.for the English taxpayer, and really tackle the debt, then UKIP are the
:07:09. > :07:11.party who will do that. But there is nothing principled about this, this
:07:12. > :07:17.is just an attempt to save your skin. You said UKIP stopped you
:07:18. > :07:21.winning in 2005 - UKIP did not stand in 2010, and you won. You are
:07:22. > :07:26.frightened that UKIP would beat you in the next election, this is to
:07:27. > :07:30.save your skin to me you think I am doing this because I am frightened,
:07:31. > :07:34.you think this is the easy option, to abandon my position in
:07:35. > :07:45.Parliament, but my principles on the line? On the contrary, you look at
:07:46. > :07:49.MPs who have moved party before almost none of them have given their
:07:50. > :07:53.voters to chance to have a say on what they have done. I am asking
:07:54. > :07:57.permission from my voters, and I am moving to UKIP because I believe
:07:58. > :08:01.many of the people in my constituency have been let down by a
:08:02. > :08:04.Conservative led government, and that what UKIP is saying appeals to
:08:05. > :08:11.decent, hard-working people, who want to see real change in our
:08:12. > :08:15.country. If they do not agree, then they can vote in a by-election and
:08:16. > :08:23.have their say on who they want to be their MP. I am being open and
:08:24. > :08:27.honest, giving people a say. I am trying to do the right thing by my
:08:28. > :08:32.constituents, and whatever the risk is to me personally, I think it is
:08:33. > :08:36.the right thing to do. It is what MPs should be in politics to try and
:08:37. > :08:42.do for the people they represent. Your defection, coming after Douglas
:08:43. > :08:45.Carswell's, confirms the claim that UKIP is largely a depository for
:08:46. > :08:52.disaffected right-wing Tories like yourself, isn't it? On the contrary,
:08:53. > :08:55.the number of people I met in Doncaster yesterday was
:08:56. > :09:00.extraordinary. When I first went to Conservative conferences 20 years
:09:01. > :09:03.ago, there was some enthusiasm for politics, I remember Norman Tebbit
:09:04. > :09:07.speaking against Maastricht, people fought they could change things
:09:08. > :09:12.there was real politics. But I do not think you will see that at
:09:13. > :09:15.Birmingham this week, it is PR people, lobbyists, corporate, few
:09:16. > :09:19.ordinary members of. At Ancaster, people had saved up for months just
:09:20. > :09:24.to get the rail ticket to Doncaster. People who believe in UKIP, who
:09:25. > :09:31.believe in Nigel Farage, who believe in the team, as agents of change,
:09:32. > :09:38.who can actually deal with a political class at Westminster which
:09:39. > :09:41.has let able down. We want proper reform to the political system,
:09:42. > :09:48.which David Cameron promises but does not deliver. Final question -
:09:49. > :09:51.after the next election, the Prime Minister is going to be either David
:09:52. > :09:57.Cameron or Ed Miliband, that is the choice, one or the other - who would
:09:58. > :10:01.you prefer? Well, what we would prefer is to get the most UKIP
:10:02. > :10:08.policies implemented. We want a first rate we want to deal with
:10:09. > :10:13.immigration. I asked about who you wanted to be Prime Minister. We will
:10:14. > :10:19.look at the circumstances. We need as many UKIP MPs as possible, to
:10:20. > :10:31.restore trust in politics. If people vote UKIP, they will get UKIP. How
:10:32. > :10:37.serious is this? I think it is very serious. It is the old Tory disease,
:10:38. > :10:40.destroyed John Major, and it has been bubbling away again. It is
:10:41. > :10:44.beginning to feel like the worst days of Labour in the early nineteen
:10:45. > :10:50.eighties. It matters, because people care passionately. It is nothing
:10:51. > :10:55.like Labour in the early 1980s, it is bad, but it is nothing like that.
:10:56. > :10:59.There are these very strong strands. People like David Davis
:11:00. > :11:02.writing a large piece in the Daily Mail attacking the leader on the
:11:03. > :11:06.first day of the conference. That is the kind of thing that Labour used
:11:07. > :11:12.to do. That is what David Davis does all the time! But this is authentic
:11:13. > :11:17.in the sense that there is a real, genuine dispute about Europe. Some
:11:18. > :11:20.of us were not around in the 19 0s, but I imagine it is pretty bad.
:11:21. > :11:24.There is the short-term problem of the by-election they might lose the
:11:25. > :11:27.media problem of the general election which they cannot win if
:11:28. > :11:30.UKIP remain anywhere near their current level of support. But in
:11:31. > :11:35.many ways the longer term question is the most pressing, which is, does
:11:36. > :11:39.it make sense for the Conservative Party to remain one party, or would
:11:40. > :11:44.it not be better for the hard-core of 20-30 intransigent Eurosceptics
:11:45. > :11:50.to essentially join UKIP or form their own party? At least the
:11:51. > :11:54.Conservatives would become more internally manageable. And probably
:11:55. > :12:00.lose the next election. Probably, yes. That is what you are advising
:12:01. > :12:05.them? If the reward is to have a coherent party in 15 years' time. It
:12:06. > :12:11.is just as well you are a columnist, not a party strategist. I
:12:12. > :12:16.was an anorak in the 1980s, who watched the Labour conference on the
:12:17. > :12:20.TV. Were you wearing your anorak? Of course I was, that is how sad I am.
:12:21. > :12:24.But once again the crisis from UKIP has forced the Prime Minister to
:12:25. > :12:29.step in an even more Eurosceptic direction. Said on television what
:12:30. > :12:34.he was trying not to say, which is that if he does not get his way in
:12:35. > :12:38.the European negotiations, he will recommend to the British people that
:12:39. > :12:42.we should go. He began by saying, as I have always said, and when they
:12:43. > :12:47.say that, you know they are saying something new. He basically said,
:12:48. > :12:52.Britain should not stay if it is not in Britain's interests. I think this
:12:53. > :12:59.is big stakes for both the Tories and four UKIP. The Tories are able
:13:00. > :13:02.to write off Clacton. Rochester is number 271 on the UKIP friendly
:13:03. > :13:08.list. If the Tories win it, big moment for them. If UKIP lose it,
:13:09. > :13:19.this strategy of various will be facing a bit of a setback.
:13:20. > :13:22.To what extent are Mark Reckless's views shared by Conservative
:13:23. > :13:27.The Sunday Politics commissioned an exclusive poll of Conservative
:13:28. > :13:31.Pollsters ComRes spoke to over ,000 councillors -
:13:32. > :13:34.that's almost an eighth of their council base - and Eleanor Garnier
:13:35. > :13:48.There is not a single party conference at the seaside this year,
:13:49. > :13:51.and Sunday Politics could not get through them all without a trip to
:13:52. > :13:55.the coast. So here we are on the shore in Sussex. There are plenty of
:13:56. > :14:01.Conservative councillors here, and Tory MPs as well, but one challenge
:14:02. > :14:07.they all face is UKIP, who have got their sights on coastal towns.
:14:08. > :14:10.Places like Worthing East and surer and, with high numbers of
:14:11. > :14:15.pensioners, providing rich pickings for UKIP. In West Sussex, the Tories
:14:16. > :14:22.run the county council, but UKIP are the official opposition, with ten
:14:23. > :14:26.councillors. We cannot lose any more ground to UKIP. If we lose any more
:14:27. > :14:30.ground, if you look at the way it has swung from us to them, it is
:14:31. > :14:34.getting near to being the middle point, where we might start losing
:14:35. > :14:43.seats which we have always regarded as safe seats. So, it has got to be
:14:44. > :14:46.stemmed, it cannot go any further. Our exclusive survey looked at the
:14:47. > :14:52.policy areas where the Conservatives are vulnerable to UKIP. If an EU
:14:53. > :14:58.Referendum Bill is called tomorrow, 45% say they would vote to leave,
:14:59. > :15:10.39% would stay in. Asked about immigration...
:15:11. > :15:18.It was those issues, Europe and immigration, that Mark Reckless said
:15:19. > :15:23.were the head of his decision. I promised to cut immigration while
:15:24. > :15:28.treating people fairly and humanely. I cannot keep that promise as a
:15:29. > :15:32.Conservative, I can keep it as UKIP. When asked if Conservative
:15:33. > :15:37.councillors would like an electoral pact with UKIP in the run-up to the
:15:38. > :15:43.general election, one third said they support the idea. 63% are
:15:44. > :15:49.opposed and 7% don't know. Conservative councillors who left
:15:50. > :15:55.the party to join UKIP say it wasn't easy. I left because basically the
:15:56. > :16:01.Conservatives left me. I saw it as a difficult decision to change, but
:16:02. > :16:10.what I was seeing with UKIP was freed. Me being able to speak for my
:16:11. > :16:14.residents. Back to our survey and on climate change 49% said it was
:16:15. > :16:22.happening, but that humans are not to blame. Our survey showed that 60%
:16:23. > :16:28.think David Cameron was wrong to pursue legalising gay marriage, with
:16:29. > :16:33.31% saying it was the right thing to do and 9% not sure. In Worthing
:16:34. > :16:39.councillors said gay marriage was divisive. That has really been an
:16:40. > :16:46.issue here, it might have damaged the party slightly, and I think in a
:16:47. > :16:51.way by setting a rule like that it is a very religious thing and it is
:16:52. > :16:57.almost trying to play God to make that decision. But some of the
:16:58. > :17:03.party's toughest decisions have been over the economy. 56% in our survey
:17:04. > :17:08.thought the spending cuts the Government has so far announced have
:17:09. > :17:14.not gone far enough. 6% were not sure. They are prepared for
:17:15. > :17:19.difficult decisions, but local activists say the party's voice must
:17:20. > :17:25.be clearer. I think the message has to be more forceful, it has to be
:17:26. > :17:31.specially targeted to the ex-Conservative voters who now vote
:17:32. > :17:34.UKIP, especially in this area, the vast majority of UKIP people are
:17:35. > :17:39.disillusioned Conservatives. The message has to be loud and strong,
:17:40. > :17:43.come back and we are the party to give you what you want. With just
:17:44. > :17:48.eight months until the general election, the pressure is on and
:17:49. > :17:55.local Conservatives are searching for clues to help their party stem
:17:56. > :18:01.the flow of defections. Joining me now is William Hague, the former
:18:02. > :18:04.Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons.
:18:05. > :18:08.Tories like Mark Reckless are defecting to UKIP because they don't
:18:09. > :18:14.trust the party leadership to deliver on Europe, do they? They
:18:15. > :18:19.believe people like you and David Cameron will campaign to stay in and
:18:20. > :18:25.they are right. They said before they defected that people should
:18:26. > :18:31.vote Conservative to get a referendum on Europe, and that is
:18:32. > :18:35.right of course. The only way to get a referendum is to do that and this
:18:36. > :18:40.is the point, the people should decide. However a future government
:18:41. > :18:45.decides it will campaign, it should be the people of the country who
:18:46. > :18:49.decide. Can you say to our viewers this morning that is not enough
:18:50. > :18:55.powers are repatriated back to Britain, you would want to come
:18:56. > :19:01.out, can you say that? Our objective is to get those powers and stay in.
:19:02. > :19:06.The answer to the question is I won't be deciding, David Cameron
:19:07. > :19:12.won't be deciding, you the voters will be deciding. But you have to
:19:13. > :19:17.give us your view. If you don't get enough powers back, would you vote
:19:18. > :19:23.to come out and recommended? Our objective is to get those powers and
:19:24. > :19:27.be able to stay in. You just get endless speculation years in
:19:28. > :19:32.advance. I will decide at the time how I will vote. Surely that is the
:19:33. > :19:37.rational position for everyone to take but I want a referendum to take
:19:38. > :19:42.place. I understand that. As you pointed out to Mark Reckless just
:19:43. > :19:46.now, unless there is a Conservative government, people won't have that
:19:47. > :19:55.choice. Under a Labour government they will not get a choice at all.
:19:56. > :19:59.Our survey of Tory councillors shows that almost 50% would vote to leave
:20:00. > :20:07.the EU in a referendum. I think it showed, wasn't it 45, and 39%, but
:20:08. > :20:13.again, I'm pretty sure they will decide at the time. They will want
:20:14. > :20:17.to see what a future government achieves in a renegotiation before
:20:18. > :20:21.they decide what to vote in a referendum. Unless David Cameron is
:20:22. > :20:29.Prime Minister and there is a Conservative government, there will
:20:30. > :20:33.not be a renegotiation. That is a point you have made four times. I
:20:34. > :20:37.think they have got it. Your Cabinet colleague says we should not be
:20:38. > :20:42.scared of quitting the EU, but you went native in the Foreign Office,
:20:43. > :20:47.didn't you? You used to be a Eurosceptic, you are now the Foreign
:20:48. > :20:52.Office line man. No, I don't think so! We brought back the first
:20:53. > :20:59.reduced European budget ever in history. Even Margaret Thatcher ..
:21:00. > :21:04.Leaving the EU scares you, doesn't it? Not much scares me after 26
:21:05. > :21:12.years in politics but we want to do the best thing for the country.
:21:13. > :21:17.Where we scared when we got us out of liability for Eurozone bailouts?
:21:18. > :21:20.We were not scared of anybody. People said we couldn't achieve
:21:21. > :21:28.things but we negotiated these things. We can do that with a wider
:21:29. > :21:34.negotiation in Europe. Mr Reckless says he cannot keep the Conservative
:21:35. > :21:48.promise to tackle immigration. You have failed to keep your promise to
:21:49. > :21:53.keep net immigration down. You promised to cut it below 100,00 ,
:21:54. > :22:12.you failed. It is over 200,000 people. We have cut it from 250 000
:22:13. > :22:20.in 2005, the last figures were 240,000. I think we can file that
:22:21. > :22:24.under F four failed. It includes students, we want them in the
:22:25. > :22:29.country. You knew that when you made the promise. But has it come down?
:22:30. > :22:35.Yes, it has. Have we stopped the promise. But has it come down?
:22:36. > :22:40.coming here because of our benefit system? Yes. None of that happened
:22:41. > :22:46.under Labour. If Mark Reckless had his way, it would be more likely we
:22:47. > :22:51.would have a Labour government. They have an open door policy on
:22:52. > :22:57.immigration. You are not just losing MPs to UKIP, you are losing voters.
:22:58. > :23:02.Polling by Michael Ashcroft shows that 20% of people who voted Tory in
:23:03. > :23:07.2010 have abandoned youth and three quarters of them are voting UKIP
:23:08. > :23:13.now. We will see in the general election. Politics is very fluid in
:23:14. > :23:17.this country and we shouldn't deny that in any way but UKIP thought
:23:18. > :23:22.they were going to win the by-election in Newark, we had a
:23:23. > :23:27.thumping Conservative victory, and I think opinion polls are snapshots of
:23:28. > :23:31.opinion now. They are not forecast of the general election and we will
:23:32. > :23:35.be doing everything we can to get our message across. Today we are
:23:36. > :23:39.announcing 3 million more apprenticeships in the next
:23:40. > :23:45.Parliament. I think this is what people will be voting on, rather
:23:46. > :23:53.than who has defected. Your activist base once parked with UKIP. Our
:23:54. > :23:59.survey shows a third of Tory councillors would like a formal pact
:24:00. > :24:08.with UKIP. Why not? It shows two thirds are against it. No, it shows
:24:09. > :24:15.one third want it. I read the figures, it showed 67% don't want
:24:16. > :24:19.it. We are not going to make a pact with other parties, and they don't
:24:20. > :24:26.work in the British electoral system even if they were desirable. You are
:24:27. > :24:31.sharing the Cabinet committee on English votes for English laws. Is
:24:32. > :24:36.further devolution for Scotland conditional on progress towards
:24:37. > :24:39.English devolution? No, the commitment to Scotland is
:24:40. > :24:43.unconditional. We will meet the commitments to Scotland but we
:24:44. > :24:47.believe, we the Conservatives believe, that in tandem with that we
:24:48. > :24:53.have to resolve these questions about fairness to the rest of the UK
:24:54. > :24:57.as well. That will depend on other parties or the general election
:24:58. > :25:03.result. Are you committed to the Gordon Brown timetable? Yes,
:25:04. > :25:08.absolutely. So you are committed to producing draft legislation by Burns
:25:09. > :25:13.night, that is at the end of January. Will you produce proposals
:25:14. > :25:18.for English votes on English laws by then? We will, but whether they are
:25:19. > :25:24.agreed across the parties will depend on the other parties. There
:25:25. > :25:32.was no sign that they were agreeable at the Labour conference. We will
:25:33. > :25:36.produce our ideas on the same timetable as the timetable for
:25:37. > :25:40.Scottish devolution. You will therefore bring forward proposals
:25:41. > :25:46.for English votes for English laws by the end of January? Yes. And will
:25:47. > :25:50.you attempt to get them on the statute book before the election?
:25:51. > :25:56.The commitment in Scotland is to legislate after the election. You
:25:57. > :26:01.will publish a bill beforehand? We will publish proposals beforehand. I
:26:02. > :26:05.don't exclude doing something before the election, but the Scottish
:26:06. > :26:10.timetable is to legislate for the further devolution after the general
:26:11. > :26:15.election, whoever wins the election. Have you given thought as to what
:26:16. > :26:22.English votes for English laws would mean? I have thought a lot of it
:26:23. > :26:27.over 15 years. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome will be,
:26:28. > :26:32.but it does mean in essence that when decisions are taken, decisions
:26:33. > :26:37.that only affect England or only England and Wales, then only the MPs
:26:38. > :26:41.from England and Wales should be making those decisions. You can
:26:42. > :26:45.achieve that in many different ways. Is that it for English
:26:46. > :26:51.devolution, is that what it amounts to? That is devolution to England if
:26:52. > :26:56.you like, but within England there is a lot of other devolution going
:26:57. > :27:01.on and we might well want to extend that further. We have given more
:27:02. > :27:06.freedom to local authorities, there is a lot of scope to do more of
:27:07. > :27:15.that, but that in itself is not the answer to the problem of what
:27:16. > :27:20.happens at Westminster. You haven't just given Scotland more devolution
:27:21. > :27:25.or planned to do it, you have also enshrined the Barnett formula and
:27:26. > :27:29.that seems to be in perpetuity. It is widely regarded as being unfair
:27:30. > :27:34.to Wales and many of the poorer English regions. Why do you
:27:35. > :27:41.perpetuate it? It will become less relevant overtime if more
:27:42. > :27:46.tax-raising powers... It goes all the way back to the 1970s, we made a
:27:47. > :27:51.commitment on that, we will keep our commitments to Scotland as more --
:27:52. > :27:59.but as more tax-raising powers devolved, the Barnett formula is
:28:00. > :28:04.less significant. If you transfer ?5 billion of tax-raising powers to
:28:05. > :28:09.Scotland, 5 billion comes off the Barnett formula? It will be a lot
:28:10. > :28:14.more complicated than that, but yes, as their own decisions about
:28:15. > :28:19.taxation are made, the grand from Westminster will go down. And you
:28:20. > :28:23.can guarantee that if there is a majority Conservative government,
:28:24. > :28:27.there will be English votes for English laws after the election
:28:28. > :28:31.Yes, I stress again that there are different ways of doing it but if
:28:32. > :28:35.there is no cross-party agreement on that, the Conservatives will produce
:28:36. > :28:40.our proposals and campaign for them in the general election. Don't go
:28:41. > :28:46.away because I want to move on to some other matters.
:28:47. > :28:49.Now to the fight against so-called Islamic State terrorists.
:28:50. > :28:51.Yesterday, RAF Tornado jets carried out their first flights over Iraq
:28:52. > :28:54.since MPs gave their approval for air-strikes against the militants.
:28:55. > :29:02.When you face a situation with psychobabble -- psychopathic killers
:29:03. > :29:07.who have already brutally beheaded one of our own citizens, who have
:29:08. > :29:12.already launched and tried to execute plots in our own country to
:29:13. > :29:17.maim innocent people, we have a choice - we can either stand back
:29:18. > :29:21.from this and say it is too difficult, let's let someone else
:29:22. > :29:25.try to keep our country safe, or we take the correct decision to have a
:29:26. > :29:30.full, comprehensive strategy but let's be prepared to play our role
:29:31. > :29:34.to make sure these people cannot do not trust harm.
:29:35. > :29:37.And William Hague is still with me - until July he was, of course,
:29:38. > :29:49.Why have only six Tornado jets being mobilised? Do not assume that is all
:29:50. > :29:53.that will be taking part in this operation. That is all that has been
:29:54. > :30:01.announced and I do not think we should speculate. Even the Danes are
:30:02. > :30:03.sending more fighter jets. There is no restriction in the House of
:30:04. > :30:09.Commons resolution passed on Friday on what we can do. So why so
:30:10. > :30:14.little? Do not underestimate what our Tornados can do. They have some
:30:15. > :30:18.unique capabilities, capabilities which have been specifically asked
:30:19. > :30:22.for by our allies. When you are on the wrong end of six Tornados, it
:30:23. > :30:27.will not feel like a small effort. But there will be other things which
:30:28. > :30:31.can add to that effort. We are joining in a month after the
:30:32. > :30:37.operation started, we are late, we are behind America, France,
:30:38. > :30:40.Australia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, one hand tied behind our
:30:41. > :30:45.backs cause of the rule about not attacking Syria - why is the British
:30:46. > :30:49.government leading from behind? First of all, we are a democratic
:30:50. > :30:55.country, and you know all about Parliamentary approval. You could
:30:56. > :30:59.have recalled parliament. We have done that, with a political
:31:00. > :31:04.consensus. Other European countries also took the decision on Friday to
:31:05. > :31:07.send their military assets. Our allies are absolutely content with
:31:08. > :31:10.that, and Britain will play an important role, along with many
:31:11. > :31:18.other nations, including Arab nations. General Sir David Richards
:31:19. > :31:23.Sheriff, who just steps down as the Nato Deputy Supreme Commander, he
:31:24. > :31:25.condemns the spineless lack of leadership and the absence of any
:31:26. > :31:36.credible strategy. It is embarrassing,isn't it? Of course,
:31:37. > :31:40.they turn into armchair generals. We are playing an important role, we
:31:41. > :31:44.are a democratic country. Your viewers will remember, we had a vote
:31:45. > :31:48.last year on military action in Syria and we were defeated in the
:31:49. > :31:52.House of Commons, a bad moment for our foreign policy. We have taken
:31:53. > :31:55.care to bring this forward when we can win a vote in the House of
:31:56. > :32:04.Commons, and that is how we will proceed. The air Chief Marshal until
:32:05. > :32:09.recently in charge of the RAF, he says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq
:32:10. > :32:15.but not Syria. He calls the decision ludicrous. Of course, it DOES make
:32:16. > :32:23.sense to bomb Iraq, because the Iraqi government has asked for our
:32:24. > :32:27.assistance. This came up a lot in the debate on Friday, and the Prime
:32:28. > :32:33.Minister explained, similar to what I have just been saying, that there
:32:34. > :32:37.is not a political consensus about Syria in the House of Commons. When
:32:38. > :32:41.we did it last year, we were defeated, and it was described by
:32:42. > :32:46.all commentators as a huge blow to the government and to our foreign
:32:47. > :32:49.policy. So, we will bring forward proposals when there is a majority
:32:50. > :32:55.in this country to do so in the House of Commons. Professor Michael
:32:56. > :33:02.Clarke, one of the world top experts on military strategy and history, he
:33:03. > :33:06.says there are very few important IS targets in northern Iraq, that they
:33:07. > :33:10.are all in Syria, and we are limiting ourselves to the periphery
:33:11. > :33:14.of the campaign. First of all, just because you are not doing everything
:33:15. > :33:18.does not mean you should not do something. Secondly, the United
:33:19. > :33:22.States and other countries are engaged in the action against
:33:23. > :33:28.targets in Syria. This is a coalition effort, with people doing
:33:29. > :33:31.different things. Thirdly, if we were to put their proposal to the
:33:32. > :33:36.House of Commons tomorrow, and it was defeated, we would not have
:33:37. > :33:40.achieved a great deal. You do not know it would have been defeated.
:33:41. > :33:44.The Labour Party has given no indication they would have supported
:33:45. > :33:48.that. So, you are hostage to the Labour Party? We have to win a
:33:49. > :33:52.democratic vote in the House of Commons, and the Labour Party is a
:33:53. > :33:57.very large part of the House of Commons. You are asking us to pursue
:33:58. > :34:03.a policy which at the moment could be defeated in Parliament. Is it not
:34:04. > :34:07.embarrassing to be on the wrong side of so many of these military
:34:08. > :34:12.experts? Why should we trust the judgment of here today, gone
:34:13. > :34:19.tomorrow, politicians? We have the military experts with us now. We
:34:20. > :34:22.have a national security council, we do not have sofa government, unlike
:34:23. > :34:26.the last government. The national security council is chaired by the
:34:27. > :34:34.Prime Minister. Alongside the Chief of Defence Staff and the heads of
:34:35. > :34:38.the intelligence agencies. And we take decisions together with the
:34:39. > :34:44.people who have the information now. So, you will know what British
:34:45. > :34:49.and American intelligence says about Syria. The Prime Minister has said
:34:50. > :34:53.there is a danger that the British-born jihadists will come
:34:54. > :34:55.back and attack us. But the intelligence reports which you will
:34:56. > :35:01.have seen are clear - Al-Qaeda and its associates are selecting,
:35:02. > :35:07.indoctrinating and training jihadists in Syria, not Iraq. Does
:35:08. > :35:14.that not make the Syrian exclusion even more ludicrous? I cannot
:35:15. > :35:19.comment on intelligence. Is the situation in Syria I direct threat
:35:20. > :35:24.to this country? Yes, it is. Have we excluded action? No, we haven't
:35:25. > :35:29.Could you come back to the House? The Prime Minister said, it was in
:35:30. > :35:33.the motion put to the House of Commons, that if we want to take
:35:34. > :35:37.action in Syria, we will come back to the House of Commons. But we have
:35:38. > :35:43.not taken any decision about that and we would not do so if we thought
:35:44. > :35:46.we were going to be defeated again. The government supports US strikes
:35:47. > :35:53.on Syria, show you must relieve they are legal. Either way the legal
:35:54. > :35:57.basis differs from one country to another, according to their reading
:35:58. > :36:03.of international law. But you have supported it. We do believe that
:36:04. > :36:07.they and Arab countries are taking action legally and we support their
:36:08. > :36:14.action. But I understand your legitimate questions. But it comes
:36:15. > :36:20.back to your basic question, why in Iraq and not Syria. Nonetheless it
:36:21. > :36:25.is important to take action in Iraq. We are also engaged in Syria
:36:26. > :36:31.in building up the political strength of the more moderate
:36:32. > :36:35.opposition and in trying to bring about a peace agreement, and we do
:36:36. > :36:42.not exclude action in Syria in the future. If we propose doing
:36:43. > :36:46.something, then we ask for the specific legal advice. Why would you
:36:47. > :36:51.not ask for the legal advice anyway? Because you have to be sure
:36:52. > :36:56.of the legal advice at the time and also we do not comment on the advice
:36:57. > :37:01.given to us by the Law officers Mr Blair ended up publishing his. That
:37:02. > :37:05.was because there was a huge legal dispute. So you have not had legal
:37:06. > :37:10.advice yet that Britain attacking Syria would be legal? The legal
:37:11. > :37:13.situation is unlikely to be the barrier in this case, let me put it
:37:14. > :37:23.that way. Within international law, you can act in the event of extreme
:37:24. > :37:26.humanitarian distress and elective self-defence, so one can imagine
:37:27. > :37:28.strong legal justification, but of course, we will take the legal
:37:29. > :37:30.advice at the time. watching The Sunday Politics. We say
:37:31. > :37:35.goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who Scotland. Coming up here in 20
:37:36. > :37:39.minutes, The Week Ahead. First though,
:37:40. > :37:51.The Sunday Politics where you are. In London this week -
:37:52. > :37:55.how the richest 1% are pulling Why should we be surprised that
:37:56. > :38:02.people are upping sticks Emily Thornberry for Labour and
:38:03. > :38:08.Bob Neill for the Conservatives are our resident MPs this week,
:38:09. > :38:10.drawn back to Parliament for Let's get straight
:38:11. > :38:15.on to the question of whether this city is caught in an
:38:16. > :38:40.inescapable process of polarisation London is now the favourite
:38:41. > :38:43.destination for the world's megarich, boasting more billionaires
:38:44. > :38:48.than any other city on earth, according to the man who edits the
:38:49. > :38:52.Sunday times which list. He says the capital offers things which are
:38:53. > :38:56.European rivals simply cannot. Everybody speaks English, which is
:38:57. > :39:00.part of the attraction. It is the London markets, the chance to make
:39:01. > :39:06.investments will be more easily than in France or Germany. And there is a
:39:07. > :39:15.lot of overseas billionaires who are buying into iconic London.
:39:16. > :39:20.Another reason might well be that London offers the incredibly rich
:39:21. > :39:27.ways to spend their money. Now, this is a Bugatti, the fastest car in all
:39:28. > :39:31.the world. They only ever made 50, and this particular one is the only
:39:32. > :39:37.one you can buy anywhere on earth which is still for sale brand-new.
:39:38. > :39:45.And it can be yours for just ?2 million. Obviously, at that kind of
:39:46. > :39:48.price, it is unaffordable not just to ordinary people, but actually to
:39:49. > :39:57.most of the very rich, the so-called 1%. In themselves, the 1% is a very
:39:58. > :40:02.broad group. Starting about ?106,000, if you are a couple
:40:03. > :40:10.without children, going up to the multi billionaires. -- ?160,000 It
:40:11. > :40:15.is not just the powerful at the top, it is the voice of everyone! It is
:40:16. > :40:20.not just a few wealthy people, it is every working person! This week
:40:21. > :40:24.Labour confirmed plans to introduce new taxes on incomes more than
:40:25. > :40:28.150,000, and properties worth more than ?2 million, policies which will
:40:29. > :40:34.hit London more than any other region. Our research is clear, 6%
:40:35. > :40:37.of the properties which will be hit by this tax are in London and the
:40:38. > :40:43.south-east of the vast majority in central London. While these policies
:40:44. > :40:48.might lose Labour some popularity in the capital, could it be that Labour
:40:49. > :40:52.are banking on being able to present themselves as the party of the many,
:40:53. > :40:56.fighting the Tories, a party of the rich? The perception that the
:40:57. > :41:00.Conservatives are on the side of the rich and privileged is a problem for
:41:01. > :41:04.them, because most people do not think of themselves like that. Until
:41:05. > :41:09.and unless the Conservatives find a way of convincing the electorate
:41:10. > :41:12.that they are on the side of everybody, which is what Ed Miliband
:41:13. > :41:17.is trying to do, they do have a problem. And so, going into their
:41:18. > :41:21.own conference this week, the Conservatives may be careful when
:41:22. > :41:25.opposing Ed Miliband's plans to take a bit more from the richest people
:41:26. > :41:28.in the capital, lest it play into Labour's hands.
:41:29. > :41:31.Danny Dorling is an academic who's just written Inequality And The 1%.
:41:32. > :41:38.First off, what did he think of Labour's mansion tax idea?
:41:39. > :41:44.Calling it a mansion tax is a silly word. Just modernising the council
:41:45. > :41:51.tax, so that people are paying a fair amount, rather than somebody in
:41:52. > :41:54.a very modest house, valued at just over 330,000 some years ago, is
:41:55. > :41:59.paying the same as somebody in one valued at ?3 million or ?30 million.
:42:00. > :42:05.Mansion tax was the wrong idea, the wrong word. Do you think it is a
:42:06. > :42:10.tactic to create the perception that the Conservatives are the party that
:42:11. > :42:18.protect the rich? I would expect so. It is an obvious way to go. If you
:42:19. > :42:22.look at the last four years, most people's standard of living has
:42:23. > :42:27.fallen. 99% of people have become more equal. The only group who have
:42:28. > :42:33.seen their incomes rise have been the 1% of. Jawing most of that time,
:42:34. > :42:36.the party in power, with their allies, the Liberals, have been
:42:37. > :42:41.largely supported, and the 1% have done better. It is an easy one to go
:42:42. > :42:45.for. The wealth of London should be used for the good of the country, we
:42:46. > :42:50.should not have this incredibly wealthy city in a country which has
:42:51. > :42:53.2 have food banks. Opinion polls suggest people see the Conservatives
:42:54. > :42:56.as looking after the interests of the rich - do you think the 2
:42:57. > :43:02.parties are substantially different in that respect? I do not think they
:43:03. > :43:08.are that different. If you lot that donors to Labour, they include some
:43:09. > :43:13.pretty rich people. If you look at the background of the MPs, they are
:43:14. > :43:17.very similar. Ed Miliband is in the 1%, his household income, angst and
:43:18. > :43:23.his wife, puts him there. All three party leaders are. So, the parties
:43:24. > :43:26.are not that different. Is interesting in the last four years
:43:27. > :43:31.is that although the 1% have done better, the group just beneath
:43:32. > :43:38.them, the 6%, have not, they have lost their child benefit and have
:43:39. > :43:43.not seen increases. Cynically, I see Labour as representing the interests
:43:44. > :43:45.as the rest of the 10%. I am afraid, 90% of society is not very well
:43:46. > :43:47.represented in politics. Jerry Thomas asking the questions.
:43:48. > :44:00.The cost of housing in the capital Is this a good thing, attracting all
:44:01. > :44:05.of these super-rich people? It is important that London remains an
:44:06. > :44:09.international centre. I think that rather academic approach missed out
:44:10. > :44:13.the reality that this creates jobs for people write down the income
:44:14. > :44:24.spectrum and brings in tax revenue. We have got to put it in proportion.
:44:25. > :44:32.That is why we have been helping the 90%. We made sure the lowest earners
:44:33. > :44:37.are out of tax, so 28 million people will be paying less tax. What about
:44:38. > :44:45.a proportionate response to the fact that we hear that there are a number
:44:46. > :44:49.of people moving away? We will be hearing from your party today, and
:44:50. > :44:53.perhaps over the next week, about cutting benefits and money to the
:44:54. > :44:59.poorest, so what will you do about the very richest? We have already
:45:00. > :45:01.tightened up the ownership of some properties through foreign
:45:02. > :45:07.companies, we have increased capital gains tax, we have tightened up on
:45:08. > :45:10.loopholes, but where money is fairly earned, you do not want to scare
:45:11. > :45:13.people away by adopting a hostile attitude. So you have gone as far as
:45:14. > :45:22.you want to go? people away by adopting a hostile
:45:23. > :45:27.attitude. So you have gone On It does not benefit the economy. We
:45:28. > :45:31.need to make sure the money is directed properly. With our benefit
:45:32. > :45:36.exchanges we will be redirecting that money to increase the amount of
:45:37. > :45:40.paid apprenticeships. You personally wouldn't want to see any further
:45:41. > :45:48.imposition, any more payments having to be made by the top 1%, the super
:45:49. > :45:54.rich? I don't think it is necessary but I do think it is fair in that
:45:55. > :45:57.system to everyone. Of course loopholes can be tightened up but we
:45:58. > :46:00.are talking about a small percentage. We are talking about
:46:01. > :46:09.hard-working families in the middle, and that is where we are doing our
:46:10. > :46:13.best to keep the economy on track. By contrast, Emily Thornberry, it is
:46:14. > :46:19.clear Labour has decided it needs to try to capture some more wealth at
:46:20. > :46:25.the higher extreme, are you happy with that? It is basic Labour stuff.
:46:26. > :46:30.Those with the broadest shoulders should shoulder the biggest burden.
:46:31. > :46:36.In my area, we have had the people at the bottom end, whenever they
:46:37. > :46:41.move out somebody in greater housing need moves in because of the
:46:42. > :46:47.shortage, and at the other end, if a richer person moves out and even
:46:48. > :46:51.richer person moves in. Now we have properties being sold to people
:46:52. > :46:57.abroad who will spend millions of pounds on a flat they will not even
:46:58. > :47:01.news. We think the mansion tax is an appropriate response. What
:47:02. > :47:06.percentage do you think of people in your constituency will have to pay
:47:07. > :47:11.this mansion tax? I don't know, but a lot of people are worried about
:47:12. > :47:18.it. I bought my house 20 years ago and it is now worth a fortune. About
:47:19. > :47:24.2 million possibly? About 2 million I think. You are not worried about
:47:25. > :47:29.the mansion tax? I would rather not pay it. But when we first bought the
:47:30. > :47:33.house it was worth a fraction of that. As our children grow up and
:47:34. > :47:38.they cannot afford to live where they have been brought up, you begin
:47:39. > :47:44.to realise there is more. But you will have less money to pass on to
:47:45. > :47:49.your children under this tax. Are you fully supportive of this tax
:47:50. > :47:53.being the route that Labour has decided to redistribute money away
:47:54. > :47:58.from London to the rest of the country and to hit this cohort of
:47:59. > :48:08.people? I am fully supportive of us putting more money into the NHS I
:48:09. > :48:17.and other MPs have made sure Ed Balls understands that those
:48:18. > :48:22.unlimited means... What does understand mean? Have you had the
:48:23. > :48:27.guarantee? Because you are persistent about these things, have
:48:28. > :48:32.you had the guarantee of how it will work, how it will be valued? There
:48:33. > :48:37.are details to be worked out but we have a commitment that there will be
:48:38. > :48:45.a form of bandings so those who buy a flat at Hyde Park Corner for 148
:48:46. > :48:49.million and paid ?26 in council tax will get clobbered, and so they
:48:50. > :48:56.should, and it will go down depending on how much it is. Those
:48:57. > :49:00.at the bottom end, there will be an understanding that there are people
:49:01. > :49:03.unlimited means in that band. Bob Neill, we know the Conservative
:49:04. > :49:08.position on mansion tax, but you have made it clear you think we are
:49:09. > :49:12.fine as we are, but by dismissing this and keeping things exactly as
:49:13. > :49:19.you are doing, you are playing in the face even not Conservative mayor
:49:20. > :49:25.and cross-party support, for going for a revaluation of council tax.
:49:26. > :49:32.That's not quite right. There are two important points, I understand
:49:33. > :49:38.why she was guarded on this because a number of Labour MPs... You focus
:49:39. > :49:45.on the Conservatives. You are not prepared to change a system that is
:49:46. > :49:49.20 years old? Let me tell you why. When I looked at that as local
:49:50. > :49:54.government minister, the experience we found in Wales was that when you
:49:55. > :49:59.did a re-evaluation, it didn't just adjust the highest value, the
:50:00. > :50:05.highest value houses, it dragged everybody up so everybody ended up
:50:06. > :50:08.paying more council tax. With Scottish devolution coming in in the
:50:09. > :50:12.next parliament, it is an opportunity to look at more powers
:50:13. > :50:16.for English local authorities including London and I would rather
:50:17. > :50:19.do it in that considered way rather than a knee jerk headline grabber
:50:20. > :50:25.like mansion tax. Let's move on The cost of housing in the capital
:50:26. > :50:28.is now so extortionate that we are That according to one of London s
:50:29. > :50:32.business lobby groups. It says talented people are fleeing
:50:33. > :50:47.the city for A lack of new homes is commonly
:50:48. > :50:54.blamed for the cost of extortion housing in London. Some research
:50:55. > :50:59.found that 41% of London employees would consider leaving the city
:51:00. > :51:05.because of housing costs. 38% of businesses said it affects their
:51:06. > :51:14.ability to recruit and retain staff. What can be done? Government are
:51:15. > :51:17.very well aware of the need for the private sector to work together
:51:18. > :51:24.they know they can unlock of the challenges. Some agencies are primed
:51:25. > :51:29.to work with the private sector it to release some of those sites. But
:51:30. > :51:32.London is still only building a fraction of the homes necessary to
:51:33. > :51:51.deal with housing problems. We have been talking about the brain
:51:52. > :51:56.drain for years but you are saying we are genuinely seeing a reversal
:51:57. > :52:03.of that process? London needs to build something like ?50,000 --
:52:04. > :52:14.homes per year, and we are building 20,000. People live far away from
:52:15. > :52:19.the tube, in squalid conditions and older people are able to live here
:52:20. > :52:28.because they bought their houses years ago, they are fine. It is the
:52:29. > :52:32.squeezed middle, people aged 25 40, 70% of them according to our
:52:33. > :52:36.research are thinking about leaving London. When you want to have a
:52:37. > :52:41.family, it is difficult to settle down in London. What is it about the
:52:42. > :52:46.population increase that was not predicted? Or immigration? People
:52:47. > :52:51.coming from elsewhere in the country? What is the reason why the
:52:52. > :53:00.policymakers have not prepared for this? London is growing at its
:53:01. > :53:06.fastest rate in history. Where do you think the blame is? We simply
:53:07. > :53:11.don't build enough houses. There was a whole range of things that need to
:53:12. > :53:16.change if we are going to build 50,000 homes rather than 20,000 We
:53:17. > :53:23.need to make it easier to get planning permission, we need public
:53:24. > :53:29.sector brownfield land and build homes on it, we need to look at the
:53:30. > :53:33.ways in which councils and local authorities can build. We have never
:53:34. > :53:40.built at scale in London without the public sector playing a role. What
:53:41. > :53:46.about some sort of tax to stop builders sitting on land? There is
:53:47. > :53:51.very little evidence that house-builders don't build pretty
:53:52. > :53:55.much as quickly as they can. If you are a house-builder, of course you
:53:56. > :53:59.need some land for the future because you need pipeline if you are
:54:00. > :54:06.going to keep running as a business, but the issue of the private sector
:54:07. > :54:12.holding land and not develop it is overstated. Emily Thornberry, what
:54:13. > :54:17.Labour supporters might be depressed about is that if you are going to
:54:18. > :54:28.take a controversial policy like council tax, you might not use this
:54:29. > :54:34.on housing. Can I take you up on what you were saying about land
:54:35. > :54:37.banking because I think in my London borough there are developers who do
:54:38. > :54:43.this and the reason is because my local authority has a really hard
:54:44. > :54:46.not policy on planning and won't allow developers to just build
:54:47. > :54:51.private homes. They are unaffordable for Islington people and we make
:54:52. > :54:54.sure we get a high proportion of affordable housing and they don t
:54:55. > :55:00.like it, and they appeal to Boris and try to get through it that way.
:55:01. > :55:09.Because he has a planning authority, and can override it. .
:55:10. > :55:13.Exactly, and we have some controversial decisions from Boris
:55:14. > :55:19.in the next week or two that people will not be happy with. I would
:55:20. > :55:25.rather that land remained empty then simply being used for luxury flats,
:55:26. > :55:33.who will -- which will bring more rich people who do not play a role
:55:34. > :55:37.in our lives. This has got to be one of the massive issues, you are
:55:38. > :55:42.really vulnerable here, aren't you? I don't think we are vulnerable but
:55:43. > :55:47.all the political parties need to realise that for 30 odd years we
:55:48. > :55:52.have not been building enough homes and that is why we are putting
:55:53. > :55:57.centrepiece our proposal to build 100,000 low-cost, affordable houses
:55:58. > :56:08.by removing some of the genuine difficulties the planning system can
:56:09. > :56:13.put in their way. The homes to buy? Yes, different people have different
:56:14. > :56:17.needs. Some people want to rent privately for a period, some people
:56:18. > :56:26.will want to start on the housing market. How many do we imagine? You
:56:27. > :56:31.say 100,000, how many do we imagine you will be able to get built in
:56:32. > :56:37.London where land values are so high? I think we can achieve a lot.
:56:38. > :56:41.Boris has released the equivalent of about 210 football pitches of public
:56:42. > :56:46.land simply from within his own agencies that can go for housing,
:56:47. > :56:51.and we are doing that nationally as well. Ebbsfleet is within London
:56:52. > :56:58.commuter land, we need to be doing much more of that. I will just give
:56:59. > :57:05.John the last word, a politically if you like, but what do you want to
:57:06. > :57:10.see offered between now and May We need to really get the public sector
:57:11. > :57:14.land in London into development and that requires central government but
:57:15. > :57:21.London government in charge of getting that land out of dead public
:57:22. > :57:25.use. We also need to look at how we can enable London local authorities
:57:26. > :57:28.to choose their balance sheet is. Now for the rest of the news in 60
:57:29. > :57:35.seconds. The head of transport
:57:36. > :57:38.for London has said the capital s transport crisis sparking riots if
:57:39. > :57:47.more is not done improve services. Peter Hendy has warned of social
:57:48. > :57:55.unrest if low paid workers living on outskirts of the capital are unable
:57:56. > :58:02.to commute to work more easily. The first dedicated clinic assisting
:58:03. > :58:04.victims of female genital mutilation has opened at
:58:05. > :58:06.University College Hospital. The training will provide medical
:58:07. > :58:08.treatment and psychological services One of London's top state schools
:58:09. > :58:13.has banned one of its Muslim pupils Camden school
:58:14. > :58:17.for girls said it will challenge any clothing which does not allow pupil
:58:18. > :58:19.teacher interaction and has refused The tube is to run a 24-hour service
:58:20. > :58:25.at weekends from 12 September 2 15. Passengers will be able to take
:58:26. > :58:44.the so-called night tube on Fridays Bob Neill, the cost of public
:58:45. > :58:50.transport and the cost of housing could lead to social unrest, says
:58:51. > :58:55.transport Commissioner. He is banging the drum for more transport
:58:56. > :59:00.investment, that is his job. I think that form of words is unfair for
:59:01. > :59:05.people who are hard pressed to don't resort to that sort of behaviour.
:59:06. > :59:09.Driven by the lack of job opportunities and the lack of
:59:10. > :59:14.ability to travel into where the jobs are. I think it is rhetoric,
:59:15. > :59:18.but underpinning it is the important point that particularly in the Outer
:59:19. > :59:22.London boroughs there is a lot of pressure so we need to encourage
:59:23. > :59:27.development in the right sort of areas, we need to continue to invest
:59:28. > :59:37.in the transport system. The mayor has been doing that, the tube is
:59:38. > :59:44.part of that. Many jobs are also created by that, it all helps.
:59:45. > :59:50.Emily, it is apolitical, the challenges for any party after 016,
:59:51. > :59:55.after next year, and there is the money. Yes, and I understand that
:59:56. > :00:00.but in the end we cannot keep taking for granted London, in my view. I
:00:01. > :00:06.will say this to anybody. London generates a large proportion of the
:00:07. > :00:10.wealth in this country and we cannot just keep stumbling on. We need
:00:11. > :00:17.proper infrastructure, proper transport systems, more homes.. But
:00:18. > :00:21.the last thing you want to do is stifle that wealth by preventing
:00:22. > :00:26.people coming here. Yes, we need to have... Thank goodness we are having
:00:27. > :00:31.Crossrail but we need more homes, of course we do, and we cannot keep
:00:32. > :00:38.taking London for granted and saying it is OK. Where would this country
:00:39. > :00:42.be without London? On that note .. My thanks to you both. Andrew, back
:00:43. > :01:01.to you. Here we are back in Birmingham with
:01:02. > :01:06.the Conservatives. The Tories thought all they had to do was come
:01:07. > :01:12.here, have a rally, a jamboree, and off they go to the races, or in
:01:13. > :01:18.their case the general election Two races later it hasn't quite worked
:01:19. > :01:23.out like that. Let's look at the state of this conference as it gets
:01:24. > :01:29.under way. On our panel we are joined by David Davis. You wrote an
:01:30. > :01:34.article in the Mail on Sunday this morning which was an Exocet at the
:01:35. > :01:41.heart of David Cameron's modernising strategy. It was designed to act as
:01:42. > :01:46.a lever. It was designed to cause trouble. No, we are in the running
:01:47. > :01:51.for the next general election. One of the characteristics of having a
:01:52. > :01:56.five year fixed term Parliaments is that the last year is about
:01:57. > :02:02.campaigning. It is important we beat Miliband, he would be a disastrous
:02:03. > :02:09.Prime Minister. You think the whole modernising strategy was a wrong
:02:10. > :02:25.turn, that is what the article said. Yes. Has that opened the door to
:02:26. > :02:34.UKIP? It has left a lot of people disillusioned with politics. What do
:02:35. > :02:53.you do to get it right? Who was listening to you?
:02:54. > :03:12.Frankly we need to take a more robust series of policies. How many
:03:13. > :03:21.more UKIP defections will there be? I do not think there will be any
:03:22. > :03:24.more. I would be very surprised I know Nigel Farage has a brilliant
:03:25. > :03:30.sense of timing, but I do not think he has got the resources to do that,
:03:31. > :03:34.namely, another Tory MP. So it could be another Labour one, maybe? I
:03:35. > :03:42.think an awful lot will hinge on what happens in Rochester. Because
:03:43. > :03:46.that is not a slam dunk. Clack and unfortunately looks like it will be
:03:47. > :03:58.a walkover for them. But Rochester is a different scene. And so, there
:03:59. > :04:03.could be a kind of Newark situation. When I campaigned in Newark, two
:04:04. > :04:08.labour families I spoke to said they would vote Tory to keep UKIP out.
:04:09. > :04:16.How bad was the Labour conference last week? One politician said after
:04:17. > :04:19.he had a really bad performance that his television performance was
:04:20. > :04:24.suboptimal. I think that would be a good way of describing Ed
:04:25. > :04:28.Miliband's speech. The problem for Ed Miliband in memorising speeches
:04:29. > :04:31.is that we are not auditioning for a new lines Olivier, we're rehearsing
:04:32. > :04:36.for Prime Minister. He failed the Laurence Olivier test, and therefore
:04:37. > :04:39.failed the Prime Minister test. I think the real problem for him was
:04:40. > :04:43.forgetting to mention the deficit. He spoke from the heart about issues
:04:44. > :04:49.which she really cares about, the NHS, the rupture between wages and
:04:50. > :04:53.inflation, and forgot the deficit. Those issues are important, but if
:04:54. > :04:56.you are not addressing things like the deficit, then people are really
:04:57. > :05:02.not going to be listening to your messages on the areas that matter.
:05:03. > :05:08.Was it bad? Yes, suboptimal, I am afraid. I hope that this ends the
:05:09. > :05:11.nonsense of leaders wasting their time learning speeches off by
:05:12. > :05:17.heart. You could learn a Shakespeare play in the time it takes to learn
:05:18. > :05:20.70 minutes of a leader's speech I think we should just go back to
:05:21. > :05:25.sensible reading what you have written. You can then alter it just
:05:26. > :05:28.beforehand. A lot of things were changing, which is not surprising,
:05:29. > :05:33.but he did not have time to learn it. It is a silly gimmick, it worked
:05:34. > :05:37.once or twice, but that is enough for that. Despite some of the
:05:38. > :05:40.derision of Mr Miliband, the Tories are flat-lining in the sun decks,
:05:41. > :05:46.they have been there almost since the disastrous budget, the
:05:47. > :05:51.omnishambles, of 2012, Labour is still several points ahead, nothing
:05:52. > :05:56.seems to change? And David Cameron is now the leader in trouble. It is
:05:57. > :06:04.almost as if a week is a long time in politics. I thought the Labour
:06:05. > :06:10.and friends was Saab -- sub-suboptimal. It was so parochial.
:06:11. > :06:13.You could've watched the top speeches without knowing that the
:06:14. > :06:18.borders of Ukraine, and Iraq and Syria were in question. I hope,
:06:19. > :06:22.because of Friday's discussion in Parliament, that this conference
:06:23. > :06:26.will raise its sights a bit, and we will have something in Cameron's
:06:27. > :06:30.speech, possibly that of George Osborne as well, which is a bit more
:06:31. > :06:34.global. People hoped UKIP had gone away during the summer, people at
:06:35. > :06:42.this conference, I mean, but it is back with a bang. They are still up
:06:43. > :06:48.at 15% in the polls, the Tories languishing on 32 - what is going to
:06:49. > :06:55.change? UKIP won 3% of the last election, I always thought they
:06:56. > :07:00.would get about 6%. If, by the turn of the year, they are still in
:07:01. > :07:04.double digits, I think at that point you can begin to wake of his
:07:05. > :07:09.party's chances of winning. I have had three people say to me so far,
:07:10. > :07:13.come election day, it will be fine, people will sober up and so on. It
:07:14. > :07:18.will be all right on the night is not a very good strategy, frankly.
:07:19. > :07:24.When they get past 5%, I start to bite into our 3-way marginal seats,
:07:25. > :07:28.with liberals, Labour and Tories, and we have got about 60 of those in
:07:29. > :07:33.the Midlands and the north, so it really is quite serious. And if I
:07:34. > :07:38.may steal one of David's lines, when you were interviewing Mark Reckless
:07:39. > :07:42.this morning, and was not talking about the EU referendum, he was
:07:43. > :07:45.talking about how he felt he had broken his pledges to the electorate
:07:46. > :07:49.because the Conservatives he said had failed on immigration and on the
:07:50. > :07:53.deficit, and those sort of bread-and-butter issues could be
:07:54. > :07:57.really potent on the doorstep, which means the Tories have got to run the
:07:58. > :08:01.kind of campaign they ran in Newark, which is a real centre ground,
:08:02. > :08:04.Reddan but a campaign, in which they would hope to get Liberal Democrat
:08:05. > :08:09.and Labour voters out to vote tactically against UKIP. I think
:08:10. > :08:15.today we have seen Cameron been pushed to the right. He has had to
:08:16. > :08:18.say, yes, I would leave Europe, which he has never said before. It
:08:19. > :08:24.is a huge stepping stone, a big difference. It takes the Tory party
:08:25. > :08:29.somewhere else. May be get them a lot of votes. But it has not so far.
:08:30. > :08:35.But I think it loses a lot of people. The industry organisations,
:08:36. > :08:40.for example. The prospect of going out of Europe, but is quite a fight
:08:41. > :08:48.for them. Is it not the lesson that you can out UKIP UKIP? Well, you do
:08:49. > :08:59.not need to, really. I agree, last week was sub-sub-suboptimal. Hold
:09:00. > :09:07.on, that is enough subs! I would not be crowing too much! But what I was
:09:08. > :09:11.going to say, he left out something incredibly important, the deficit.
:09:12. > :09:16.But how many people outside the M25 are thinking about the deficit? One
:09:17. > :09:21.problem we face with Miliband is, he is good at politics and bad at
:09:22. > :09:24.economics, in a way. He comes up with bonkers policies which people
:09:25. > :09:30.love, price-fixing, things like that. Our problem will be about
:09:31. > :09:34.relevance on the doorstep. I do not think at the end of the day it will
:09:35. > :09:38.be about Europe. But was there not a moment of danger for you at the
:09:39. > :09:40.conference, that one area where Miliband is potentially vulnerable
:09:41. > :09:45.is not having credible team with business. Who turned up at the
:09:46. > :09:51.Labour conference, the head of Airbus, saying, we have got to stay
:09:52. > :09:56.in the European Union? The danger is that Europe allows the Labour Party
:09:57. > :10:02.to gain credibility with business. There is some truth in that. But we
:10:03. > :10:05.are in effectively the home straight, the last six months, and
:10:06. > :10:10.people will be fussing about prices and jobs. Very parochial. They will
:10:11. > :10:15.not be saying, what does the CBI think about this? It is, what is
:10:16. > :10:23.happening to me, in my town, in my factory, in my office. That is where
:10:24. > :10:29.the fight will be. Is it not the truth that if UKIP stays anywhere
:10:30. > :10:33.near around this level of support, it is impossible for the Tories to
:10:34. > :10:37.win an overall majority? I would say, if it is this level of support,
:10:38. > :10:42.it is impossible for the Tories to finish as the biggest party, even in
:10:43. > :10:47.a hung Parliament. The Tories keep trying to win back UKIP voters with
:10:48. > :10:51.cold logic - witches it makes Ed Miliband becoming prime minister
:10:52. > :10:55.more likely. UKIP is basically a vessel phenomenon, coming from the
:10:56. > :10:59.gut, and David Cameron has never found the emotional pitch in his
:11:00. > :11:03.rhetoric to meet that. I wonder whether we will see that moron
:11:04. > :11:16.Wednesday. It is just not him. I hope we do. -- more on Wednesday. I
:11:17. > :11:19.hope you're right that we do actually engage on emotion. So far
:11:20. > :11:24.with UKIP, our policy has been to insult them. It does not work. I
:11:25. > :11:29.know that from my constituency. We have to say to them, there is a
:11:30. > :11:32.wider Tory family, we understand you are patria, we understand you are
:11:33. > :11:37.worried about your family, and we do the same. What does it tell us about
:11:38. > :11:40.the state of the Tories, seven months from the election, the
:11:41. > :11:43.economy is going well, they are not that far behind Labour, and yet
:11:44. > :11:48.there is all sorts of leadership speculation? It is extraordinary.
:11:49. > :11:57.They are doing well, they are in with a shout. It depends. UKIP has
:11:58. > :12:04.to be kept below 9% of. -- below 9%. I think David Cameron is one of
:12:05. > :12:09.the few who speaks human, actually talks quite well to people and does
:12:10. > :12:14.not look like a swivel-eyed loons. Whereas a lot of people behind him
:12:15. > :12:18.do. You look at Duncan Smith and Eric Pickles, they are all kind of
:12:19. > :12:27.driven, ideological men, with very right-wing policies. And nice
:12:28. > :12:30.people! Don't hold back! He is not the Addams family, he is basically
:12:31. > :12:35.quite human. I think a lot of people do not realise how ideological he is
:12:36. > :12:40.himself and how well he has led his party in the direction they all want
:12:41. > :12:43.to go. You go on about him being this metropolitan moderniser, I do
:12:44. > :12:47.not think that is what he is, really. It may not be visible from
:12:48. > :12:52.the guardian offices in the metropolis! Everybody where you are,
:12:53. > :12:58.Polly, is a metropolitan moderniser. And where you are, too. That is the
:12:59. > :13:02.nature of living in London. The trouble is, when these people get
:13:03. > :13:06.into Westminster, they are part of Westminster, too. If you could only
:13:07. > :13:11.win by being an outsider, the moment you get in, you are done for. All
:13:12. > :13:20.teeing up nicely for Boris Johnson to be the next leader? I do not
:13:21. > :13:24.think so! The point of my Exocet, or lever, this morning, is that I think
:13:25. > :13:29.this is winnable. If we are good Tories for the next six months, we
:13:30. > :13:35.can do this. It is by denying ground to UKIP, not giving in to them, not
:13:36. > :13:40.buckling. Denying ground. Thank you to our panel. They did all right
:13:41. > :13:44.today, but the normal. That is your lot for today. I am back tomorrow.
:13:45. > :13:49.We will have live coverage of George Osborne's speech to the conference.
:13:50. > :13:52.I am back next week in Glasgow for The Sunday Politics at the Labour
:13:53. > :13:56.conference. How could you miss that? Remember, if it is Sunday it
:13:57. > :14:25.is The Sunday Politics. Bye-bye of statutory press regulation in
:14:26. > :14:40.sponge cake may be a bridge too far. I think I've overdone it
:14:41. > :14:43.with the pistachios and somehow, the custard's split,
:14:44. > :14:46.but it's too late!