28/09/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning folks and welcome to The Sunday Politics,

live from the Conservative Conference in Birmingham.

There will be one less Conservative MP here after Mark Reckless defected

He joins us live from his constituency, where he has

It has not been the best of starts for the Prime Minister, as he

arrives in Birmingham for the last Tory conference before the election.

On top of the Reckless defection, a junior Tory minister has resigned

RAF jets have carried out their first mission over Iraq

In London, how the richest 1% are pulling further away, and why those

priced out are choosing And joining me, three of the

country's most loyal journalists, who sadly have yet to resign or

defect to our inferior rivals. Nick Watt,

Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh. And, of course, they'll be

tweeting throughout the programme. And you too can get involved

by using the hashtag #BBCSP. At the current rate of Tory

resignations, Mr Cameron could be speaking to an

empty hall when he makes his keynote address to the Tory conference here

in Birmingham tomorrow. It's been a classic car crash of a

start to the conference, with a UKIP defection, a minister shamed into

resignation by a sex scandal and Ed Miliband's memory lapses now look

like a little local difficulty. Here's what

the Prime Minister had to say These things are frustrating and

frankly counter-productive and rather senseless. If you want to

have a European referendum, if you want to get the deficit down, if you

want to build a stronger Britain that we can be proud of, there is

only one option, which is to have a Conservative government after the

next election. And Mark Reckless joins me now

from Rochester. Welcome to the programme. Why did

you lie to all your Conservative colleagues and mislead those who

elected you? Well, I am keeping faith with my constituents and

keeping my promises to them. You heard the Prime Minister saying that

the Conservative led government was dealing with the deficit and cutting

immigration. The reality is, we have increased the national debt by more

in five years than even Labour managed in 13, and immigration is

back up to the levels we saw under Labour. I believe in the promises I

made in 2010, and I want to keep my words to my electorate, not least to

deal with the deficit, cut immigration, reform the political

system, to localise powers back to the community, particularly over

house-building. The government has broken its word on all those things

are. I want to keep my word to my voters here, and that is why I have

done what I have done, by moving to UKIP. You have not kept your words

to your Conservative constituency chairman. You assured him 48 hours

ago that you would not defect, and you left his voice mail on the

Conservative Party chairman's office telephone, missing to come to

Birmingham to campaign for the Tories. This is your voice mail... I

have just picked up your e-mail... So, Friday night, telling Grant

Shapps you are coming to Birmingham to campaign for the Tories. The next

day, you are joining UKIP. Why did you are a? I sounded a bit more

hesitant on that call than I usually do, and I am not sure if that was

the full conversation. But you cannot discuss these things in

advance, you have to make a decision. I have decided the future

of this country is better served by UKIP then it is by the Conservative

Party under David Cameron. I made a lot of promises to my constituents,

and I want to keep those promises. That is why I am moving to UKIP, so

I can deliver the change this country really needs. In May of this

year, you said that Nigel Farage, quote, poses the most serious threat

to a Tory victory at the election. So, you agree, voting UKIP means a

Labour government? I think voting UKIP means getting UKIP. While in

the past a disproportionate number of UKIP people were

ex-Conservatives, now, they are winning a lot more people, from all

parties. People are so disillusioned with the political class in

Westminster, that they have not voted often for a generation. Those

are the people Nigel Farage is inspiring, and frankly, he has also

inspired me. What he has done in the last 20 years, building his party,

getting people from all walks of life, sending up for ordinary

people, I think deserves support. That is a key reason why I am

moving. UKIP are now the agents of change. You said it poses them a

serious threat to a Tory victory? My ambition is not a Tory victory. We

made all of these promises in 2010 as Conservatives, and they have been

broken. We now hear from David Cameron about English votes for

English laws, supported by Nick Clegg as well, but that is what we

said in our manifesto in 2010, and we have done absolutely nothing

about it. It is not credible now to pretend that you are going to do

those things. They have omitted to give every Scot ?1600 per year in

definitely. If you want to stand up for the English taxpayer, and really

tackle the debt, then UKIP are the party who will do that. But there is

nothing principled about this, this is just an attempt to save your

skin. You said UKIP stopped you winning in 2005 - UKIP did not stand

in 2010, and you won. You are frightened that UKIP would beat you

in the next election, this is to save your skin to me you think I am

doing this because I am frightened, you think this is the easy option,

to abandon my position in Parliament, but my principles on the

line? On the contrary, you look at MPs who have moved party before,

almost none of them have given their voters to chance to have a say on

what they have done. I am asking permission from my voters, and I am

moving to UKIP because I believe many of the people in my

constituency have been let down by a Conservative led government, and

that what UKIP is saying appeals to decent, hard-working people, who

want to see real change in our country. If they do not agree, then

they can vote in a by-election and have their say on who they want to

be their MP. I am being open and honest, giving people a say. I am

trying to do the right thing by my constituents, and whatever the risk

is to me personally, I think it is the right thing to do. It is what

MPs should be in politics to try and do for the people they represent.

Your defection, coming after Douglas Carswell's, confirms the claim that

UKIP is largely a depository for disaffected right-wing Tories like

yourself, isn't it? On the contrary, the number of people I met in

Doncaster yesterday was extraordinary. When I first went to

Conservative conferences 20 years ago, there was some enthusiasm for

politics, I remember Norman Tebbit speaking against Maastricht, people

fought they could change things, there was real politics. But I do

not think you will see that at Birmingham this week, it is PR

people, lobbyists, corporate, few ordinary members of. At Ancaster,

people had saved up for months just to get the rail ticket to Doncaster.

People who believe in UKIP, who believe in Nigel Farage, who believe

in the team, as agents of change, who can actually deal with a

political class at Westminster which has let able down. We want proper

reform to the political system, which David Cameron promises but

does not deliver. Final question - after the next election, the Prime

Minister is going to be either David Cameron or Ed Miliband, that is the

choice, one or the other - who would you prefer? Well, what we would

prefer is to get the most UKIP policies implemented. We want a

first rate we want to deal with immigration. I asked about who you

wanted to be Prime Minister. We will look at the circumstances. We need

as many UKIP MPs as possible, to restore trust in politics. If people

vote UKIP, they will get UKIP. How serious is

vote UKIP, they will get UKIP. How serious. It is the old Tory disease,

destroyed John Major, and it has been bubbling away again.

destroyed John Major, and it has beginning to feel like the worst

days of Labour beginning to feel like the worst

eighties. It matters, because people care passionately. It is nothing

like Labour in the early 1980s, it is bad, but it is nothing like that.

There are these very strong strands. People like David Davis

writing a large piece in the Daily Mail attacking the leader on the

first day of the conference. That is the kind of thing that Labour used

to do. That is what David Davis does all the time! But this is authentic

in the sense that there is a real, genuine dispute about Europe. Some

of us were not around in the 1980s, but I imagine it is pretty bad.

There is the short-term problem of the by-election they might lose, the

media problem of the general election which they cannot win if

UKIP remain anywhere near their current level of support. But in

many ways the longer term question is the most pressing, which is, does

it make sense for the Conservative Party to remain one party, or would

it not be better for the hard-core of 20-30 intransigent Eurosceptics

to essentially join UKIP or form their own party? At least the

Conservatives would become more internally manageable. And probably

lose the next election. Probably, yes. That is what you are advising

them? If the reward is to have a coherent party in 15 years' time. It

is just as well you are a columnist, not a party strategist. I

was an anorak in the 1980s, who watched the Labour conference on the

TV. Were you wearing your anorak? Of course I was, that is how sad I am.

But once again the crisis from UKIP has forced the Prime Minister to

step in an even more Eurosceptic direction. Said on television what

he was trying not to say, which is that if he does not get his way in

the European negotiations, he will recommend to the British people that

we should go. He began by saying, as I have always said, and when they

say that, you know they are saying something new. He basically said,

Britain should not stay if it is not in Britain's interests. I think this

is big stakes for both the Tories and four UKIP. The Tories are able

to write off Clacton. Rochester is number 271 on the UKIP friendly

list. If the Tories win it, big moment for them. If UKIP lose it,

this strategy of various will be facing a bit of a setback.

To what extent are Mark Reckless's views shared by Conservative

The Sunday Politics commissioned an exclusive poll of Conservative

Pollsters ComRes spoke to over 1,000 councillors -

that's almost an eighth of their council base - and Eleanor Garnier

There is not a single party conference at the seaside this year,

and Sunday Politics could not get through them all without a trip to

the coast. So here we are on the shore in Sussex. There are plenty of

Conservative councillors here, and Tory MPs as well, but one challenge

they all face is UKIP, who have got their sights on coastal towns.

Places like Worthing East and surer and, with high numbers of

pensioners, providing rich pickings for UKIP. In West Sussex, the Tories

run the county council, but UKIP are the official opposition, with ten

councillors. We cannot lose any more ground to UKIP. If we lose any more

ground, if you look at the way it has swung from us to them, it is

getting near to being the middle point, where we might start losing

seats which we have always regarded as safe seats. So, it has got to be

stemmed, it cannot go any further. Our exclusive survey looked at the

policy areas where the Conservatives are vulnerable to UKIP. If an EU

Referendum Bill is called tomorrow, 45% say they would vote to leave,

39% would stay in. Asked about immigration...

It was those issues, Europe and immigration, that Mark Reckless said

were the head of his decision. I promised to cut immigration while

treating people fairly and humanely. I cannot keep that promise as a

Conservative, I can keep it as UKIP. When asked if Conservative

councillors would like an electoral pact with UKIP in the run-up to the

general election, one third said they support the idea. 63% are

opposed and 7% don't know. Conservative councillors who left

the party to join UKIP say it wasn't easy. I left because basically the

Conservatives left me. I saw it as a difficult decision to change, but

what I was seeing with UKIP was freed. Me being able to speak for my

residents. Back to our survey and on climate change 49% said it was

happening, but that humans are not to blame. Our survey showed that 60%

think David Cameron was wrong to pursue legalising gay marriage, with

31% saying it was the right thing to do and 9% not sure. In Worthing

councillors said gay marriage was divisive. That has really been an

issue here, it might have damaged the party slightly, and I think in a

way by setting a rule like that, it is a very religious thing and it is

almost trying to play God to make that decision. But some of the

party's toughest decisions have been over the economy. 56% in our survey

thought the spending cuts the Government has so far announced have

not gone far enough. 6% were not sure. They are prepared for

difficult decisions, but local activists say the party's voice must

be clearer. I think the message has to be more forceful, it has to be

specially targeted to the ex-Conservative voters who now vote

UKIP, especially in this area, the vast majority of UKIP people are

disillusioned Conservatives. The message has to be loud and strong,

come back and we are the party to give you what you want. With just

eight months until the general election, the pressure is on and

local Conservatives are searching for clues to help their party stem

the flow of defections. Joining me now is William Hague, the former

Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons.

Tories like Mark Reckless are defecting to UKIP because they don't

trust the party leadership to defecting to UKIP because they don't

deliver on Europe, do they? They believe people like you and David

Cameron will campaign to stay in and they are right. They said before

they defected that people should vote

they defected that people should referendum on Europe, and that is

right of course. The only way to get a referendum is to do that and this

is the point, the people should decide. However a future government

decides it will campaign, it should be the people of the country who

decide. Can you say to our viewers this morning that is not enough

powers are repatriated back to Britain, you would want to come

out, can you say that? Our objective is to get those powers and stay in.

The answer to the question is I won't be deciding, David Cameron

won't be deciding, you the voters will be deciding. But you have to

give us your view. If you don't get enough powers back, would you vote

to come out and recommended? Our objective is to get those powers and

be able to stay in. You just get endless speculation years in

advance. I will decide at the time how I will vote. Surely that is the

rational position for everyone to take but I want a referendum to take

place. I understand that. As you pointed out to Mark Reckless just

now, unless there is a Conservative government, people won't have that

choice. Under a Labour government they will not get a choice at all.

Our survey of Tory councillors shows that almost 50% would vote to leave

the EU in a referendum. I think it showed, wasn't it 45, and 39%, but

again, I'm pretty sure they will decide at the time. They will want

to see what a future government achieves in a renegotiation before

they decide what to vote in a referendum. Unless David Cameron is

Prime Minister and there is a Conservative government, there will

not be a renegotiation. That is a point you have made four times. I

think they have got it. Your Cabinet colleague says we should not be

scared of quitting the EU, but you went native in the Foreign Office,

didn't you? You used to be a Eurosceptic, you are now the Foreign

Office line man. No, I don't think so! We brought back the first

reduced European budget ever in history. Even Margaret Thatcher...

Leaving the EU scares you, doesn't it? Not much scares me after 26

years in politics but we want to do the best thing for the country.

Where we scared when we got us out of liability for Eurozone bailouts?

We were not scared of anybody. People said we couldn't achieve

things but we negotiated these things. We can do that with a wider

negotiation in Europe. Mr Reckless says he cannot keep the Conservative

promise to tackle immigration. You have failed to keep your promise to

keep net immigration down. You promised to cut it below 100,000,

you failed. It is over 200,000 people. We have cut it from 250,000

in 2005, the last figures were 240,000. I think we can file that

under F four failed. It includes students, we want them in the

country. You knew that when you made the promise. But has it come down?

Yes, it has. Have we stopped the promise. But has it come down?

coming here because of our benefit system? Yes. None of that happened

under Labour. If Mark Reckless had his way, it would be more likely we

would have a Labour government. They have an open door policy on

immigration. You are not just losing MPs to UKIP, you are losing voters.

Polling by Michael Ashcroft shows that 20% of people who voted Tory in

2010 have abandoned youth and three quarters of them are voting UKIP

now. We will see in the general election. Politics is very fluid in

this country and we shouldn't deny that in any way but UKIP thought

they were going to win the by-election in Newark, we had a

thumping Conservative victory, and I think opinion polls are snapshots of

opinion now. They are not forecast of the general election and we will

be doing everything we can to get our message across. Today we are

announcing 3 million more apprenticeships in the next

Parliament. I think this is what people will be voting on, rather

than who has defected. Your activist base once parked with UKIP. Our

survey shows a third of Tory councillors would like a formal pact

with UKIP. Why not? It shows two thirds are against it. No, it shows

one third want it. I read the figures, it showed 67% don't want

it. We are not going to make a pact with other parties, and they don't

work in the British electoral system even if they were desirable. You are

sharing the Cabinet committee on English votes for English laws. Is

further devolution for Scotland conditional on progress towards

English devolution? No, the commitment to Scotland is

unconditional. We will meet the commitments to Scotland but we

believe, we the Conservatives believe, that in tandem with that we

have to resolve these questions about fairness to the rest of the UK

as well. That will depend on other parties or the general election

result. Are you committed to the Gordon Brown timetable? Yes,

absolutely. So you are committed to producing draft legislation by Burns

night, that is at the end of January. Will you produce proposals

for English votes on English laws by then? We will, but whether they are

agreed across the parties will depend on the other parties. There

was no sign that they were agreeable at the Labour conference. We will

produce our ideas on the same timetable as the timetable for

Scottish devolution. You will therefore bring forward proposals

for English votes for English laws by the end of January? Yes. And will

you attempt to get them on the statute book before the election?

The commitment in Scotland is to legislate after the election. You

will publish a bill beforehand? We will publish proposals beforehand. I

don't exclude doing something before the election, but the Scottish

timetable is to legislate for the further devolution after the general

election, whoever wins the election. Have you given thought as to what

English votes for English laws would mean? I have thought a lot of it

over 15 years. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome will be,

but it does mean in essence that when decisions are taken, decisions

that only affect England or only England and Wales, then only the MPs

from England and Wales should be making those decisions. You can

achieve that in many different ways. Is that it for English

devolution, is that what it amounts to? That is devolution to England if

you like, but within England there is a lot of other devolution going

on and we might well want to extend that further. We have given more

freedom to local authorities, there is a lot of scope to do more of

that, but that in itself is not the answer to the problem of what

happens at Westminster. You haven't just given Scotland more devolution

or planned to do it, you have also enshrined the Barnett formula and

that seems to be in perpetuity. It is widely regarded as being unfair

to Wales and many of the poorer English regions. Why do you

perpetuate it? It will become less relevant overtime if more

tax-raising powers... It goes all the way back to the 1970s, we

tax-raising powers... It goes all commitment on that, we will keep our

commitments to Scotland as commitment on that, we will keep our

but as more tax-raising powers devolved, the Barnett formula is

less significant. If you transfer ?5 billion of tax-raising powers to

Scotland, 5 billion comes off the Barnett formula? It will be a lot

more complicated than that, but yes, as their own decisions about

taxation are made, the grand from Westminster will go down. And you

can guarantee that if there is a majority Conservative government,

there will be English votes for English laws after the election?

Yes, I stress again that there are different ways of doing it but if

there is no cross-party agreement on that, the Conservatives will produce

our proposals and campaign for them in the general election. Don't go

away because I want to move on to some other matters.

Now to the fight against so-called Islamic State terrorists.

Yesterday, RAF Tornado jets carried out their first flights over Iraq

since MPs gave their approval for air-strikes against the militants.

When you face a situation with psychobabble -- psychopathic killers

who have already brutally beheaded one of our own citizens, who have

already launched and tried to execute plots in our own country to

maim innocent people, we have a choice - we can either stand back

from this and say it is too difficult, let's let someone else

try to keep our country safe, or we take the correct decision to have a

full, comprehensive strategy but let's be prepared to play our role

to make sure these people cannot do not trust harm.

And William Hague is still with me - until July he was, of course,

Why have only six Tornado jets being mobilised? Do not assume that is all

that will be taking part in this operation. That is all that has been

announced and I do not think we should speculate. Even the Danes are

sending more fighter jets. There is no restriction in the House of

Commons resolution passed on Friday on what we can do. So why so

little? Do not underestimate what our Tornados can do. They have some

unique capabilities, capabilities which have been specifically asked

for by our allies. When you are on the wrong end of six Tornados, it

will not feel like a small effort. But there will be other things which

can add to that effort. We are joining in a month after the

operation started, we are late, we are behind America, France,

Australia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, one hand tied behind our

backs cause of the rule about not attacking Syria - why is the British

government leading from behind? First of all, we are a democratic

country, and you know all about Parliamentary approval. You could

have recalled parliament. We have done that, with a political

consensus. Other European countries also took the decision on Friday to

send their military assets. Our allies are absolutely content with

that, and Britain will play an important role, along with many

other nations, including Arab nations. General Sir David Richards

Sheriff, who just steps down as the Nato Deputy Supreme Commander, he

condemns the spineless lack of leadership and the absence of any

credible strategy. It is embarrassing,isn't it? Of course,

they turn into armchair generals. We are playing an important role, we

are a democratic country. Your viewers will remember, we had a vote

last year on military action in Syria and we were defeated in the

House of Commons, a bad moment for our foreign policy. We have taken

care to bring this forward when we can win a vote in the House of

Commons, and that is how we will proceed. The air Chief Marshal until

recently in charge of the RAF, he says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq

but not Syria. He calls the decision ludicrous. Of course, it DOES make

sense to bomb Iraq, because the Iraqi government has asked for our

assistance. This came up a lot in the debate on Friday, and the Prime

Minister explained, similar to what I have just been saying, that there

is not a political consensus about Syria in the House of Commons. When

we did it last year, we were defeated, and it was described by

all commentators as a huge blow to the government and to our foreign

policy. So, we will bring forward proposals when there is a majority

in this country to do so in the House of Commons. Professor Michael

Clarke, one of the world top experts on military strategy and history, he

says there are very few important IS targets in northern Iraq, that they

are all in Syria, and we are limiting ourselves to the periphery

of the campaign. First of all, just because you are not doing everything

does not mean you should not do something. Secondly, the United

States and other countries are engaged in the action against

targets in Syria. This is a coalition effort, with people doing

different things. Thirdly, if we were to put their proposal to the

House of Commons tomorrow, and it was defeated, we would not have

achieved a great deal. You do not know it would have been defeated.

The Labour Party has given no indication they would have supported

that. So, you are hostage to the Labour Party? We have to win a

democratic vote in the House of Commons, and the Labour Party is a

very large part of the House of Commons. You are asking us to pursue

a policy which at the moment could be defeated in Parliament. Is it not

embarrassing to be on the wrong side of so many of these military

experts? Why should we trust the judgment of here today, gone

tomorrow, politicians? We have the military experts with us now. We

have a national security council, we do not have sofa government, unlike

the last government. The national security council is chaired by the

Prime Minister. Alongside the Chief of Defence Staff and the heads of

the intelligence agencies. And we take decisions together with the

people who have the information now. So, you will know what British

and American intelligence says about Syria. The Prime Minister has said

there is a danger that the British-born jihadists will come

back and attack us. But the intelligence reports which you will

have seen are clear - Al-Qaeda and its associates are selecting,

indoctrinating and training jihadists in Syria, not Iraq. Does

that not make the Syrian exclusion even more ludicrous? I cannot

comment on intelligence. Is the situation in Syria I direct threat

to this country? Yes, it is. Have we excluded action? No, we haven't.

Could you come back to the House? The Prime Minister said, it was in

the motion put to the House of Commons, that if we want to take

action in Syria, we will come back to the House of Commons. But we have

not taken any decision about that and we would not do so if we thought

we were going to be defeated again. The government supports US strikes

on Syria, show you must relieve they are legal. Either way the legal

basis differs from one country to another, according to their reading

of international law. But you have supported it. We do believe that

they and Arab countries are taking action legally and we support their

action. But I understand your legitimate questions. But it comes

back to your basic question, why in Iraq and not Syria. Nonetheless, it

is important to take action in Iraq. We are also engaged in Syria

in building up the political strength of the more moderate

opposition and in trying to bring about a peace agreement, and we do

not exclude action in Syria in the future. If we propose doing

something, then we ask for the specific legal advice. Why would you

not ask for the legal advice anyway? Because you have to be sure

of the legal advice at the time, and also we do not comment on the advice

given to us by the Law officers. Mr Blair ended up publishing his. That

was because there was a huge legal dispute. So you have not had legal

advice yet that Britain attacking Syria would be legal? The legal

situation is unlikely to be the barrier in this case, let me put it

that way. Within international law, you can act in the event of extreme

humanitarian distress and elective self-defence, so one can imagine

strong legal justification, but of course, we will take the legal

advice at the time. watching The Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who Scotland. Coming up here in 20

minutes, The Week Ahead. Hello, and welcome to Sunday

Politics in Northern Ireland. Why won't the Executive discuss

the problem of looming budget cuts? We ask the party's

Education Minister, John O'Dowd, Theresa Villiers takes centre

stage at the Conservative party We'll get a flavour of what she'll

be telling delegates in Birmingham. And with me throughout with

their thoughts - journalists It's been quite a week for the DUP,

and the First Minister in particular,

who had to head off what looked like It all started with

a major reshuffle at Stormont which saw the Health Minister,

Edwin Poots, replaced by Jim Wells. Mr Poots then sparked speculation

about Peter Robinson's future He, in turn, was quickly slapped

down by Mr Robinson, who branded Then, in a bizarre

but very modern show of support, a torrent of Twitter messages followed

online as MP and MLA alike followed each other to demonstrate their

undying support for their leader. Some commentators detected a lack

of enthusiasm in messages from Mr Poots and Paul Givan, who's to lose

his job on the Justice Committee. Let's hear from my guests

of the day, journalists Liam Clarke Thank you for joining us. Liam, do

you remember anything like this as far as the DUP is concerned? No,

they are usually on message through a crisis. The nearest thing you

could think of was Iris Robinson when everyone pulled behind the

leader. There is a lot of disarray in the ranks now. Whether Peter

Robinson has reasserted his authority, we will know shortly, he

has shown he is a leader and is prepared to punish his enemies or

people who criticise him, he cast Edwin Poots into outer darkness, and

Paul Givan, who was seen as a rising star in the party is also

diminished, so we will see if that sticks. Dearbhail McDonald,

observing things from a distance from Dublin, did you get a sense the

rebellion had been put down or could it rumble on? I was watching it

mostly on Twitter because Enda Kenny was also having a difficult week

with internal strife. I was watching an online with a mix of or,

amusement and hover, looking at the North Korean style support on

Twitter for the dear leader was amusing but I think it Robinson may

have dampened at but there may be huge problems for the DUP. They are

normally on message but seem to be in disarray for this week. It

highlights the two factions that seem to make up the DUP, the

Robinson wing, which seems to have the upper hand now, then the older

Paisley when, people like Paul Givan, Edwin Poots, Ian Paisley

Junior, what role is there for them in the party in future? That is

difficult to say. My own impression is that Peter Robinson is has

dampened it for the time being but I think Edwin Poots may be proved

right and he will not be leader for the next general election. There is

speculation about when he may go that you think it will last for a

period of months but not for years. A new leader comes in, he will have

to try to appease those internal factions. You have to remember about

the DUP that their activist based is very Orange Order, the largest

religious do nomination is Free Presbyterian, this came out in a

University of Liverpool survey, and that doesn't give a leader much

wriggle room and is not necessarily an activist base that represents

voters, so there is a tension there. We will hear more from both of you.

Thank you. The Executive is running out

of time to agree a budget that will see the Assembly

through to the election in 2016. Sinn Fein has been blamed for

delaying discussions on the matter and has re-emphasised its opposition

to introducing welfare reform here. The Finance Minister,

Simon Hamilton, told me on The View on Thursday that he'd tried,

and failed, to raise the matter I think that was welcomed by other

Executive members, some said while they didn't agree with everything in

the paper, they respected the need to have a proper adult conversation

about a sensitive issue. What was contained was what I outlined to the

Deputy First Minister and fortnight ago, contained in a briefing given

by officials in my department to the Executive last Thursday, so this is

information everyone in Sinn Fein have had from a fortnight ago.

We needed to have a proper mature discussion

It was clear the general area where things had to be dealt with,

but we simply couldn't get agreement round the table to have that

That bit of the fault is almost entirely with

Sinn Fein, because other parties were prepared to discuss it.

The Alliance leader, David Ford, and the DUP's Simon Hamilton.

Joining me now is Sinn Fein's Education Minister, John O'Dowd.

Why didn't Sinn Fein support a proper discussion of

Simon Hamilton's paper at last Thursday's Executive meeting?

We had a paper delivered to us at 3pm on Wednesday with ?200 million

of cuts to public services. For a debate and decision at 3pm on

Thursday. That is unacceptable. It would be irresponsible for any

politician to make decisions based on a 24 hour period on a paper that

if it merits discussion should be issued a week beforehand. Simon

Hamilton said not a single member of Sinn Fein didn't know about that six

weeks ago -- two weeks ago. He personally briefed them. It is one

thing being briefed on cuts to services but when you receive a

formal document to decide on, you need time to discuss it. When I

received that I was surprised to find there was a bid for ?10 million

from my department. I haven't made a bid for my own department, I may

not. But the point is discuss it, the other parties or up for

discussing it except for Sinn Fein. There was a discussion at the

Executive but what was looked for was a decision and we refuse to make

a decision based on 24 hours to analyse it. It wasn't a formal

discussion, it wasn't formally tabled. When I receive a document

with a bid from my department which I have not made, my first question

is, if this bid has been made on behalf of my department, how valued

are the sons attributed to other departments, so all the figures

deserve to be drilled down further. -- the songs attributed. So discuss

it further. A fortnight ago I DUP Health Minister said he would need

?100 million board the health service would collapse, so in the

space of a fortnight it changed by ?87 million. That proves you

shouldn't rush into these decisions. Your critics say you are sticking

your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. We have made a call

for the welfare bill to be brought onto the floor of the Assembly, to

be debated for MLAs to have their say on it, for citizens to have

their say. The first duty of the new DST Minister will be to bring the

welfare bill onto the floor of the Assembly. -- DST. You also need to

agree a budget for 2016 soon or Assembly. -- DST. You also need to

will be in default with the Treasury and unable to provide this letter of

comfort. Simon Hamilton is looking at ?200 million of cuts in the next

financial year. How would you address that issue? The first people

we should give comfort to is the people we represent. Some parties

seem more concerned about the needs of civil servants in the Treasury

than the citizens we serve. But they will all be affected by the cuts.

That is our first concern, the people who elect us. 66,000 people

who are currently on benefits, cannot work because of illness, will

see a cut to their welfare payments if welfare cuts are introduced. One

in three people on personal dependence payments will see a cut

as well, every family dependence payments will see a cut

now who are on family tax credits will face a cut as a result of

welfare cuts. Lots of people will be affected if you don't deal with the

issue. The library service is now letting people go. A scheme has been

put in place to allow civil servants to take redundancy. Lots of people

not necessarily directly affected by welfare reform will be affected if

you don't discuss the issue and resolve it. We have not said we will

not discuss it that we will not discuss it in a 24-hour framework

and with a document which is flawed. It deserves to be analysed, we will

analyse that with the figures attributed to departments and make a

decision based on that. What about the people who work for departments

or are in receipt of funding from other government departments, who if

you're budget in education and health budget are protected would be

looking at an eye watering figure of 14% of cuts in the next financial

year? That is my argument, that we need time to consider all the

implications of the October monitoring paper. If you were

serious about discussing it, you would have talked about it on

Thursday. David Ford said this is a major problem, we have a hole in our

budget, let's clear our dairies and deal with it on Friday. Other

parties agreed. Other parties didn't agree, they were looking the

decision. We will reach a decision upon it but it has to be based on

actual figures attribute double two each department with the evidence to

back it up. When will Sinn Fein you ready to discuss this serious

issue? We will discuss it throughout the week and when we are ready to

make a decision we will. And having received that briefing from Simon

Hamilton two weeks ago, you felt out into it on Thursday? The document

for decision arrived at 3pm on Wednesday for a decision on

Thursday. Do you think your department and the health department

should be given special treatment and other departments have to take

big cuts? I don't receive any special treatment. The services I

deliver in terms of education I think should be protected. More

important than other arms of government? Let's see the

implications of a bad education system. If we cut services in

education we will see greater under attainment, young people ending up

in the justice system, unemployed and more pressure on the health

service, so let's continue to invest in education and build a better

society. I imagine Danny Kennedy would say we need to protect roads,

we need to attract investment, Arlene Foster would say we need to

promote tourism. Let's look at the reasons why the cuts are taking

place. We focus on welfare cuts but most cuts are being affected because

our block grant diminishes. Bath block grant is now ?10 million and

it is forecast by 2020 the average spell and in population will fall,

so how can the Executive continued to function if we have an economic

policy which is reducing public spending year on year? Simon

Hamilton made it clear on Thursday that this is happening because

Martin McGuinness is not a free agent and cannot deal with these

issues. He would like to resolve welfare reform but his strings are

being pulled by Gerry Adams and others. Is that true? You mean Gerry

Adams being the leader of the party? I am surprised that comes as

news. Gerry Adams is the leader of Sinn Fein. Martin McGuinness is the

Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. Which represents all the

people in Ireland. Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister and carries

out that function well at the leader is Gerry Adams. So Simon Hamilton is

right? That is what you've said. That is not my terminology. You said

Gerry Adams tells Martin McGuinness what to do. We have a collective

leadership. Gerry Adams is the ultimate leader, where is the

surprise? So that ties in with what you are saying, Martin McGuinness

may have wanted to do a deal and may have been told he could not by Gerry

Adams. That did not happen. Martin McGuinness understand the

consequences of welfare cuts and their impact on society. I have

given you the shocking figures, 66,000 people who will see benefits

cut, Martin McGuinness understands that. Thank you, John O'Dowd, let's

hear from Liam Clarke and Dearbhail McDonald. What do you make about

that wider debate about who is in charge of Sinn Fein? There would be

a view downsized but it is all about 2016. All eyes are on the general

election and people may feel Gerry Adams's focus is on getting into

power in the Republic and the North. The focus from politics up north is

that Sinn Fein are angling to be in government and yet people are

saying, can they make the tough decisions, can they take these,

because they are opposed to austerity in the South yet people

are asking if they are fit for government, so that is why it has

been closely watched and there is a suspicion that perhaps Sinn Fein and

the DUP will allow the Assembly to collapse so they do not have to take

responsibility. If you have lived in the Republic in the last six years

and dealt with austerity and cuts we have had to endure as a result of

the crisis, the collapse in people's income, the huge

unemployment, we have done austerity and the question for Sinn Fein is,

are they man enough to take these decisions they seem incapable of

appear? The, just a sentence. The reason they couldn't make the

decision on Thursday seems to be they have two if to the hard-core

leadership. Thank you. That's back they had to affair. -- they had to

refer to the leadership. Stormont's politicians will be

watching keenly as the Secretary of State addresses the Conservative

Party conference this afternoon. She's been facing calls from

republicans for a border poll, while the DUP has been calling for reform

of the political structures here. Our political reporter

Stephen Walker is When I spoke to him

earlier I began by asking him about the atmosphere among

delegates, with one defection and It's not a great start, it is an odd

atmosphere. Conservative activists want to be energised and we are only

eight months from a general election but when they read the papers today

they may be depressed about the defection and resignation, so not

the start the Conservatives would have wished for. Stephen, after the

Scottish referendum, there is discussion about constitutional

change and devolution, will that feature on the agenda? It will,

after Scotland the political landscape has changed because we are

talking about things like evolution that we didn't talk about before, so

the referendum has changed things, and people are talking about

England. This is something Nigel Farage raised last week. He said if

there is devolution and more powers for England, England would leave the

union and it would be in crisis, so when terms of constitutional change,

the issue of England will dominate. Today there will be a discussion

about the UK and that will incorporate England, Scotland, Wales

and Northern Ireland, and Theresa Villiers will make her speech there.

Our interest is in Northern Ireland. To what extent will it force its way

on the broader agenda? It is on the agenda, it is not high up after

Scotland people are cocking about evolution and therefore they think

about what is happening in Stormont, so from that point of view it is on

the agenda. She will take part in a discussion along with colleagues

from Scotland and Wales that Northern Ireland is being discussed.

It is not the top priority when you read today's newspapers, you will

see the things making headlines, but Northern Ireland will be mentioned.

The Prime Minister will attend a Northern Ireland reception tomorrow

night and on Tuesday there will be a Northern Ireland debates with a

traditional Ulster Fry, so there are Northern Irish events at this

conference. The Secretary of State is due to speak this afternoon but

we do not know what she will say. She is under pressure from quarters

who want to drive political progress here, she could make some big

announcement or simply continue with her softly softly approach, we just

do not know. She has faced criticism from Sinn Fein, who are asking her

to hold a border poll, and from the SDLP and Labour Party, who do not

think she is hands-on enough, so people are asking her to get

involved and make her mark on this process to try to rate this

political logjam. Thank you, Stephen -- to break this logjam.

Now, let's pause for a moment and take a look at the political week

The DUP leader shuffled his ministers and in the face of some

backlash exposed Bartley tensions. People who have the strategic vision

of a lemming and we have to deal with those people. As party

colleagues rushed to support their minister, Simon Hamilton turned on

Sinn Fein. He isn't in charge of his party. Gerry Adams is calling the

shots and Martin McGuinness wanted to do a deal but cannot move

forward. With the speaker Bill, a temporary successor was put in

place. I have been authorised to perform these functions. The Labour

leader called for the stalemate at Stormont to be settled. The

government in Northern Ireland continues its work, including

welfare reform. And with golf bringing more jobs to Northern

Ireland, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister went to

Scotland for the Ryder Cup. Let's hear a final thought

from my studio guests, Let's talk about demand from

Republicans for a border poll. Is it a runner? We had an opinion poll on

Monday and we were surprised there is majority support for a border

poll. I suppose it was the Scottish effect, polling is done around the

town at the time of the referendum, maybe there was that support before

but no one ever asked for it. Does that surprise you? Scotland has been

such a game changer and a lot of people in the North would like

clarity. If there was a border poll and people wanted Irish unity, the

second aspect is, with the people ended South take on the North? The

answer might be no. It might, but the notion of a border poll has to

be handled carefully because if you don't have the support of Unionists,

it is a very poor kind of unity you would achieve, but it is interesting

people want clarity and want to express an opinion. With there have

to be a commensurate poll in the Republic? If a border poll voted for

Irish unity, you would enter a period of negotiation and then two

more polls either My thanks to you both. Andrew, back

to you. Here we are back in Birmingham with

the Conservatives. The Tories thought all they had to do was come

here, have a rally, a jamboree, and off they go to the races, or in

their case the general election. Two races later it hasn't quite worked

out like that. Let's look at the state of this conference as it gets

under way. On our panel we are joined by David Davis. You wrote an

article in the Mail on Sunday this morning which was an Exocet at the

heart of David Cameron's modernising strategy. It was designed to act as

a lever. It was designed to cause trouble. No, we are in the running

for the next general election. One of the characteristics of having a

five year fixed term Parliaments is that the last year is about

campaigning. It is important we beat Miliband, he would be a disastrous

Prime Minister. You think the whole modernising strategy was a wrong

turn, that is what the article said. Yes. Has that opened the door to

UKIP? It has left a lot of people disillusioned with politics. What do

you do to get it right? Who was listening to you?

Frankly we need to take a more robust series of policies. How many

more UKIP defections will there be? I do not think there will be any

more. I would be very surprised. I know Nigel Farage has a brilliant

sense of timing, but I do not think he has got the resources to do that,

namely, another Tory MP. So it could be another Labour one, maybe? I

think an awful lot will hinge on what happens in Rochester. Because

that is not a slam dunk. Clack and unfortunately looks like it will be

a walkover for them. But Rochester is a different scene. And so, there

could be a kind of Newark situation. When I campaigned in Newark, two

labour families I spoke to said they would vote Tory to keep UKIP out.

How bad was the Labour conference last week? One politician said after

he had a really bad performance that his television performance was

suboptimal. I think that would be a good way of describing Ed

Miliband's speech. The problem for Ed Miliband in memorising speeches

is that we are not auditioning for a new lines Olivier, we're rehearsing

for Prime Minister. He failed the Laurence Olivier test, and therefore

failed the Prime Minister test. I think the real problem for him was

forgetting to mention the deficit. He spoke from the heart about issues

which she really cares about, He spoke from the heart about issues

NHS, the rupture between wages and inflation, and forgot the deficit.

Those issues are important, but if you are not addressing things like

the deficit, then people are really not going to be listening to your

messages on the areas that matter. Was it bad? Yes, suboptimal, I am

afraid. I hope that this ends the nonsense of leaders wasting their

time learning speeches nonsense of leaders wasting their

heart. You could learn a Shakespeare play in the time it takes to learn

70 minutes of a leader's speech. I think we should just go back to

sensible reading what you have written. You can then alter it just

beforehand. A lot of things were changing, which is not surprising,

but he did not have time to learn it. It is a silly gimmick, it worked

once or twice, but that is enough for that. Despite some of the

derision of Mr Miliband, the Tories are flat-lining in the sun decks,

they have been there almost since the disastrous budget, the

omnishambles, of 2012, Labour is still several points ahead, nothing

seems to change? And David Cameron is now the leader in trouble. It is

almost as if a week is a long time in politics. I thought the Labour

and friends was Saab -- sub-suboptimal. It was so parochial.

You could've watched the top speeches without knowing that the

borders of Ukraine, and Iraq and Syria were in question. I hope,

because of Friday's discussion in Parliament, that this conference

will raise its sights a bit, and we will have something in Cameron's

speech, possibly that of George Osborne as well, which is a bit more

global. People hoped UKIP had gone away during the summer, people at

this conference, I mean, but it is back with a bang. They are still up

at 15% in the polls, the Tories languishing on 32 - what is going to

change? UKIP won 3% of the last election, I always thought they

would get about 6%. If, by the turn of the year, they are still in

double digits, I think at that point you can begin to wake of his

party's chances of winning. I have had three people say to me so far,

come election day, it will be fine, people will sober up and so on. It

will be all right on the night is not a very good strategy, frankly.

When they get past 5%, I start to bite into our 3-way marginal seats,

with liberals, Labour and Tories, and we have got about 60 of those in

the Midlands and the north, so it really is quite serious. And if I

may steal one of David's lines, when you were interviewing Mark Reckless

this morning, and was not talking about the EU referendum, he was

talking about how he felt he had broken his pledges to the electorate

because the Conservatives he said had failed on immigration and on the

deficit, and those sort of bread-and-butter issues could be

really potent on the doorstep, which means the Tories have got to run the

kind of campaign they ran in Newark, which is a real centre ground,

Reddan but a campaign, in which they would hope to get Liberal Democrat

and Labour voters out to vote tactically against UKIP. I think

today we have seen Cameron been pushed to the right. He has had to

say, yes, I would leave Europe, which he has never said before. It

is a huge stepping stone, a big difference. It takes the Tory party

somewhere else. May be get them a lot of votes. But it has not so far.

But I think it loses a lot of people. The industry organisations,

for example. The prospect of going out of Europe, but is quite a fight

for them. Is it not the lesson that you can out UKIP UKIP? Well, you do

not need to, really. I agree, last week was sub-sub-suboptimal. Hold

on, that is enough subs! I would not be crowing too much! But what I was

going to say, he left out something incredibly important, the deficit.

But how many people outside the M25 are thinking about the deficit? One

problem we face with Miliband is, he is good at politics and bad at

economics, in a way. He comes up with bonkers policies which people

love, price-fixing, things like that. Our problem will be about

relevance on the doorstep. I do not think at the end of the day it will

be about Europe. But was there not a moment of danger for you at the

conference, that one area where Miliband is potentially vulnerable

is not having credible team with business. Who turned up at the

Labour conference, the head of Airbus, saying, we have got to stay

in the European Union? The danger is that Europe allows the Labour Party

to gain credibility with business. There is some truth in that. But we

are in effectively the home straight, the last six months, and

people will be fussing about prices and jobs. Very parochial. They will

not be saying, what does the CBI think about this? It is, what is

happening to me, in my town, in my factory, in my office. That is where

the fight will be. Is it not the truth that if UKIP stays anywhere

near around this level of support, it is impossible for the Tories to

win an overall majority? I would say, if it is this level of support,

it is impossible for the Tories to finish as the biggest party, even in

a hung Parliament. The Tories keep trying to win back UKIP voters with

cold logic - witches it makes Ed Miliband becoming prime minister

more likely. UKIP is basically a vessel phenomenon, coming from the

gut, and David Cameron has never found the emotional pitch in his

rhetoric to meet that. I wonder whether we will see that moron

Wednesday. It is just not him. I hope we do. -- more on Wednesday. I

hope you're right that we do actually engage on emotion. So far

with UKIP, our policy has been to insult them. It does not work. I

know that from my constituency. We have to say to them, there is a

wider Tory family, we understand you are patria, we understand you are

worried are patria, we understand you are

worried about your family, and we do the same. What does it tell us about

the state of the Tories, seven months from the election, the

economy is going well, they are not that far behind Labour, and yet

there is all sorts of leadership speculation? It is extraordinary.

They are doing well, they are in with a shout. It depends. UKIP has

to be kept below 9% of. -- below 9%. I think David Cameron is one of

the few who speaks human, actually talks quite well to people and does

not look like a swivel-eyed loons. Whereas a lot of people behind him

do. You look at Duncan Whereas a lot of people behind him

Eric Pickles, they are all kind of driven, ideological men, with very

right-wing policies. And nice people! Don't hold back! He is not

the Addams family, he is basically quite human. I think a lot of people

do not realise how ideological he is himself and how well he has led his

party in the direction they all want to go. You go on about him being

this metropolitan moderniser, I do not think that is what he is,

really. It may not be visible from the guardian offices in the

metropolis! Everybody where you are, Polly, is a metropolitan moderniser.

And where you are, too. That is the nature of living in London. The

trouble is, when these people get into Westminster, they are part of

Westminster, too. If you could only win by being an outsider, the moment

you get in, you are done for. All teeing up nicely for Boris Johnson

to be the next leader? I do not think so! The point of my Exocet, or

lever, this morning, is that I think this is winnable. If we are good

Tories for the next six months, we can do this. It is by denying ground

to UKIP, not giving in to them, not buckling. Denying ground. Thank you

to our panel. They did all right today, but the normal. That is your

lot for today. I am back tomorrow. We will have live coverage of George

Osborne's speech to the conference. I am back next week in Glasgow for

The Sunday Politics at the Labour conference. How could you miss

that? Remember, if it is Sunday, it is The Sunday Politics. Bye-bye.

I think I've overdone it with the pistachios

and somehow, the custard's split, but it's too late!

of statutory press regulation in sponge cake may be a bridge too far.