29/11/2015 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Liam Fox and George Galloway discuss air strikes, and Lord Falconer talks about Labour.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The Government continues its push for the UK to join air-strikes


Is it winning the argument and does it have the votes in Parliament?


We'll hear from former Tory defence secretary Liam Fox, and Respect


Jeremy Corbyn is struggling to get his way over Syria, as he tries to


persuade his Shadow Cabinet to back his opposition to bombing.


We'll hear from Shadow Justice Secretary, Charlie Falconer.


And the former Conservative chairman Grant Shapps resigns


from the Government over allegations he failed to act on bullying claims


In London, the Chancellor spared the really the end of the story?


In London, the Chancellor spared the Metropolitan Police but his spending


In London, the Chancellor spared the decisions will have consequences for


transport, housing and councils. So, yesterday,


former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps resigned from


the Government over allegations he failed to act on claims of bullying


in the youth wing of the party. It's a complicated story,


as Giles Dilnot explains. Grant Shapps, former co-chair


of the Conservative Party and now a former minister, must wish


as his senior aide Paul Abbot Clarke once tipped for the top


by Tatler magazine unsuccessfully As a result of his behaviour


during that campaign, about which complaints were made, he


was taken off the candidates list. A girlfriend at the time declaring


he was "unfit to be an MP". In early 2014,


Mr Clarke approached the Conservatives and Grant Shapps


in particular with an idea. It was simple, bus loads of young


Tory activists to marginal seats during the 2015 general election


campaign to doorstep constituents. In the face of of unshifting polls,


the idea appealed to Conservative Central Headquarters but they


wanted to have some control over it. Grant Shapps decided not only to


back the idea, but help pay for it, and put Clarke in charge


of the operation. never met are you going to be a part


of this? -- are you going to be? Roadtrip 2015,


as the plan was called, had another motive for Clarke, to see him back


on the Conservative candidate list and perhaps he would have and this


story ended if not for the apparent suicide in mid-September


of a young activist called Elliot Johnson, who left a note, naming


Mark Clarke as someone who'd been bullying him and a secret recording


of Clarke challenging him in a pub. In the wake of Elliot Johnson's


death, lurid allegations emerged about Clarke, alleging sexual


misconduct, drugs, intimidation, blackmail and bullying connected to


Roadtrip, all denied by Mark Clarke. But August e-mail exchanges


between Mr Clarke and Mr Shapps' aide Paul Abbot show Mr Abbott was


aware of complaints Nothing was done and since Mr Shapps


gave Clarke an official Party role he has now resigned saying


"the buck stops with me". The Prime Minister says a full


internal investigation is under way. Elliot Johnson's father wants an


independent external investigation. The most serious allegations


about Clarke were made after Grant Shapps had been moved to


a junior ministerial position and Lord Feldman, David Cameron's


chief fundraiser and close friend, He says the party cannot find


nor was aware of any written If, by falling on his sword,


Mr Shapps hoped to stop the scandal spreading,


he may actually only have become The Sunday Politics panel is here.


Nick, here is the case for Shapps. He has been made a scapegoat. This


is not the end of the story. I think it is not the end of the story.


Grant Shapps did sign up Mark Clark to do this. I think it is getting


awfully close to the door of Andrew Feldman. They went -- he went to


college with the Prime Minister and organised some balls. They go back a


long way. The road trip was run out of Conservative campaign


headquarters in the run-up to the general election. Most significantly


for Andrew Feldman, he signed the checks to allow the road trip to


take place. We're not talking small cheques, we are talking many


hundreds of thousands of pounds. Grant Shapps was in charge of it on


a day-to-day basis but Andrew Feldman and his sister helped the


running of the road trip. What it does is put the attention onto some


of the attention onto summary the attention would be, what did Andrew


Feldman do? What did he know and when and what did he do? What we


have to remember is Baroness Warsi, who was co-chairman, kicked this guy


out of the party. Feldman was Chairman Ben and Shapps brought him


back. Feldman was co-chairman and Feldman is still the chairman now.


In terms of the party, what some people were saying to me yesterday,


actually, it cannot be seen that Cameron is protecting Lord Fellman


-- Feldman because he is his friend. He has got questions to answer. I


also think that if people who are in the party feel these questions are


not being answered, and it is not an open process, loads more leaks will


come out and it will get messier and messier and messier. It is a rum do,


what was going on inside the Tory Party in its youth wing. Multiple


allegations of bullying and sexual harassment. Culminating in this


young man taking his life on a railway line. It is an appalling


thing. There is a history of unusual behaviour amongst Conservative


students going back to the 1980s when Norman Tebbit closed down the


Confederation of Conservative students. It is the most extreme


incident I have ever encountered. This is about personal behaviour.


The parents of Elliott Johnson raised an important question of


chronology. Grant Shapps stop being co-chairman in May. Some of the


allegations against Mark Clark, some of the complaints surfaced as


recently as August. There is a deeper structural problem, which is


the Conservative Party does not have activists. They have to find them


where they can get them. Or, when summary has a reputation as bad as


Mark Clark, they end up going along with them because options are so


limited. It will not be the end of the story.


David Cameron is expected to ask MPs to approve UK air strikes


The Government thinks it now has enough support to risk a vote


in the Commons, even though the Labour Party is still unclear.


And the PM will almost certainly need Labour votes to get his way.


Mr Corbyn is still trying to rally his Shadow Cabinet and Labour MPs


He told Andrew Marr they should recognise his direct mandate


And so what I've done is what I said I would always do,


I would try to democratise the way the party does things.


Yes, I have sent an e-mail to party members, and actually,


70,000 have already replied with their views.


I don't know what all the views are, obviously, I haven't read them all,


Surely we must recognise that in a democracy, the Labour Party has


a very large membership, nearly 400,000 members, they have a right


to express their point of view and MPs have to listen to it and have to


try and understand what's going on in the minds


I've been joined by Charlie Falconer, Jeremy Corbyn's


Are you minded to support government on the subject of Syrian air


strikes? I am. Then need to be assurances, given to the House of


Commons but I am minded to support air strikes. The reason I am, I


think Isil poses a threat to the region and also Europe, including


the United Kingdom. I believe air strikes over Iraq and Syria are


having an effect on reducing that risk. I think it is wrong that we


are participating in Syria when what is going on is we are trying to


defend the United Kingdom. I believe the only long-term solution is there


needs to be a solution to the Syrian civil war and the bombing of cracker


will not significantly contribute to that. -- Raqqa. I believe we do not


have a choice. The likelihood is that the Shadow Cabinet will agree a


collective position in this matter. There are honourably held collective


views. The Shadow Cabinet on Thursday, they were appropriately


discussing. Everybody was conscious of the fact we have to reach a


conclusion in national interests. With an issue like this where there


is agreement on the factual material, international law, the


final judgment, there is such a difficult decision to be made, it is


not surprising that our disagreements in the Shadow Cabinet.


It is unlikely that tomorrow you will be able to agree a collective


line. I think that is right. It is unlikely we'll be able to agree a


yes or no answer to the question the Government is about to post. If it


does not and there is a free vote for this among Labour MPs, it does


make it certain that Mr Cameron will win by a convincing majority. I do


not know the position. I think everyone is weighing up the merits


of the argument. The right thing to do is for mothers of the


Parliamentary Labour Party members of the Shadow Cabinet to consider


all the arguments and reach a conclusion as to what they think is


in the national interest. It is clear that enough Labour MPs will


abstain or side with the Government to give Mr Cameron a majority, even


if that are some Tory defectors. If the position where it was whipped


against by the Labour Party, that with very significantly reduce the


chances if it were a free vote. I do not know what the final figures


would be. Your figures sound right. Should there be a free vote? What is


the alternative given the position you are into a free vote? My own


view is I do not think this very important issue should be allowed to


be a situation that forces resignations on people. I think the


right course is, if the Shadow Cabinet cannot come to a collective


view, and I accept that maybe unlikely, probably the best course


is a free vote. That is ultimately for the leadership to decide. For an


opposition which aspires to government when you're not a


debating society. You are the opposition, the alternative


government. What would voters think if you cannot agree a collective


position on something as important as war? What the Government be


seeing is a legitimate debate. The public is like the Parliamentary


Labour Party and like the saddo Cabinet, of different views. You


need to come to a collective view. We need to know your view on this.


The differences with this is I do not think it will be possible. I do


not think that is surprising. That reflects the debate that is going on


in the country. The debate going on in the country is going on within


the Labour Party. If Mr Corbyn was to attempt, and he said this morning


it is his decision to whip or not. If there were a decision to whip


Labour members to vote against bombing, would that be a resignation


matter for you? I do not want to comment on that. I very much hope


any sort of resignations will be avoided. I think the position will


be we will have a further discussion on Monday and a collective you will


be reached as to how we go forward in relation to the progress. One


Labour MP told us that Mr Corbyn's and of this vote seems to him like a


deliberate search for a fight and he is very disappointed. I do not


agree. The key thing about what is happening now is not who sent a


letter when. The key thing which the public want us to debate is the


question itself. Should we support air strikes or not? I think the


important thing about this week will not be who said what to whom but


will be where you stood on the issue. It is one of those issues


where the judgment about what was right and what was wrong will not


come on the basis of the politics of these few days. It will come on what


happens going forward. What was the right decision? Let me ask you this.


We do not have much time. Because you are a lawyer and an expert on


the Labour Party, if Labour MPs sought to unseat Mr Corbyn, and


there is some wild talk around on that, witty automatically be on the


ballot paper of a new leadership election? I have not addressed that.


It is not a moment to talk about any sort of leadership challenge. Jeremy


Corbyn is leader. He was elected two months ago with a huge mandate. That


is the position within the Labour Party and that is where we have to


address it. It can hardly be a stable position to have a Labour


leader, in such a key issue has bombing in Syria, at odds with a


huge chunk of his Shadow Cabinet rest room at that position is


unsustainable over the period. It was absolutely clear when Jeremy was


elected, there were significant disagreements between Jeremy and


others on policy. What is happening is the Labour Party is holding


together. So far. So, once again a British government


is gearing up extend military action It's a well-trod road


and the outcome has not always been predictable, or pleasant,


which is why so many are hesitant. Ellie Price has been looking


at the Prime Minister's case for action, and what role the UK


military might play. That bomb in Paris,


that could have been London. If they had their way,


it would be London. I can't stand here


and say we're safe I can't stand here either


and say we will remove the threat from the action we take, but do I


stand here with advice behind me that taking action will degrade


and reduce that threat over time? Absolutely,


and I've examined my conscience David Cameron says he no longer


wants to outsource this sort Britain is currently involved in air


strikes against so-called Islamic State, but only in Iraq, shown here


in the bottom half of this shot. The border, for British forces


at least, is crucial. IS, Isis, Daesh - whatever you want


to call it - control or is free to operate in swathes of territory


in Iraq and Syria. Its so-called caliphate stretches


from Aleppo in Syria to The lines on the map are relatively


fluid, it recently lost control That was down to Kurdish forces with


the help of US-led air strikes. Currently Australia,


Canada and France are also flying bombing missions over both


countries, targeting IS. According to the latest figures


released on Friday, the US and its allies operating


under the banner of Operation Inherent Resolve have conducted more


than 8,500 air strikes against Islamic State targets since the


start of the campaign last year. That's 5,580 air strikes in Iraq


and 2,925 in Syria. More than 16,000 targets have been


damaged or destroyed, including more than 4,500 buildings,


nearly 5,000 fighting positions, and The vast majority have come from US


aircraft, but the RAF has run 376 They've been launched


from this base in Cyprus, where The base has also been used to


carry out refuelling and The perception out there is


the question as to whether or not the UK should be involved


in the campaign in Syria or not. The reality is we are involved in


that campaign but in an inconsistent Other countries, our allies,


the Americans and French in particular, just don't quite


understand where we are up to. The PM insists


the RAF can provide specific skills that coalition partners are keen to


make the most of. The ability to launch highly


accurate Brimstone missiles. We are very good


at not killing people collaterally, the UK, so in that sense I think us


moving into Syria is good. The sad thing is that no matter how


good you are, there will be innocent people killed but they are dying


anyway because of Isil, and it's coming to the stage where you have


to move forward and do things, even though that sort of thing happens,


that cannot be Of course Russia is also involved


in air strikes in Syria, but its support of President Assad's


regime puts it at odds with The scale of these tensions


demonstrated when Turkey, which vehemently opposes Assad, shot


down a Russian plane last week. Most experts agree that air strikes


alone will not destroy the common enemy of IS, that ground forces will


be needed, but agreeing on exactly who those forces would be, could


prove the biggest obstacle to peace. We are joined now by George


Galloway. What should be done to thwart Islamic State, if not British


bombing, what should be done to hit it in its heartland? Most of these


terrorist attacks were carried out by people living in the countries in


which they operated, Tunisia, France, Belgium and so on so you


will not physically stop people bombing Raqqa turning up on the


streets of Paris. But the planning involved Islamic State. There's not


much logistics involved in taking arms into a nightclub and killing


innocent people. There are many weapons in Europe, nobody is


suggesting these weapons came from Syria. I don't want to dodge your


question, I must strongly in favour of destroying Isis and Al-Qaeda as


anybody else, more than the David Cameron government or they wouldn't


be tolerating a situation where Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been


supporting these people for years and until now are supporting them.


We are steeped in blog so far but it is bloodier to go on, I promise you.


What would you do? I would support the people fighting Isis and


Al-Qaeda on the ground. The wide PG militia -- YPG militia. Give them


weapons, every kind of support we can. It is a far better way than us


joining in. Do you support Russian attacks on the anti-Assad forces in


Syria? Yes, if they are coordinated with the Syrian government's army.


So do you support British attacks on Islamic State forces in Iraq at


their request of the Iraq government? I do, and if they were


coordinated with the Government that make sense militarily, and if we


coordinated our involvement with Russia and the Syrian government in


Syria, I would support that too but it's because I'm pretty sure the


British government's real game is regime change and because we have


seen regime change before in Iraq and Libya and they ended so


disastrously, I am against it. It's not because I'm a pacifist. There


was a time when David Cameron's priority was to get rid of a sad's


regime but isn't it clear that David Cameron has realised that defeating


Islamic State is more important to Britain's national interest than


getting rid of Mr Assad? If it were you probably wouldn't have me on


because I would be supporting it, but I don't believe that. I pray his


utterly farcical claim in the House this week that there were 70,000


moderate rebels armed and ready to take over the land liberated by our


bombardment. You say that is fantasy? If there were 700 I would


be surprised. We will bomb territory which will then be taken by other


so-called moderate fanatics, the ones as I said to you before that


only cut off half your head. Should we regard the Russians and the Assad


regime as our allies in the fight against Islamic State? We had that


chance and that was incinerated by our ally on his attack on the


Russian air force bombing these people, shot out of the sky


provoking a crisis between east and west, between Nato and Russia, which


was completely unnecessary and completely contrary to any


legitimate war aims. Could it not still be put together? I wish it


would, I suspect it won't. If we had time to discuss it I would operate


this point. Turkey is the source of this problem, the Turkish border has


been open to these people. They have been selling billions of dollars


worth of oil. A lot of it is being stolen by Isil and sold in Turkey, I


believe to relatives of President Erdogan, which is then sold onwards


to neighbouring countries. You cannot be serious about fighting


Isil while you're Nato ally is openly collaborating with them. You


follow closely what is going on in the Labour Party at the moment, does


Jeremy Corbyn have an alternative to a free vote when this comes up for a


vote in the Commons? If I were him, I would whip the vote because his


enemies in the ... Because our record on intervention is so bad,


because the likelihood of it not going well is so high, I would dare


these rebels to facilitate David Cameron's court. Is that the


intention? It looks to me as if it is ripping itself apart. This is


Ramsay MacDonald in reverse, the leader remaining loyal to the party


and the MPs joining effectively and national government in terms of War


and peace at least so if I were Jeremy Corbyn, I would whip this


vote and let the Labour members pass verdict on those that troop into the


lobby with Liam Fox and David Cameron because I am pretty sure


this is not going to end well. Even at the expense of ripping apart the


Shadow Cabinet too? You would be whipping the Shadow Cabinet where


there seems to be a majority against Jeremy Corbyn's position. Some of


them might surprise you with their fidelity to the party in those


circumstances, others might go. They are supporting the elected leader in


the way the rope supports a hanging man. What are the chances of Jeremy


Corbyn following your advice? Probably not, I would think


listening to John McDonald and Ken Livingstone they will go for a free


vote, that will merely postponed... And give David Cameron his big


majority. Yes. It seems to me time to face that up. Thank you very


much. At this point we say goodbye to viewers in Scotland.


Party divisions on the issue of air strikes


Here's the Conservative MP and chairman of the Defence Select


Committee, Julian Lewis, speaking in the Commons debate on Thursday.


Air strikes alone will not be effective,


they've got to be in coordination with credible ground forces.


Now, the suggestion there are 70,000 non-Islamist, moderate, credible


ground forces, I have to say, is a revelation to me and I suspect


I've been joined by former Conservative Defence


Two years ago you want to Britain to bomb the forces of President Assad,


who is fighting Islamic State, now you want us to bomb Islamic State,


which is fighting President Assad. Doesn't map flip-flop undermine your


credibility? The original vote was very different, it was because Assad


had used chemical weapons in breach of international law against his


civilian population and the question then was worthy international


community going to uphold that international law by making a


punitive strike to teach the Assad regime and the rebels, who it was


suspected might also have chemical weapons, that it would not be


acceptable to use them. But it would have created more chaos in Syria and


allowed Islamic State to benefit, to exploit that, as it had done


previously. I'm not sure I'd buy that because if you have made a


relatively small number of punitive strikes from some of the command and


control of the regime to send a signal not to use chemical weapons


again, that would have upheld the international community's position.


Do you accept that extending British bombing into Syria now against


Islamic State this time is not a military game changer, that it is --


its military impact will be marginal at most? I think its military impact


may be moderate at best, I accept that, however within that we have a


number of weapons systems that can diminish the chance of civilian


casualties, and I think that's important because it denies a


propaganda weapon. Obviously anything that reduces civilian


casualties is vital, but it won't change things very much on the


ground militarily. The fact we have not been there has


been an encouragement for other countries. For example, Saudi


Arabia, UAE, Jordan, in recent months they have stopped


contributing to the air campaigns. It makes it more difficult for us to


persuade them to take part if we are not taking part. We have a


militarily absurd policy of bombing in Iraq but not in Syria. After we


have joined America, France, Bahrain, Syria, Russia, Australia,


and recently Saudi Arabia and the UAE in bombing IS in Syria, what


then? The question is, our ability to degrade military capability. One


of the problems with sorties in Iraq is command and control is coming


from Syria. That is where they are drawing strength from. The US has


launched 2703 strikes in Syria alone and others have carried out 154. Why


is that not doing the degrading? You have to carry out the number of


attacks to provide that degradation. We need to continue that. The


question you are alluding to is the right question. Even if you have


degraded the ices capabilities, which is what we want, what is the


next step? How do you hold any territory you may take from them?


Part of the reply from the Prime Minister is there are 70,000


moderate opposition fighters ready to become the ground force against


Islamic State. Who is the leader and what do they want? You have a


disparate grouping. Not 70,000 acting together. What the Prime


Minister was saying from the joint intelligence committee, what they


are saying was, there is a potential force of that size. The longer we


wait to do great ices, the smaller that force is likely to be and the


less its capabilities are likely to be. -- Isis. It is a fantasy to say


there are 70,000 ground troops ready to come in and help on the ground if


we extend the bombing to Syria. Let's assume the numbers are


correct. To further questions we have to ask. Are they willing to


operate together as a single force? The second is, do they have the


capability to do so? Over the next few days, part of the debate will be


around that. It will be around the fact you may have to supply some of


those forces with mentoring and training to enable them to be able


to be an effective force against Isis, which they have not


necessarily been able to up until now. The wacky experience on that


was disastrous. I would say, look at the other side. -- the wacky


experience. Look at our ability to mental the Afghan army. Isn't it


inevitable that everyone to make progress against Islamic State, in


some way, President Assad and the Russians will have to become our


allies? This is a very difficult pill to swallow for many people, who


think the regime is particularly unpleasant. I would love to see a


different regime in place that was not killing its civilian population


and gay people in Syria chance to discover their own future. But, as


we have done in previous military situations, sometimes we have to


recognise these challenges have to be dealt with in series, not in


parallel. That is what is very important about the statement by the


Prime Minister. It is not an ices only strategy but Aaron -- Raqqa


only strategy but and Raqqa first strategy. You are saying you are


getting support of factions. The important thing is we bring together


all those who want to deal with IS first. They are the threat to


national. We need to grasp the size of that threat to national to. They


hate us, Andrew. Not because of what we do because of who we are. They


will never stop that. Why would we get help from non-IS forces on the


ground if we are also seem to be on the side of the Russians? They are


also a threat to those people inside Syria. It is in the interests of all


parties concerned to deal with what is a highly ideological, dangerous,


fascistic threat. They endanger regional security. We must not allow


them to Hello and welcome to


Sunday Politics. The Chancellor drops plans to axe


tax credits, leaving Stormont with I'll be asking the Green MLA,


Steven Agnew, and the chair of Citizens' Advice,


Paul Callaghan, for their thoughts. With Paris about to host


the latest climate change conference, how might any outcome


affect this corner of the world? And with their thoughts throughout -


Professor Deirdre Heenan and The Chancellor's decision not to


scrap tax credits has left Stormont with a small windfall


of 60 million a year. The cash had been set aside to help


people hit by the proposed changes before


the Chancellor's U-turn last week. With me is the Green Party MLA,


Steven Agnew, and Paul Callaghan. You have tabled an urgent oral


question at Stormont tomorrow. Is that to try and influence how the


money is spent? Sinn Fein and the Alliance have given away powers


legislatively. It is important that this is our money and that is how we


spend it. I think transferring this money back into welfare, to


essentially provide the public with what they promise would be a good


way to spend it. There is dispute about the figure. 15 million per


year that has been taken from another fund as part of this. There


is a robbing the poor to pay the poor. The discretionary fund has


been slashed disorders oche. Now it is not. It is not fine. People are


going to be worse off in Northern Ireland. The way it was presented


was not quite as good as what we saw.


If you have the capacity to decide where the money would go where would


you Channel it? Throughout the welfare reform process I said we


need to protect people with disabilities and protect children.


But is still happening. We have given the welfare pop-up money to --


we have given the top up fund to the professor. There has been complete


abdication by Sinn Fein and the Alliance. The power has been given


away. That is not good enough. My recommendation to the professor


would be to protect those with disabilities and children. By and


assure the other parties would dispute your interpretation. They


have been noticeable by their absence this week in the media. They


have not come forward. If you had an influence over where the money would


go what would you do? The first thing to say is that whatever way we


measure it that wealthier mitigation arrangements are better than in


Scotland, England and Wales. Any recommendations can only be within


the fiscal envelope that they have. There is a couple of points. Before


we deal with this question of tax credits and what has been described


as a windfall, but I would not describe it as, if you look at what


the Treasury is already imposing as fines on the executive, in this


financial year the kicking at ?140 million, which is roughly ?20


million over and above what is earmarked in the fresh start


Agreement for welfare reform at a geisha. Already there is a ?20


million gap there. That is before the deal with the questions that


have been raised this week. The much bigger point to make is that the


changes that the Chancellor announced in the art statement this


week are simply a delay of the implications that were going to


happen anyway around tax credits. The Institute for the school studies


have said that people who would have been affected by the tax credits


changes will by the end of the parliament actually be worse off


after the Autumn Statement than they would have been and at the tax


credits changes because all of the same productions to the incomes and


more will happen under Universal Credit. From a citizens advice point


of view and the perspective of the poultry sector, the ?60 million


annually should be retained to cushion the impact of those people


because they either see people who are going to be affected as would


been affected by tax credit reductions. That is an important


point. While may feel that your position to some extent has been


vindicated and this is a development worth celebrating, four years down


the line went Universal Credit takes over from the current system, nobody


knows quite what the situation is going to be, but this is a fair bet


that people in receipt of benefits will be worse off, not better off.


Absolutely. This is the problem with giving power back over to a Tory


garments. There has been a war on the poor. It has been waged by this


Tory Government. It is to continue. This latest piece of spend is just


that. But that power comes back. It does not reside in Westminster. But


what it ensures us that play mini legislation and regulation changes,


these types of details, that'll all be decided in Westminster before we


get our powers back. That is what DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance


wanted. They wanted somebody else to make a difficult decision.


What concern is it that locally elected politicians will not have


the degree of influence that they might otherwise have had had the


Mideast difficult decisions entirely at Stormont? That is a matter for


the political parties to discuss. There are lots of ways in which the


impact of welfare reform can be made less worse. A lot of that is in the


detail of the legislation and the regulations which has been handed


back to Westminster. There is a little bit of ambiguity over how


much influence the Assembly will have around that and how quickly


those powers and advances will come back. We want to say that back as


quickly as possible. What do you say to those people


watching who think that benefits in Northern Ireland are better


protected in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the UK? There are


other areas which could do very well with this extra money, schools,


hospitals, education. We have done our bit. The mitigation is there for


those in receipt of benefits, other alias needs to be with that and


vulnerable people need hospital bed. That is right but the executive, the


parties that signed up to fresh start, took the decision to cushion


the blow to a certain level. Regardless of what being George


Osborne calls at, if the parties are to honour what they set out to do in


fresh start, the windfall, as you described it, needs to be retained


to help the same people who will be affected are freshly bite reductions


by another name and the delayed time. But this was a horror film,


the director has decided there is going to be a costume change and the


villain will come on later in the script but the end is just as gaudy


as everyone was expecting, and even a little bit worse. You are nodding


your head. Absolutely. This is a Tory Government waging war on the


poor in Northern Ireland. If we have people driven to destitution we're


going to have to put in services to protect them whether hospital


appointments, food banks, one way or another we need to look after these


people. And let's hear what Deirdre and Alex


think. Most people listening are confused.


Claims, counterclaims. This is our money. Most people listening are


confused. Claims, counterclaims. This is ourmoney. . Most people


listening areconfused. Claims, counterclaims. This is ourmoney. .


Most peoplelistening areconfused. Claims,counterclaims. This is our


money. . Who needs the money most? Most


Jim Allister has told the TUV conference that the party will set


He strongly criticised the Executive's record and said


the TUV will make an issue of greed and squander during the campaign.


Our Political Correspondent, Chris Page, was


There is no doubt he makes a big impact.


When the bags and wind farms are biting as eight of business.


I on the ball and said I on the camera that would suit some of our


ministers better. He to aim at what he described as the catastrophic


failure of DUP, Sinn Fein rule. Enough is enough. Would you be


expecting two or three or four? I am not putting numbers on it. 11 TUV


candidates have been selected so far. The former chair of Ukip will


stand in Southdown. You were associated with one party and note


you are standing for another. TUV and Ukip have similar views on


European issues. What makes the TUV different is that it has a positive


message on the issue of the devolved Assembly. Conference speeches


emphasise that the TUV fever voluntarily caution and opposition.


Another issue was unit. The party wants the UK to leave the EU.


Northern Ireland is not served well by the EU. We would have the money


that we are presently paying end, millions and millions each week,


have it back, and then decide our priorities. Some of those priorities


would still be in Northern Ireland as part of the UK.


In that debate as others the TUV voice wants to be as loud as


possible. How he the volume will become all depend on how many MLAs


they get in me. Chris Page among the party faithful


at yesterday's TUV conference. More than a hundred world leaders


are due in Paris this week for They're meeting to try to agree a


deal to curb emissions and prevent Among them will be our Environment


Minister, Mark H Durkan. But what difference can somewhere


as small as Northern Ireland make? Northern Ireland is a small place.


What impact can Mark H Durkan have? David Cameron once promised as the


cleanest Government ever. He shot the Huskies a long time ago. He had


been dismantling support for renewable energy and withdrawing


from that leadership role. There is an increasing onus on the devolved


parts of the UK to take up the mantle of leadership. When Mark goes


to the conference he will not only contribute, but there is a deep


learning that goes on for ministers who discover that the most desperate


communities, cities and countries are beginning to transform their


economies, responding to climate change. But also help mark with the


groundwork he has been doing. He will be tabling paper at the


executive and the next couple of days, reintroducing the idea of a


climate change Bill for Northern Ireland with targets so that we will


bring new momentum to the delivery of climate change performance, the


transformation that needs to take place. If you were in a position to


advise Mark H Durkan on what he should be saying is what they should


be hoping to come home with what would that advice be? We need to


think about climate change less as an environmental issue and think


about it as an industrial transformation. We were once in the


cockpit of the industrial revolution. Are going to be part the


new industrial resolution that you transformation that is required? He


will have to have news that touches on each of the sectors that are


major contributors. Farmers have to become more efficient with


application of nitrogen and fertilisers. We could embrace ideas


like the circular economy. Resolve issues like fuel to but upgrading is


essential accommodation. Copenhagen was the last big climate conference


six years ago. It was a bit of a disappointment. It was dubbed by


some critics as hopeless. Realistically what do you think


world leaders in our own Mark Duggan and other environment ministers can


hope to achieve? One of the lessons is that we have to emphasise more


what we can do locally, from the state level and the city level.


Leadership, even among civil society, there will be a march today


at two o'clock for example, to support logical leaders in taking


forward this agenda. But as a big difference this time. For past


couple of years the parties to the convention have been tabling their


indicative offers of emissions reductions, policies that will now


be taken up in the negotiations. Readers will attend the start of the


conference. We already know that the ambition is beginning to move as


towards 2 degrees temperature goal. We have to do more. The hope to


close that gap during the negotiations but it will not be left


to the negotiators in Paris. The parties who are going there have


some level of ambition. The other part of the climate Justice peace is


the technology that the poorest of the poor need in order to adapt to


emissions reductions. A big part of this is about transferring


resources, helping those who are most exposed to climate change at


the moment. The challenge is to get countries to set aside the specific


interests and agendas for the glitter warble good and that is a


challenge for a new industrial powerhouses like China and India but


also for France, Germany, the UK and the US. It is not about setting


aside interests, it is about aligning our interests with nature.


You cannot go shoot with nature. Nature has to be aligned. Religious


leaders are now tough thing about the rates of nature that has to be


set alongside human rights in the context of climate justice. It is


not one or the other. It is about aligning our priorities, he will


upon the earth, with the needs of the Earth. We will see how that


alignment takes place in Paris this week.


Now look back at the week in 60 seconds.


An extra ?240 million leader after the Chancellor's U-turn on tax


credits cuts. The Chancellor has changed his mind completely. It is


fantastic. The final Assembly lap for Peter Robinson and an unexpected


sendoff. But that was not always like this. He was a total pain in


the early days and now he is contributing hugely. Rare praise


from the DUP for a Secretary of State. When they threatened tough to


lose that she stood up to them. The Health Minister changed course after


private care home closures. We pause and we reflect and we give


consideration to what has been plus boards. And at Stormont to new faces


were unveiled. Seamus Heaney and CS Lewis


wrapping up Gareth Gordon's 60 Let's have a final chat with Deirdre


and Alex. Were you surprised to see Peter


Robinson getting a standing ovation from some members of Sinn Fein. It


would be bizarre to have done the deal and then not to applaud. Only


six months ago they were willing to do a deal. It is just a civil thing


at moments like this to acknowledge the fact he has been nearer 40


years, he has made a difference, the Assembly exists largely because of


what Peter Robinson has done. It would've been nice to that. The


Ulster Unionists refused to stand up or to clap. Who could have guessed


that in a short space of time they wanted to deal with them? It seemed


churlish. The leadership should have been acknowledged and was not. It


did not cast them in a good light. Looking back area lies it was


probably a decision. You both attended for professional reasons


the TUV conference. I very, but the Jim Allister on display. He is


always confident. He knows he is the best public Speaker in politics in


Northern Ireland. The big challenge for the TUV is the best public


Speaker in politics in Northern Ireland. The big challenge for the


TUV as they that document the vast majority of people deep down do not


believe that Jim Allister and TUV wanted to work. That'll be a


problem. It was our arrival rousing speech, what we have come to expect


from Jim Allister. They were saying they want to go back to direct rule


and most commentators would say be careful what you wish for. Could the


electricity or two for them come the election? It'll be tough for them.


They are only standing 16 candidates. Two or three maximum.


officers will be lost? We are going to let that question


hang now. Thank you. Andrew. Sadly that is it for today because


we have just been told we have been truncated to make way for live


coverage of the Davis Cup tennis final here on BBC One. There is


always next week! Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the disagreement within Labour's shadow cabinet over Syria with Lord Falconer and air strikes with Liam Fox and George Galloway. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh from The Financial Times, Beth Rigby from The Times and Nick Watt from The Guardian.

Download Subtitles