29/11/2015 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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.