28/09/2014 Sunday Politics South West

Morning folks and welcome to The Sunday Politics,

live from the Conservative Conference in Birmingham.

There will be one less Conservati6e MP here after Mark Reckles3 ddfected

There will be one less Conservati6e MP here after Mark eckles3 ddfected

He joins us live from his constituency, w`ere he h!s

It has not been the best of start3 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 reqigned

RAF jets have carried out their first mission over Iraq

And in the South West: As Tory defections to UKIP `gain

dominate the headlines, we talk to the former UKIP candidate

from Cornwall who's now a Tory

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

priced out are choosing to move away.

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 2 10

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 this? I think it is very serious. It is the old Tory disease,

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

beginning to feel like the worst days of Labour in the early nineteen

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 19 0s, 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 ,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 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 Conservative to get a 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 100,00 ,

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 made a

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

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. are playing an important role, we

are a democratic countpy. Youp viewers will remember, we (ad a vote

last year on military action hn Syria and we were defeated in t`e

House of Commons, a bad mo-ent for our foreign policy. We have taken

care to bring this forward our foreign policy. We have taken

care to `ring this forward whdn our foreign policy. We have taken

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

can win a vote in t(e House of Commons, and that is how we wild

proceed. The air Chief Commons, and that is how we wild

proceed. The aip Chief Mar3hal Commons, and that is how we wild

proceed. The air Chief Mar3hal until proceed. The aip Chief Mar3hal until

recently in chapge of the AF, `e says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq

but not says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq

bqt not Syria. says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq

but not Syria. He c!llq the ddcasion but not Syria. He c!lls the ddcasion

ludicrous. Of course, it D ES make sense to bomb Ipaq, beaause the

Iraqi government has aqked fop sense to bomb Ipaq, beaause the

Iraqi government `as aqked fop gur Iraqi government has aqked fop gur

assistance. This came up a lot an the debate on Fpiday, and the Pri-e

Minister explained, similar to wh!t I have just been saying, t(at t`ere

is not a political conqens5s `bgut is not a political conqens5s `bout

Syria in the House of Aommons. When Syria in the House of Aommons. Ghen

we did it last year, we were defeated, and it

we did it last year, we were dafeated, and it was

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 iq

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

policy. So, we will bring forward proposals when there iq a -ajorat9

in this country to do qo i. the House of Commons. Professor Mic`ael

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

says there are very few am0ortaft on military strategy and history, he

says there are very few im0ortaft IS targets in northern Iraq, that they

are all in Syria, and we are limiting ourselves to the 0erip`ery

of the campaign. First of !ll, bu3t bacause you

of the campaign. First of !ll, bu3t because you are not doing evepything

does not mean you should not do something. Secondly, the U.ited

States something. Secondly, the U.ited

Spates and something. Secondly, the U.ited

States and other something. Secondly, the U.ited

Spates and other countpies something. Secondly, the U.ited

States and other countpies are Spates and other countpies are

engaged in the action agai.st targets in Syria. This is

engaged in the action agai.st targets in Syria. T(is is !

targets in Syria. This is ! coalition effort, with peo0le doi.g

different things. Thirdly, if we were to put their proposal to t`e

House of Commons tomorpow, and at was defeated, we would not have

achieved a great deal. You do not achieved a great de!l. You do not

know it would have "een defeated. The Labour Party has given no

indication they would have supported indication they would have suppgrted

that. So, you ape hostage to the Labour Party? We have to win `

damocratic Labour Party? We have to win `

democratic vote in Labour Party? We have to win `

damocratic vote in the Labour Party? We have to win `

democratic vote in the Hou3e of democratic vote in the House of

Commons, and the Laboup @arty is ! very large part of the Hou3e of

Commons. You are as+ing very large part of the Hou3e of

Commons. You are asking us to pur3ue Commons. You are as+ing us to pur3ue

a policy which at the mome.t aoul$ be defeated

a policy which at the mome.t aoul$ ba defeated in Parliament.

a policy which at the mome.t aoul$ be defeated in Parliament. Is it

a policy which at the mome.t aoul$ ba defeated in Parliament. Is it .ot

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

experts? Why should we tru3t the judgment of here today,

experts? Why should we tru3t the judgment of here to$ay, go.e

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

have a national security counaid, we do not have sofa government, tndi+e

the last government. The n!tional security council is chaire$ bx the

Prime Minister. Alongside the C`ief of Defence Staff and

Prime Minister. Alongside the C`ief of Defence Staff an$ the headq gf

of Defence Staff an$ the headq of the intelligence agencies. And we

take decisions togethep with the people who have the

take decisions togethep with the paople who have the inform!tion

now. So, you will know w`at Bpiti3h and American intelligence 3ayq about

Syria. The Prime Minister (as sai$ there is a danger that t`e

there is a danger t(at t`e British-born jihadists wall come

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

have seen are clear - Al-Q!ed` an$ ips

have seen are clear - Al-Q!ed` an$ its associates are selecti.g,

indoctrinating and trainan' jihadists in Sypia, not Ar!q. Doe3

jihadists in Sypia, not Ar!q. Dge3 that not make the Syrian exclusao.

even more ludicpous? that not make the Syrian exclusao.

even more ludicrous? I can.ot comment on intelligence. I3 the

situation in Sypia direct threat to this country? Ies, it i3. Have we

excluded action? No, we `a6en't Could you come `ack to t`e House?

The Prime Minister said, it was i. the motion put to the House of

Commons, that if we want to take action in Cyria, we will come bac+

to the House of Commonq. B5t we h!ve not taken any decision abo5t that

and we would not do so if we thou'ht we were going to be defeated `gai..

The government supports ES stpice3 on Syria, show you must relieve t(ey

are legal. Either w!y the on Syria, show you must relieve t(ey

are legal. Either way the legal are legal. Either w!y the leg`l

basis differs from are legal. Either w!y the leg`l

basis differs fpom one are legal. Either w!y the leg`l

basis differs from one cou.try are legal. Either w!y the leg`l

basis differs fpom one cou.try to another, according to their readi.g

of international law. @ut 9ou have supported it. We do believe that

they and Arab countries are takan' action legally and we qupport t`eir

action. @ut I action legally and we qupport t`eir

action. But I understand action legally and we qupport t`eir

action. @ut I understand your legitimate questions. @ut it aoee3

back to your basic questio., legitimate questions. @ut it aoee3

back to your basic questao., why legitimate questions. @ut it aoee3

back to your basic questio., why in Iraq and not Syria.

back to your basic questio., why in Iraq and not Sypia. Nonetheleqs$ it

is important to take aatio. in Iraq. We are also engaged in Qyri!

in building up the politic!l strength of

in building up the politic!l sprength of the more

in building up the politic!l strength of the more moder!te

opposition and in trying to bpifg about a peace agreement, a.d we do

not exclude action in Qyri! in the future. If we ppopose doan'

future. If we ppopose doin' something, then we ask

future. If we ppopose doin' something, then we !sk for

future. If we ppopose doin' something, then we ask for the

something, then we !sk for thd specific legal advice. W`y would 9ou

not ask for the legal advice not ask for the legal `dvice

anyway? Because you have to bd sure anyway? Because you have to be sure

of the legal advice at t`e time$ !nd also we do not comment on the advice

also we do not aomment on the a`vice given to us by the aw officeps Mr

Blair ended up publishing (is. Dh!t was because there was a `u'e legal

dispute. So you have not h!d legal a`vice yet

dispute. So you have not h!d legal advice yet that Britain attaciifg

Syria would be legal? The leg`l situation is unlikely to be the

barrier in this case, let -e put it that way. Within international daw,

you can act in the event of extre-e humanitarian distress and eleatave

self-defence, humanitarian distress and eleatave

salf-defence, so one humanitarian distress and eleatave

self-defence, so one can i-agine strong legal justification, btt of

course, we will take the legal advice

course, we will take the legal a`vice at the

course, we will take the legal advice at the time.

watching The Sunday Politics. We 3ay goodbye to viewers in Qcotland, w(o

Scotland. Coming up hepe i. 20 minutes, The Week A(ead.

Coming up on the Sunday Polhtics in the South West:

The local view on air strikes over Iraq

And, for the next 20 minutes, I'm joined by the

Labour MP Alison Seabeck, the Lib Dem peer John Burnett

The decision to approve air strikes. I think everyone is agreed `mongst

the three of you that is thd right way to proceed but there is the

remaining question of Syria. Some MPs say Syria should have bden

involved in the package deb`ted on Friday and other MPs like the MP who

is a former soldier there is that, irrespective of the fact it wasn't,

it will be mission creep. John Burnett, you are another former

soldier. I think it will. I hope we stop their momentum but there is a

larger question, are the policies towards defence... The world is a

dangerous place and we have two beef up our defence and spend more on the

defence of our country. We have hundreds of thousands of people

abroad working in dangerous places like oilfields in Africa who are in

constant danger. We have do have the Navy, the Royal Marines and an army

and air force that is fully equipped and manned. Do you think it will go

in that direction or should it? Richard Drax said there would be

mission creep for good reason. It will be a long campaign. We have to

see the momentum stopped off ISIL. We have two start to push them back

and in doing that you start to be able to win a propaganda war and

open a space for political discussion to be had around Syria. I

listened very carefully to the debates in the House and thd range

of different views. At the loment, we have no legal basis to go into

Syria. From my respective, we could only do so if that was in place

In terms of defence spending, several critics have said wd are

punching above our weight and trying to act as a power but we haven't got

the military muscle to do that. We have a strategic review due after

the election and at then we need to properly set out and think through

what Britain want to do and what should Britain have to do.

Therefore, shape our forces to fit our aspirations. At the momdnt, we

have six tornadoes going to operate in Iraq and they will undoubtedly do

that task professionally and well. But, as I say, what we need to do in

the UK has to be sorted out and that is quite right that it should be

done at the Security Defencd And Reviews case `` stage. Did that

administer get his fingers burnt last year and doesn't want to repeat

that again? I think if the case was made to go into Syria... Thdre is

powered to have cross`party consensus on issues of war. It is

bad to go into an exercise when you don't have cross`party consdnsus

with the opposition of board. Dash`mac on board. I don't think it

matters that much at this stage because we are part of a broad

coalition with Arab states `nd the US involved in air strikes `nd other

countries as well as the Frde Syrian Army. Sentence Smack We Can Focus

Our Efforts On Iraq. UKIP is likely to being plaxing

on the minds of Conservativds more than ever as they gather

for their conference in Birlingham. Yesterday, the second Tory LP

in a month defected to UKIP. Meanwhile, here in the South West,

the Conservatives have lost control of a Devon council ` again,

partly due to a defection to UKIP. George Eustice do you think you have

any insight to broker any hdaling because of your past experidnce You

tried to do that with a refdrendum vote, didn't you? My position is

clear. I left UKIP because they are counter`productive to the c`use they

claim to believe in. They sdverely undermined the campaign agahnst

membership of the rope I saxing we had to leave the euro if we wanted

to keep the pound but they were wrong about that `` the EU row.

Anyone who wants to leave the euro or who wants to see a reforled euro

has two have a Conservative government to have that negotiation

and give everyone their say. All that will happen with the action

that the two MPs have taken is they undermine the prospects of the

Conservative government and if there is no David Cameron there whll be no

referendum. All parties are coalitions but is the Conservative

party a broad enough church to include people who are very unhappy

with the Prime Minister who seems to have conceded a referendum relax in

the and who they say is looking at Gerrish eating very little change

and doesn't represent a strong strand of opinion within thd party?

We did a poll today and 45% of Tory councillors said they would vote to

leave Europe and a third wotld like an electoral pact with UKIP. There

is an arty `` ideological dhvide in the party, isn't there? Thex will

not be a referendum unless we have a conservative majority though all

this talk is counter`productive and undermines the case. As well as

having the guard `` advantage that it is a bad thing to do, I `lso

spent years working for Davhd Cameron and I know his mind. I know

he is serious about getting reform in the European Union and hd has my

trust and the full backing of the party. He gave the most important

speech a year ago that any prime minister has given since thd war on

Europe and we should rally behind that and give people a say hn a

referendum. Moving away frol Europe, listening to things that Mark

reckless has said today, thdy think a lot of UKIP's domestic policies

like grammar schools and pl`nning and gay marriage, they think it

chimes with them better than the policies espoused by David Cameron

and that is a problem, isn't it They have a whole package of

policies that are more appe`ling? They have picked up support from

people who are disillusioned with politics in general. You will find

many people who have voted Lib Dem traditionally... But they only said

this week that most of their policies are the same as thd

Conservatives for pop but UKIP are pulling their support from `cross

the political spectrum. I think it is fair to say disproportionately

from the Conservatives but they are getting support from the Lib Dems

and Labour 's voters as well. What we have to do is say to people that

we have a record, we've sorted out the deficit and got growth hn the

economy and we have a plan going forward. Part of that is to have a

referendum on Europe and if you want that you have to vote conservative.

Listening to George, wouldn't it be a shattering blow to that argument

if Ed Miliband said, you can have a referendum under us as well? That is

interesting, isn't it. No, what we are looking at is Tories wanting to

link with UKIP and that says a lot about where UKIP are coming from. We

have seen a proposed cuts to income tax which means money going to

millionaires that previouslx would have funded deprived communhties and

infrastructure. This is abott getting negotiations done properly

and fully and that is the w`y we have to go first was. I want a

comment from the Eurosceptic wing of the Lib Dems. Thank you. I opposed

the euro and he was the secretary of our "don't join the euro" group We

want Devo Max for the United Kingdom, for want of a bettdr

expression at, and I want to see that successfully achieved. But I

want us to stay, if possibld, in the European Union.

Both the Prime Minister and the Labour Minister had

a lot to say about climate change and green energy this week.

In his conference speech, Ed Miliband pledged to remove all

carbon from electricity gendration by 2030 and promised a big dxpansion

in renewable energy. I asked him

whether this meant restoring subsidies cut by the coalithon

and removing its restrictions and wind turbines and solar parks.

We will look at those issues in pursuit of our goal

of becoming the world leader in green technology and services.

We can create one million ndw jobs in green technology and part of it,

by the way, is the stabilitx of clarity about the aims.

Meanwhile, ahead of his conference. UKIP leader Nigel Farage made it

clear the wind industry would be in serious trouble under a TKIP

government. Wind turbines are codswallop. There

are ugly and they don't work and their unreliable. They have put up

domestic electricity prices. I would not continue with that subshdy which

would mean every single one of them would the unviable.

A bold objective from Ed Miliband. Looking at onshore wind and solar

parks they are incredibly controversial. It would be taking

your life in your hands in some parts of the south`west, arguably,

if you looked at removing some these restrictions. He is talking about

eight terrific game and we need to go for it if we are talking about

tackling global warming. In this region we have expertise and

knowledge in wave or tied and the engineers to back it up. He is

right, there are jobs for the south`west in what Labour is

proposing. I hear the comments from UKIP. It is a piecemeal and

fragmented statement rather than strategy. I think that is the

problem we have. We need a strategy for tackling lime it change and Ed

has set us on the task. The Lib Dems are much keener on things lhke wind

energy than the Conservativds. Are you or are you on the side of the

wind...? You have to be candid and I have opposed a number of onshore

wind farms because you can't store electricity. Whenever you drive past

these things they don't seel to be working half the time. But @lison is

right in that we need a str`tegy. We've got one. It's important that

we have a real mix of energx, including nuclear. Decisions were

made and that was neglected a bit. We have made difficult decisions and

we are ploughing in the mondy to do it.

George, there was a mention about confidence stability in the

industry. There was a dig whnd farm planned in, but the confidence ``

company said it didn't have confidence to proceed. Have you

pulled the rug under a lot of these things? No, we have reduced

subsidies as the cost of reducing electricity reduces as well.

Therefore, a lot of developdrs were looking into extortionate profits as

a result of the subsidy not changing to reflect their costs that is what

we put in place. I have a concern as farming Minister, particularly

around solar farms, is that we are losing in many parts of Cornwall

important land needed for agricultural production. Thdre are

many dimensional is to this bait. There is a role for renewable energy

but we are approaching saturation point for wind energy. You have to

take into account the loss of agricultural land the cut food

security is important to in the coming decade. Quickly, the reality

is a lot of people on the rhght wing of your party agree 100% with UKIP,

don't they? I've just set ott what our policy is. We've been clear that

we've issued new guidance to strengthen the role of local

communities when it comes to wind and solar and we are reducing

subsidies because there is ` limit to how much wind and solar power we

can have. There is huge potdntial for wave power in Devon ankle and

the more you give up the grhd forcing `` things like solar power

the more you undermine the tech `` potential for more promising

technologies. A Devon woman needed hospit`l

treatment and has been left in pain after being run over by a mobility

scooter at an Exeter cafe. She says people should have to pass

a compulsory driving test Devon and Cornwall Police s`y 1

collisions involving motor scooters were reported to them last xear

one resulting in a fatality. Isgard Bright`Roberts was enjoying

coffee with friends and her two children

when an elderly men on a mobility scooter ploughed into her t`ble

Everything was going fine and then suddenly

from nowhere I was on the floor I was underneath

the mobility scooter. It was running over me.

Luckily, my friends managed to get the children out of the way

I wasn't holding my baby. She required hospital treatlent

for a damaged back and thred weeks on is taking painkillers.

Considering the vehicle can this reach up to eight miles an hour

there needs to be something done before someone is badly injtred

My main concern at the time was that he could have hit my childrdn.

He could have injured himself. The river is just over here.

Had he been pointing the other way, he could have gone straight

into the river. Devon and Cornwall police don't keep

records of incidents on pavements but figures for road

accidents involving mobilitx scooters show a slight incrdase

in reported incidents over the past three years with last year's figures

showing one fatality. Exeter Shop Mobility providds

scooters to rent and they insist everyone receives

training before taking to the pavement and say there should

be regulation to stop peopld taking to the streets without training

There is a case for training on scooter.

It is a large thing of steel plastic and it can do a lot of damage.

There is no one to police them and no one to do any compulsory

training. Users themselves agree.

Some of them have never seen one before.

They haven't a clue what they're doing.

They're very dangerous. You've got to be in control of them.

Although the overall number of reported incidents remains low,

the reality is few people are going to ring the police because they ve

had a bump with a mobility scooter. For people like Gladys,

she says the public percepthon of them being a menace could

backfire on people like her who see them as a vital lifeline.

She says regulation is important. For what they are for, for

disabilities, they are a godsend. You can't go out without ond.

You definitely need it. This is an issue you've raised in

the past. Yes and we do need to take some action.

I received a dissertation from a student at Loughborough University

and his findings reinforce what we saw, that people are not tr`ined,

50% of them had no idea of laws or regulations applying to mobhlity

scooters. People misuse thel. We need some action in this arda as we

are seeing more incidents lhke the ones reported in Exeter. Thd police

are now recording incidents with motor vehicles but other thhngs

happen on the pavement that aren't reported. I would like to sde

training and some organisathons do. They are cleared the people who have

training are safer on our p`vements and roads full top do you think

there is an argument, John, for control of these devices?

We have to remember that, for some, they are a lifeline and we don't

want to curb use. But perhaps something could be looked at. We

have disabled car parking. Do we need to have a genuine need to use

but we do not want to curb people 's abilities to use these machhnes

because they are a lifeline and the difference between living and

existing. There was a man whth a red flag walking in front of motor

vehicles in the past becausd they travelled at four miles an hour We

soon came to a view that regulation was needed for motor vehiclds and we

need to have training around mobility scooters.

George, do you think that would be nanny state is `` state? I would be

reluctant for compulsory tests because it helps people get out and

about and lead an inclusive life. Alison said training rather than

testing. I do think you need legislation but I think you need

suppliers and manufacturers to come to gather and come up with `

voluntary code of conduct that requires retailers to give training,

like the gentleman `` gentldman in your package already does. Time now

for a round`up in 60 seconds. Shocked and devastated `

the reaction from the Mayor of Chard at the news that Dairy Crest is

closing its creamery with the loss of 60 jobs.

Dairy Crest or its predecessors were here and able to employ a lot

of people in the town. The Chief Constable of Devon

and Cornwall police says he will accept only the highest standard

of behaviour from officers after a detective sergeant was

dismissed for gross miscondtct. An honest mistake will be

treated honest and fairly. Anything dishonest or malichous ..

you probably do not have a future in the organisation.

Renewed calls for a transit site for travellers after a serids of

illegal camps in Cornish carparks. It's causing

a problem with cars are pilhng up. Someone could get injured.

And a pony charity has causdd uproar by suggesting one of the best ways

of protecting Dartmoor ponids is to sell them for human consumption

One quick thought from the farming Minister on the idea of eathng

Dartmoor ponies to conserve the breed. I wouldn't want to e`t horse

meat. Having gone through the row of horse meat contamination last year I

don't want to encourage it. It's not illegal and some countries do

consume it but we have wonddrful Dartmoor ponies and I hope they will

continue. A farmer as well as a lawyer and

ex`soldier. Ex`Royal Marine. Very different, Martin! I think of those

words from Shakespeare, "a horse, a horse. My kingdom for a horse". They

eat it on the continent. We export horse meat for human consumption but

the trouble is the market isn't good at the moment. We have two have

horses on Dartmoor as they're part of the ecology of them all. Whether

you like the idea yourself, it is and I commend that it could be an

effect of conservation. It hs a very British thing to dislike eating

horse meat but we have to look at how to preserve the breed. H've

heard what the charity had said It is quite difficult, though, to say

it is the way to do it. I would like to look at other means first.

Banks to George in London and Alison and John here in the studio. We will

take our respective trains to 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, the 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 off by

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 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 Smith and 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 of statutory press regulation in

sponge cake may be a bridge too far. 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.