Conference Special Daily Politics

Afternoon. Welcome to this Daily Politics special, live from the

Tory Party conference, here in Manchester, where it's the final

day of the conference. For the first time, there's a sense of

excitement. Last night, the Prime Minister's spin masters briefed the

media that David Cameron will use his speech this afternoon to tell

us to pay off our credit card debts. The newspapers and broadcasters, as

you have no doubt seen, duly reported that this morning.

That buzz before new revised figures for economic growth

downgraded estimates. The British economy has not grown for nine

months. So the cry went up, if the economy is flat-lining, what would

happen if we all stopped spending to pay off our debts? Do you

remember Brains in the Thunderbirds? He used to say,

"Aaahhh! Of Course! Why didn't I think of that before?". Queue the

spinners to el us that the media have -- tell us that the media miss

understood what they were briefed. They have gone back to the drawing

board to replan what he has to say in a couple of hours. As I say,

excitement and turmoil. Mr Cameron delivers his speech against the

grimmest economic backdrop since the mid-1970s. It turned out the

recession is deeper than thought. We lost 7prst of our national

wealth, not -- 7% of our national wealth, not 6%. Italy's credit

rating has been cut again as the eurozone hovers on the brink of

recession and crisis. Even Tescos sales have dropped.

Last year the Prime Minister told this conference that Britain was

out of the danger zone. He won't be repeating that this afternoon. We

will look back at the highs and lows of David Cameron's first year

in advance of his big speech. And that's not all... It east such an

important -- it's such an important day that even Jo has had to hot-

foot it to Manchester. I could not stay away. We sent Adam out to test

the mood on the coalition. Not everyone likes their partners in

crime. We sent Quentin Letts out. He has not been a happy bunny in

Manchester. We have not been able to take the cameras into the bars

late at night. The lobbying, oh, I tell you, if the voters and if the

viewers of Britain knew what went on at these events they would be

You have to stay tuned for that. It is coming up in the next hour.

There's more, we'll be back at 2pm this afternoon here on BBC Two with

live and uninterrupted, at least we hope it will be uninterrupted David

Cameron's speech. Two of the finest, the Guardian's

Allegra Stratton and Iain Martin. What do you make of all of this -

pay off your credit card, the Prime Minister says? It is chaotic. It

may not end up in the speech. If you talk to the Osborne team about

why don't you do a tax cut, they will say, "hang on we don't want a

recovery that is on the backs of people spending more money,

consuming more stuff." That was the problem of the economy under Blair

and Brown. They are economically pure. They think if we start...

Everyone is talking about the paradox of thift. If you look at

the figures, people are paying down their credit cards. When they talk

about paying down the debt, it's the Government that's not paying

down the debt. It will go from 900 billion to 1.4 trillion. So the

Government is telling us to pay off its debt while the Government is

adding 500 billion to its own debt - is that the position we're in?

Absolutely. They came to this conference needing to lay out a

serious agenda for growth. They have failed on that. Figures have

been put out which show if people paid off the credit card debt there

would be a slash to growth of 0.25%. I think they didn't think it

through. They are obsessed with this credit card analogy. They

think that is how they've got through to the public, this

otherwise difficult an algae has made it -- analogy. They went too

far with this, and pay off your store card thing. They were shocked

when all the journalists seized on it as the story. So, do you think

that the two peas -- Ps were bigger than the two Es in the Prime

Minister's degree. He's very proud of the big E. Let's look at the

figures. To get the growth rate predicted, they are unlikely to get

these between now and 2015. Consumer credit rises by almost

�600 billion. We add to the credit card. It's unfair to ask you, but I

don't understand how you reconcile that. You're dealing a Tory

leadership, modernisers. When they took over they didn't expect it to

be about economics. It was a settled issue in 2005-2006.

Sharing the growth? If only there was growth to share. Then the crash

hits in 2008. They find themselves without a credible policy. They

could not say, "we told you so." Since then, they have made it up

since they go along. The reason why I think the politics of this is

difficult for them, I would suggest, is that you use the word "Chaotic."

I use the word "Turmoil." Yet the backdrop is economic chaos. It is a

grim, grim backdrop. What is happening does not encourage

competence. In 200 when David Cameron was doing his pre--- 2008

when David Cameron was doing his pre-election speech, and George

Osborne had to go to London. George Osborne is preoccupied with

that. I have to say, with this I don't

think they were pushing, seriously pushing this economic argument.

They would, I think they were trying to make a point. They didn't

realise.... This is a conference without many policy stories. They

didn't realise if you went forward with two journalists then they will

go for language. Talking about credit cards means they think they

are connecting with ordinary people. What do you make of this overall

mood? Where is this conference at now? It's been the most boring Tory

conference since Robert Peel laid out a manifesto.

Broadcasting was challenging then. I had to hold a lantern in those

days. There's a sense, at the end of this season, of politics being

in a holding patd tern and none has reallyal -- pattern and none has

really altered. Final thought from you? They are happy. Look at the

Europe debate, they are happy they have managed to contain that.

Despite the cat. Despite the cat- flap, which was again chaotic!

Over to Jo now. Thank you. It's been quite a 12 months for the

partners of the coalition. This time last year, they might have

thought that Britain would be on its way to economic recovery.

Instead the world has been hit by a second economic crisis and the most

sustained drop in living standards since the 1920's is predicted. They

are putting a brave face on things. At this time of great national

challenge, two parties have come together to help make it happen.

The longer you leave it, the worse it gets. You pay more interest,

millions of pounds, every single day that goes to the foreign

Governments we owe. We will withdraw child benefit from

households with a higher rate tax band. David Cameron says the

changes to tax benefit are tough but fair? They are tough, I am not

sure about fair. Will the cuts hurt? They will hurt. The gamble

from the men from the Treasury is they will also work. We will ensure,

like every solvent household in the country, that what we buy we can

afford. That the bills we incur we have the income to meet.

sprinted through a long, complex list of benefits to be cut. Every

I am here for people who have been knocked off from benefits. We need

to move away from the system we've had for 20 years where ministers

dictate everything that happens in schools.

Under the new system, everyone will pay back less than what they pay

under the current system. The poorest will pay less. The richest

will pay more. Only the Prime Minister could treble tuition fees

and then claim it's a better deal for students.

323. Three-quarters of the Government's

majority had been wiped out. "Shame", Labour MPs called, but it

was too late. We need a social recovery to mend the broken society.

To me, that is what the "big society" is all about. I don't see

how you can build a bigger society when you're harming the very

organisations at the heart of communities who are delivering that

We will not delay in taking the action that is necessary.

Pause, listen to reflect and to improve our NHS modernisation plans.

Almost every hand raised in protest, almost every nurse here, angry.

wanted us to make clear that competition is not there for its

own sake, but to make life better To be fair to my right honourable

friend, the, he's only been in his job for a year. He's doing a superb

job. There's plenty more fuel in The Liberal Democrats made up this

Parliament and they seem to be influencing our school policy,

health, immigration and abortion. Does the Prime Minister think it's

time he told the Deputy Prime Minister who is the boss.

Calm down, dear. Calm down. Listen to the doctor.

Conservative vote has proved to be more robust. They were doing well

against their coalition partners, Do you have any regrets?

With 20/20 hindsight and all that follows I would not have offered

him the job. I suspect he would not have taken it. If it turns out I've

been lied to, that would be a moment for a profound apolicy. In

that event, I can tell you I will not fall short. It's not about

whether Mr Coulson lied to him. It's about all the warnings the

Prime Minister ignored. All of us would have what hoped to

have avoided the use of force. This could have been complied with if

Gaddafi complied with the resolution. The fact is he didn't.

Colonel Gaddafi said he would hunt you down like rats, but you showed

the courage of lions and we salute your courage.

There are pockets of our society that are not just broken, but

frankly sick. Europe's economic crisis is

spreading. A warn from the EU commission. The debt contagion now

threatens Italy and Spain.... Tonight, at 10pm, another surge in

unemployment. Britain will stick to the deficit

plan we have set out. It is the rock of stability on which our

I am joined now by three backbenchers, Andrea Leadsom, Jacob

Rees-Mogg and Anna Soubry. Welcome to all of you. Let's reflect on

that for a moment. Anna, the high point for you over the past year? I

think the high point about the coalition is it's working well.

you think id wouldn't? It is so new to have two parties who fought an

election coming together in the national interests. It has worked

out really well. It's a difficult time. The economy is go ing to...

Whatever we do. It is such a big, serious problem. Is it difficult to

say, on that basis, if you look at some things which were picked in

that film, we had the AV referendum, Libya. Yet on this biggest issue,

on the economy, on economic growth, David Cameron struggled to find the

message, that appears to have been reflected today in some of the

speech which have been put out beforehand? The message is right,

that it's serious and it's going to be wrong. It's going to be long.

About the message about what people should do? They should pay down

their debt. They have to restructure, not just the

Government, but individuals as well. There was too much debt within the

system and until debt is repaid, we can't begin to have a well-founded

recovery. Is that wise to your constituents, at a time when many

of them cannot afford to pay off those bills? It is wise to tell

people the truth, even if it is an unpalatable one. Won't people think

he doesn't get the situation, he being David Cameron. If he is

telling people to pay off their credit card bills at a time they

are struggling with family income, he has missed the point, hasn't he?

I don't think so at all. My constituency bag is full of letters

from people saying they understand the need for cuts. Yes, the cuts,

but what about telling individuals? We want to create a better world

for our children. We can go on to Don't you want people to spend? The

message has been that growth is the biggest priority and you are

telling people to stay at home. That is a contradictory message.

is after a fashion. Not everybody is indebted. You want people who

can spend to promote growth but equally you do not want people to

be indebted. As it has been said time and time again, you cannot

spend your way up of debt. You have to sort out, balance your books,

whether it is your house or books on national books, and then you can

move on a positive way. They growth figures have been revised downwards,

albeit slightly, and David Cameron's message is, pull up the

drawbridge. She relates it to her own constituents. Not everybody is

in debt. A lot of people are and they know, because people have been

so responsive and have been paying off their credit card debts and we

are saying, continued to do that. Those who do who are the good

people who have taken sensible measures and he will continue to

spend because they are managing their family finances -- is

possibly. That might strike a chord with women because a lot of them

deal with family finances. Why is David Cameron not getting through

to women voters? I do think we can generalise. -- don't. There are

certain sections of Women voters who have fallen away from us. Some

of those are because unfortunately the cuts have hit women who work in

the public sector because traditionally more women work in

the public sector than men. Obviously people will be less

enamoured with a government they see responsible for them losing

their jobs. The policies are hitting women harder. In some

respects that is true and it is unfortunate. He cannot generalise -

- you cannot. David admitted, in terms of trying to attract them up.

It has been a great pain. Is it about the policies or is it about

Do you think he needs to do more to attract the fairer sex? If we have

the right policies and they succeed, the people of Britain will support

the Conservatives. Having gimmicks, for whatever part of the community,

men, women, whatever, is not right. It is setting your course, sticking

to it, and getting the economy right. And that his policies. What

about as a leader? A personal appeal? I think he has great appeal.

To men and women. Is he showing the right leadership qualities? There

has been debate about the leadership needed now in terms of

the economy. He is a fantastic leader. He is a genuinely

empathetic Person. He gets on well with people and is honest and

forthright. I think he is superbly done. And the media have chosen

unfortunately to pick on two incidents in the chamber when at

the time we laughed about, men and women. The story the next day was

that if -- different to our understanding. And the choices we

have made as a party. In spite of the need to get small businesses

going again, to get the economy going again, to do as much as we

can to get regulation and red tape to enable tables to get going, we

We are showing a balance of the economies. It is about families.

When we came on air, I told you that the Prime Minister's people

brief that the speech would tell us to pay of a credit card bills and I

suggested this created turmoil and that some finesse of redrafting of

the speech was going on. I can tell you now, from Nick Robinson, his

aides are saying that what she wrote in the papers and heard and

the BBC this morning was actually due to "sloppy drafting". And the

briefing for the unfinished speech. Whereas in the original draft he

was going to tell us that means households, all of us, paying off

the credit card and store card bills, he will now have redrafted

to say, the only way out of the debt crisis is to deal with your

debts. That is why households and none of us are paying off the

credit card and store card bills. Already a change. It is hardly a

sign of competence he cannot get it right. It is a debt crisis. The

answer is not to stack up additional borrowing. And I think

the Prime Minister is right to say that we had a crisis in the economy

in this country and in other countries, precipitated by debt in

this country, not only government, that carried on borrowing and

failing to invest when it could have done. And also many households

at a cost to a level of debt that was unsustainable. If we have

recovery that is sustainable, it will have to be based, as the Prime

Minister and Chancellor of Exchequer have made clear, on

Investment. And exports. Unsustainable consumer spending --

and sustainable consumer spending. You have said the only way out is

not to recover more debt. cannot escape for a debt crisis by

borrowing more. So why is the Government adding �500 billion to

our debt? Because we have a clear debt reduction plan. You don't

actually. We have a deficit reduction plan. Part of that means

you will add between now and 2015 �500 billion in debt. Which is far

less than the Labour Party were planning to do. And it takes us to

a place where the annual deficit, it is brought back into balance.

And that his watch... From the point of view of funding debt, you

have to be in a position where you are not adding to it from annual

deficits at a place that is unsustainable. You have told us you

cannot get out of a debt crisis by adding to our debts. That is what

you're telling individuals. You are part of a government that is adding

half a trillion pounds to our debt! both statements cannot be right.

inherited a situation which nothing meal out debt to balloon, but the

deficit to reach a place where literally we were borrowing more

for what did he than Greece. We have to come to a place, and

readmitted after the election, through the deficit reduction plan,

how we were going to take an unsustainable deficit on the

Government's finances to a point were the deficit has been

If you have household debt, you should not max out on credit cards

butchered a stop you have to live within your means. When people's

pay is not keeping price with rising prices, when taxes are

rising, particularly in the middle income levels, where people are put

into the 40% tax brackets, you are taking obey their child benefit.

And you are lecturing them to pay off their credit card bills? I am

not lecturing them. All of us are in a position where we have to live

within our means. We'll have occasions when we borrow to invest.

We have mortgages. Nobody suggests that we shouldn't have borrowing

where it makes sense. The housing market is a great example. If you

get to a place where you are borrowing at levels that are

completely unsustainable and not related to the security in your

house, it cannot carry on. The same is true for stalked card debts and

credit cards. Is it part of the Government's economic policy, then,

that consumer debt should come down? It is the Government's policy

to ensure sustainable recovery. it part of the Government policy

that, as we'll get rid of this debt bubble, that consumer debts have to

be reduced? I don't believe the Government has any target for

consumer debt. He had been telling us to get rid of our credit card

debts. It is clear that whether it is a household or the country, we

cannot get out of the debt crisis by expanding our debt. The issue is,

each of us, what we have to do is move to a more sustainable path. It

is that export and competitiveness. The Prime Minister will say this

afternoon the only way out of the debt crisis is to deal with your

debts. This is the new draft. That is why households are paying off

credit card bills. That is the Government policy. It is fact.

is all of your growth forecast assumes that consumer debt will

rise by �600 billion between now and 2015? The Treasury forecasts

are their estimation, their understanding of what they

anticipate will happen. The basis of your gross factors, your growth

projections, assumed consumer debt will rise by �600 billion, not �400

billion? Do you know what you're doing? Absolutely. It is shifting

from an economic situation which is unsustainable because it is based

on rising government debt and rising household debt that was not

cake will have been repaid to a position where it is. There's

nothing wrong with people financing themselves through borrowing, but

if they do so on a sustainable basis. Are you aware that your

government's own projections show household debt rising in the next

three years? I remember the budget and other components of GDP for the

future, and there are estimates of what level of investment and

expenditure by consumers and government. Are you aware household

debt is projected to rise in order to meet your future growth

prospects? It is not to meet them. When you calculate what they

anticipate the level of GDP is, level of consumer credit is a

component of that. It is not we are targeting for consumers to borrow a

given level of money. It is about individuals, households, the

Government, moving from unsustainable debts as a basis for

economic recovery to one that is sustainable. You have baffled me.

Should consumer debt rise or fall? Individual consumer debt is a

matter for individual households. The Government's job is to make

sure but on behalf of the taxpayers and public we do not allow our

economy to the damage in the way Labour did by unsustainable

borrowing. I think we had better The Tories and their coalition

partners, the Lib Dems, happiness thick as thieves for over a year.

He has benefited the most on the These are the last minutes of the

conference. Which party has benefit this funding in the coalition? --

which parted has benefited the most from the coalition? It looks as

though neither of them. They got power for the first time. And if

they play it right, they can show they are a party that is worthy of

having power given to them. Is it to the detriment of you guys?

I think we've, I shouldn't say get away with, a lot of our policies.

Why have you gone for that? Well, I think they've ruined quite a lot of

Tory policies. Such as? Well, I think that we'd be harsher on

Europe, for one thing and the economy as welt. You worked very

hard for many years to have a Conservative Government and

Conservative policies and the Liberal Democrats are, some of

their policies are quite ridiculous. Which party has done best out of

the coalition? Why would you say that? Because they have a very

small size of the vote and a very large slice of the influence and

it's not right. I have an admiration for them. Of course they

are wrong on almost everything. That's because they are Liberal

Democrats. There is a chaos theory answer to this.... No, we simply

cannot find out, I am afraid. We both have benefits but not nearly

as much as the country. The liberals didn't want it. They

are scared stiff of it. They don't know what to do with it. I think

the Liberal Democrats should be grateful to have the chance of

having some junior ministerial positions. Whoops!

Take two! The sooner we can ditch them, the better. How about you?

agree. Why do you say that? Because they

didn't have any profile previously. We have been propped up by the

Liberal Democrats who have done very well themselves. Without the

Liberal Democrats we would not have got anything. We have some of our

manifesto put in. It is not ideal, We're doing a poll for The Daily

Politics.... No Andrew Mitchell for Well, the balls have been flying

thick and fast. Let's see where they have been flying to. After an

early start, where people were scathing about the Lib Dems, it

seems now the Tories think they are getting the most benefit.

Have you had a lot of liberal people in? No Lib Dems here. Why

are you so surprised when you see that result? I have to say, the

liberal tail is wagging the Conservative dog. How these guys

who are in Government, with their red boxes and enjoying stuff

enormously, let's face it, hardly anyone voted for them. They must

have done better out of it than we have. The bags are empty. Look

where they have gone. The majority of Tory delegates think they are

getting the benefit. A fair few thought the Lib Dems were and they

were very mean about them. A clear... He started to talk before

I introduced him. Brian Binley, does it surprise you

to see that? I think the British people didn't want another election.

They certainly didn't want Gordon Brown. We have a lot of

Conservative policy on the move. There's a problem with some

activists who have a perception, not only through rhetoric, but

through activity that the tail wags the dog a little too much. We hear

a lot from MPs, Conservative MPs, in the House, and also from

activists here, who feel they have too much influence, bearing in mind

they are far fewer in number. you are in the House, you see a lot

of the rhetoric traded back and forth across the debating chamber.

Let's think about policies, specifically. We heard somebody

there saying "We would have been harsh on Europe, got rid of the 50p

tax rate." Do you think these have been real down-sides for the

Conservatives and coalition or not? I doubt we would have gained more

from powers from Europe. The problem has been the eurozone. That

will give us potentially an opportunity. Do you characterise

the coalition as a necessary evil or a positive collaboration? It has

been good for British politics and good for the nation generally. I

would disagree a little with Jesse. We would have been more robust on

Europe. How? I think the words we would have used. It would not have

been policy. You could not have brought back any powers? You only

have to see how some Conservatives voted, particularly on support for

the eurozone to know that, I think, we would have been less forthcoming

in that respect. George has put on a brave face. A lot of the

Conservative Party would have wanted us to have been less

forthcoming. The NHS Bill, that's been watered down somewhat because

of the liberal presence. I think that we would have had a boulder

Bill, which I think would have been more useful to the patients of this

country. Do you agree with that? would have had a boulder Bill on

the NHS. On the eurozone I don't think much would have changed. The

eurozone has continued to be worse. We are massively implicated even

though we have not signed 7 to more money over and -- that was of and

above pledged at the time. Are you hoping it will be a majority?

Conservative. I think we should have a Conservative Party leading

next time around. The Conservative Party is a National Party. What

we're seeing here is a decision by the delegates here to reflect the

nation's interest in the form of coalition. That's why they are

comfortable with coalition. One of the tensions reflected by Nick

Clegg's speech, he said, clearly, the Human Rights Act is here to

stay. Is it? No. Not in its present form. He says it is. You could have

worries and then look at repeal. Repeal has a lot of issues. We

would be bound by the.... Would you like to see it. Do you think Nick

Clegg is wrong? I'm one of the few people who think the Human Rights

Act is an impeccable piece of legislation. It was brought into

law by Winston Churchill. The Human Rights Convention was

brought into effect, not the act, which was brought into effect by

Tony Blair. As you know, Brian, they are identical word for word.

It's the same language. What about the British Bill of Rights. That

will not happen, will it? interesting thing will be how it

will be able to take the right tradition that the Conservatives

have supported of basic freedoms for human beings and through into a

new instrument. Take a badge before you go, please. I know you like all

of them, "Don't panic" "love the coalition." Who is your favourite

Liberal Democrats? I like Mark Hunter. I am not spoilt for choice.

I like Martin Horwood. He is my neighbour in Cheltenham. We will go

back to the conference floor where William Hague has been speaking.

are putting forward the real growth agenda, which is what Europe

desperately needs. It does not need any more institutions, costly

regulations, cumbersome directives or a single more bureaucrat. It

needs burdens on businesses, lifted the expansion of the single market

and a passionate belief in the benefits of trade. It is now

acknowledged that when we said that joining the euro would be a

disaster for Britain, we were right. When we said.... APPLAUSE

When we said that Labour should not have let us get sucked into the

eurozone bail outs, we were right. Now, thanks to David Cameron,

European bail outs for Greece will not call on the British taxpayer.

When we said... APPLAUSE When we said the costs of the EU

budget were out of control, we were right. Now, we have had

unprecedented success in bringing it under control.

When we said that no more areas of power should go to the EU, we were

right. Now, thanks to the European Union Act, 2011, bylaw, that cannot

happen without a referendum in this country.

APPLAUSE. And we are just as right that the European Union has more

power in our national life than it should have.

I belief as strongly as I ever have that when the right moments come

this party should set out to reduce that power.

APPLAUSE 14 years ago I predicted the

eurozone would become a burning building with no exits. But because

the eurozone countries are our friends and neighbours, because our

prosperity and financial stability is tide to theirs, we must now

support them in their efforts to quench the flames.

That was William Hague. The foreign affairs theme continued on the

conference floor with a speech from the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox.

There are those in Europe who are calling for the EU to take a

greater role in Europe's security. Let me tell you, Europe already has

a guarantor of its defence. It's called NATO.

It is nonsense to duplicate and divert from NATO at a time when

resources are scarce. The last thing we need is more EU

bureaucracy. APPLAUSE

You know, many of those calling for deeper EU defence integration are

already failing to fulfil the commitments they have made to NATO.

My message to them is clear: You cannot expect to have the insurance

policy, but ask oh thisers to pay the premiums for u.

-- for you. APPLAUSE

NATO must maintain its primacy in European defence. NATO is the

alliance that keeps the United States in Europe and that is not a

luxury, it is a necessity. APPLAUSE

At a time when we are reducing the number of military headquarters in

NATO, where I shall be this afternoon, it is not the time to

start increasing them in the European Union. That is why William

Hague vetoed the long-term Euro- aspiration of creating a permanent

EU military headquarters. APPLAUSE

That was the Secretary of State for defence. He'd just had his 50th

birthday. Mrs Thatcher turned up. That is an achiefment. We don't do

titles on this programme. We have a man with one though, he is

International Development Secretary, he is Andrew Mitchell. Welcome back

to The Daily Politics. In charge of foreign aid,s we used to call it,

and you are increasing the budget, spending billions more. What's it

like to be at a Tory conference in charge of the least popular policy

of your party? Well, I think it's getting better understood and

increasingly popular. Some of the polling suggests that is the case.

I've had the chance to make a speech at the conference on Sunday,

where I set out the reasons for this, that even in these extremely

difficult economic times we have a plan that stands by commitments on

development. We do this because it's the right thing to do and very

much in our national interest. you accept that there could be

circumstances where you couldn't keep to that commitment? Well, it

is a commitment on the size of the national cake. It is not a fixed

figure. I think that is the right

commitment to make. We have set out very clearly,

George Osborne set it out earlier this year, very clearly what our

spending plans are. We have every intention of sticking to those

plans. If the economy goes into recession, which is now a

possibility, you don't have to blame the Government for that -

look at events abroad, if the eurozone goes into meltdown,

unemployment starts to soar, living standards collapse more. Will you

still continue with our commitment to spend billions on overseas aid?

We are clear that is the case because it is the right thing and

you see British support for that and the -- in the response across

Britain to the disaster, for example in the Horn of Africa at

the moment, where times are straightened than in the past,

people are more generous. It is part of the British character, I

think. It is also very important for our national security. This

budget goes to ensure that we are more secure. Our security does not

only gained by guns and bullets, but by training the police in

Afghanistan, building up Government structures in the Middle East,

getting girls into schools in the Horn of Africa. Those things, as

well as guns and bullets help protect our security. It is hard to

prove any of it. You boost about spending money in schools in

Pakistan. You spend a fraction of what the Saudis spend in Pakistan.

Those schools are different from the ones you are spending on. That

bit is true, isn't it? The ma dra is as. Which is what the Saudis pay

for. Some are doing extremely good work at teaching kids the basics of

life. A lot are Islamic fundamentalist hot beds. I have

seen evidence that some of them are doing good work at teaching

children to read, write and count well. What we're seeking to do is

get four million children into school over the next four years in

Pakistan. I cannot think anything more that would frustrate the

terrorists' aims than having a well educated population. The bombers on

9/11 were well educated? That is not the point. They are reacting to

some of the very extreme causes of poverty that they see in their own

country. What we know is doing development upstream in countries

like Somalia and Afghanistan is more effective at tackling the

causes of before they spread out, where you have to handle the

Do you accept that 70% of the people he would rather protect the

collapse in police numbers and finance your department's budget?

think the number of people in the Conservative Party who have

reservations about the development budget is falling all the time. The

reason is that we are getting across this Plaid about it being

the right thing to do and in our national interest. We have made our

plans which have secured international recognition and

respect, which is why we have German rates of interest, although

we have Greek levels of debt, and those plans include giving strong

support to the police, making sure the front line is preserved, and

making sure we have strong defence forces for this country. That was

the result of the SDR last year. And also standing by hour of

international commitments and not balancing out books on the poorest

people. You are tax in the country highly in order to finance things

like your department -- you're taxing. Living standards are being

squeezed as never before. Not as 1925 according to the Governor of

the Bank of England. And yet the Tories are urging hard-pressed

people to spend even more in your area, give more of their own money.

Why are you doing that? If there are the billions more out of their

tax when they are hurting, why do they then have to dig into their

pockets even deeper? If you have seen the broadcast, when we see it,

it is a very good use of a party political broadcast. The is a bunch

of rich people asking ordinary people to give money. Every which

are one has contributed. They can afford it. It is creative use of a

political broadcast. If you look at Comic Relief for the last two years,

although each year the economy has got more difficult, people have

been more generous. It is part of the British DNA. Should people, if

they have spare cash, should they use it to give money in the way you

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds

Of the future, that is the slogan. William Hague started it off last

year. Last year we had a tricky time with the actor must stop the

him sharing a bedroom with his special adviser. This year the

relationship is back on. And now we embark on a difficult task, to take

the country that Gordon Brown and all those who run the Labour Party

had their hands on for 13 years is to make it strong again. And that

And there he with, rare footage showed him with a backbencher.

You can see consistentsy. It will be welcomed by all those

people in the country. Downing Street talking to backbenchers is

not the only arm-bending that goes on at this conference. Look at

this! That's the sort of thing that the

Treasury does to statistics. Let's be honest, all politicians

treem of standing here, at -- dream of standing here, at the door of

Number Ten. The Mayor of London gave his routine speech, so routine

that parts were heated from last year. The delegates liked him and

he goes down very well. Is he really credible for this place? I'm

not convinced. We are insisting on homes that are

big enough for families with children and rooms big enough for

human beings, rather than hobbits. None of us, as you may have noticed,

none of us are getting any smaller. Boris lacks the seriousness of

George Osborne. The Chancellor gave a speech about deficit reduction.

It did have that pattern of gravity. His speech did not lift off.

The activists gairve him respebgtdable applause -- gave him

5th 4th May are in a debt crisis will stop you cannot borrow your

way out of debt. And so we reached the end, and I cannot say I am

sorry. There has been a decadence Quercus. We have not taken the

cameras into that bars. But the drinking has been sybaritic. The

lobbying by, if the voters and viewers of Britain knew what went

on at these events, they would be horrified!

We found three delegates. Don Valley Color of Pete Babri and

Theodora Clark. Where are the rule of delegates? The Tory grass roots?

Are you one of them? Yes I am for a stop I am not a researcher and I do

not work for an MP but I still has a parliamentary candidate last year.

There are some good financial reasons why a lot of people from

the grassroots level do not come first but it is quite expensive to

come to this conference, I feel for a star or so you agree that it is

not the same that it has been in previous years? Very much so. It

would be good if we could suggest that we have a single day passes.

Rather than having to come though the entire period. To me you agree?

Has it been hijacked by lobby and its? I wouldn't say so. I would say

I am so the cut Tory activist for a stop I think that is representative

of a whole lot of people who are here. It would you like to hear

from the speech? It will be a He must also tell the economy and

show he is the right leader to work it out. Is it the right message,

asking people to pay off their bills? We do it? How many people

can genuinely pay-off their bills? You are still struggling, even

though interest rates alone. When I do not we come something -- why do

not come up with something inevitable? A had not have a credit

card before stuck -- I do not have. The importance of this is, and part

of conference is not just talking to activists, and giving a message

to the whole country. There is an important message in, reducing your

debt, in respecting the weight with the -- in respect of the way we

We are joined to -- by our BBC political editor, Nick Robinson for

a stop there seems to be term there, Caersws, shambles, well over the

strutting -- there seems to the turmoil, chaos. The Prime Minister

and his aides have read and heard her players suggesting he wants

people to pay off their credit card. It implies he will stand up there

and say I cannot stop spending for a stop which would be catastrophic

first stop what is being said is, Look, mistakes are made in

briefings and sometimes you say something and you realise that is

not going the way we thought it would be. We have to change course,

and that is what has happened here. The problem, I would suggest, for

them, is it is hard... I cannot remember covering a party

conference when the economic backdrop was grimmer, it is grimmer

than the Lehman Brothers' backdrop. You have to go back to 1968 to get

a grimmer one. Voters will be looking for a sense of competence

and they know what a're doing and saying. It is hard. He's walking a

tightrope. On one hand he wants - that is the message they wanted -

he wants a message of hope and optimism, saying this is what the

future could look like. He does not want to be accused of having

hopelessly in denial or unrealistic. That was the tightrope they were

focusing on staying on. He has fallen on something different,

which is to do with economic competence. I tell you why this has

happened, which is, and it happened before the last election - the

truth is, politicians have deliberately blurred the issue of

debt and the deficit. Andrew Lansley sitting in that

chair.... Why? When they do market research - people understand the

notion of debt and they fear it and don't like it. When the

Conservatives attacked Gordon Brown they always use the word "debt." He

would say "our debt is not particularly big." The argument was

about the deficit. In other words, the debt at which -- the rate at

which the debt is getting bigger. By using household parallels, which

are not accurate.... Gets them into trouble. It is your birthday. This

will help you pay off the Nic Robinson credit card bill. Would

you like to open it? Have you seen this expensive wrapping paper?

Quick, we're running out of time. Thank you very much. A United scarf.

I was at Old Trafford on Saturday. 2-0 against Norwich. Very, very