Conference Special Daily Politics

Morning, folks. Welcome to yet another week of conference specials.

The Tories are in Manchester this year for their annual party shindig.

That's the queue for the hottest ticket in town, the Chancellor's

speech to conference. Maybe they are all sitting down already! He's

speech to conference. Maybe they are expected to take to the stage in

about 20 minutes' time, with a tough message for the long term unemployed

and a few sweeteners for the hardworking. Everybody loves a hard

worker! With all the economic indicators

worker! suggesting the economy's on the up,

he might even put a smile on his face. But don't hold your breath.

We'll be carrying George Osborne's speech live and uninterrupted.

His boss is looking happy, down to his shirt sleeves. He's got a tall

order ahead of him if wants an outright majority at the next

election. We'll be asking, does he stand a chance?

He looks like a nice chap but is this man the Conservatives'

deadliest enemy ever? We'll be talking pacts with UKIP.

And it seems David Cameron doesn't like our Adam's balls.

Who has got more balls, you or Mrs Thatcher?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration is the former

Conservative Party chairman, Norman Fowler. -- in the next hour and a

half. Welcome. This conference season has been notable for the

number of new policies which have been announced. The Liberal

Democrats and Labour both set out new ideas which they hope will form

part of their campaigns for the next election, and the Conservatives are

no different. They're trying to woo voters who want to get on in the

game of life. David Cameron wants to encourage marriage, and has made

good on his promise to recognise it in the tax system. Married and

civilly partnered couples will be able to share some of their unused

personal income tax allowance, potentially worth up to £200 a year.

The PM also says he wants to help potentially worth up to £200 a year.

people buy their own home. So phase two of the Government's Help to Buy

scheme will come into effect this week, three months ahead of

schedule, offering government loans of up to 20% of a home's value to

help people raise a deposit. But for people who are still jobless after

two years on the existing work programme, the government's new help

to work will mean a tougher regime as a condition for staying on

benefits. -- be Government's new Help to Work. One option will be

community work placements, like cleaning up litter. This morning the

Chancellor, George Osborne, said that the long term unemployed should

be taking up the jobs which are being created. And that is why we

are saying, look, you will not be able to do nothing in return for

your benefit any more. You will have to either turn up at the Jobcentre

everyday or you will have to undertake community work, or you

will have to get help for some underlying problem you might have

like a drug addiction or illiteracy. We will not leave behind any more a

generation on long-term unemployment, we will do everything

we can to help them into work. Norman Fowler, compassionate

conservatism, and is now the US style tough love? It is a variation

of the old American workfare scheme, which has been around for some time.

I think it is sensible, as far as younger people are concerned. Young

people who refuse all offers to go back to work. We have more problems

people who refuse all offers to go with older people, and particularly

when it comes to some things that have been mentioned like drug use.

The idea that you will have a sudden policy that will take them off drugs

does not work, we all know that. As a general policy, I think it is a

good idea. It sounds like it has a few holes in it? Any policy of that

kind has a few questions, obviously. One of the questions is about who,

indeed, it covers. In the vast majority of cases, I think it will

work well. These people have been unemployed for a long time,

obviously there will be a number of shysters in there as well, but a lot

just have not been able to get work, they are the most vulnerable in some

of the poorest in society. Will we really say, if you don't do what we

want, we will take your benefits away and threw them on to the

streets? You will have to have tough sanctions of one kind. You put one

group, the other group are the ones working on the black economy. When I

was doing the employment job, there were lots of people working on the

black economy and claiming unemployment benefit at the same

time. I think you have to look at that. I don't think you will be able

to wave a magic wand and everything will go, it does not matter who is

in power, but doing it this way is a very sensible step to having a

policy as far as long-term unemployment is concerned. You don't

want people in their 20s to remain unemployed for the rest of their

life, basically. George Osborne will be taking to

stage in about 15 minutes' time. We're joined now by the Treasury

Minister, David Gauke. Treasury Secretary, the previous big flagship

scheme of this coalition, welfare to work, has not worked, so why will

this? The work programme has been effective. Something like 72 per

cent of those who have been on it have come off benefits at one point

or other. We are except that there are those who, having gone through

the work programme, are still unemployed and we need something in

place to ensure that we have something to address that. I think

it is perfectly reasonable in those circumstances to identify one in

three routes whereby people make themselves available to work. On the

welfare to work scheme, in the first year, according to the Department

running it, the scheme was so bad that it was worse than doing things.

People who weren't part of the scheme got more jobs than those who

work part. In the years two 13, you failed to hit your minimum targets.

-- two and three. Why will this work better? That is not a fair

representation. The work programme is focused on those most difficult

to get back to work. Evidence is emerging that more people are

working as a consequence of the programme, so I don't accept that.

But nonetheless, at the end of a two year work programme there is an

issue that there will still be people unemployed, and it is right

that we put in place something that is fair to the general taxpayer who

are funding the benefits, after all, but which is also a route through

which the long-term unemployed put something back into society and get

habits of working. And where more intensive help is necessary, that

help should be provided. And if they don't take that help, you will take

benefits away from some of the poorest and most vulnerable in

society? Yes, because it isn't right that people who receive benefits do

nothing in response. I think it is per fairly reasonable to say that

you can only receive jobseeker's allowance if you do something, and

either that is attending Jobcentres, demonstrating that you are looking

for work, or community work for 30 hours a week plus ten hours a week

looking for work, or we provide mandatory support to deal with

issues such as drug or alcohol dependency or a literacy or

whatever. And if they end up on the streets, that will be a price worth

paying for your policy? We are saying that you can continue to

receive support, but with conditions. I don't think it is in

reasonable when tax payers' money is being spent supporting people who

reasonable when tax payers' money is have been unemployed for three years

or more, to say that we can get the -- give them the support but we

expect something in return. Wages have failed to keep pace with prices

since you have been in coalition. Labour would help freeze energy

prices to help cope with the cost of living, what would you do? We are

taking lots of measures to help in terms of increasing the personal

allowance, taking people out of income tax, freezing council tax,

freezing fuel duty, there is a long list of things. But living standards

are still being squeezed, what else list of things. But living standards

would you do? You can't divorce a discussion about living standards,

and I accept that these are difficult times for many people,

from the state of the economy. We have got to have a strong economy,

get economic growth, deal with the long-term issues that we are faced

with, such as high levels of borrowing, and we need to bring that

down and start addressing debt. All of these are important. There is an

idea that you can sin has separate the issue of living standards from

where the economy is and making the right issue for the economy -- you

can somehow separate. It is wrong. Labour have lost the big economic

argument and they want to move onto something else. Living standards

matter, but it is as the consequence of a strong economy that we get

these rises in living standards. Labour will freeze gas and

electricity prices, you have cut the tax on beer, so that is OK? As far

as Labour's policy on freezing electricity prices, you know as well

side to the flaws in that policy. We have two look at some of the

long-term pressures, to look at the causes. We can debate for a very

long time the flaws in Labour's policy, but we have increased the

personal allowance and that has made a very big difference. £700 cash

difference to millions of taxpayers, that is real help. The

Prime Minister promised that he would legislate to put everybody on

the lowest tariff. What happened to that? It has not happened. We are

doing that. You are not. We are legislating in order to ensure that

happens. That we get the lowest tariff provided to consumers. That

is genuine. I have looked at the legislation, it does not promise and

does not force the energy companies to put everybody on the lowest

tariff, which is what the Prime Minister promised. We are ensuring

that everybody is put on the lowest tariff. That is the approach we are

taking, that is on top of a whole range of measures. Energy prices,

Labour are committed to a decarbonisation target by 2013, that

will put £125 on energy bills. It is not helping to address energy costs

in the long-term. So you will cut green levies? Lou Mark Roe we are

not committed to the decarbonisation target, it would act to electricity

prices. We will hear from Ed Miliband that they will freeze

energy prices, it is not coherent. When, by law, will everybody be on

the lowest tariff? I can't give you a date for that. That is the policy

we are approaching. Why not? Our a date for that. That is the policy

bills are about to go up this autumn. British Gas is threatening

huge rises. The only direct solution is to put us on the lowest tariff. I

don't think the legislation does that, by the way, but I would like a

date from you as to when that will happen, because people will suffer

this winter. I will not give you a date here and now. I will check the

position on that. The reality is that if we are going to get

position on that. The reality is long-term energy prices down, not

just for 20 months but 20 years, we need to ensure there is proper

competition, we need to ensure... Why haven't you done that? We are

always looking at what we can do. Let me ask you this, if you are

trying to improve competition, why is it that base energy prices for

gas and electricity before you add the green levies and taxes, why are

they in Britain among the highest base prices in Europe? If you have a

competitive energy market? If you base prices in Europe? If you have a

look at energy prices as a whole, the UK is pretty well mid-table. We

look at energy prices as a whole, don't have particularly high... That

is after tax. Before tax, our base energy prices are the highest. If

you look at the overall position, the UK doesn't have the highest.

They are higher than we would like and we want to make sure we get

competition and we don't impose a decarbonisation target that will

make things worse. A freeze, as we heard last week, if anything, is

likely to result in energy companies jacking up prices rather than

reducing them. It is not a sustainable approach and the

government is doing a lot for living standards but we cannot divorce it

from the big economic argument, how do we get growth and deal with the

deficit? There is a problem here for the Conservatives, Norman. You can

have your view on the economics of freezing energy prices, but it is

good politics, whichever way you look at it. The Conservatives, from

that performance, have nothing specific to counter it, other than a

general "the economy is recovering and living standards will rise when

it does" . Yes, but Ed Miliband has opened an opportunity for the

Conservative Party here, because he has gone back to the 1970s - price

control, price regulation, all of that. You and I remember that sort

of thing and the apparatus that went with it. That has put clear blue

water between the two parties. It gives an enormous opportunity to the

Tory party. But in the 1970s, you had Roy Hattersley running a price

commission, trying to control the price of sugar and tea and all the

rest. Even he admits that that was nonsense. That is not what Labour

are proposing. They are saying the energy market does not work. The

energy minister said so as well. So let's have a 20 month freeze on

energy prices while we get the market to work. And there there will

be a 20 month freeze on some other price. But the energy market is a

cartel. But it is a complete contrast in the way the two parties

would look at the position. I accept that there has been a response from

the government to Ed Miliband, but if you go forward a few months, you

will find that that is not how the public feel about it. They don't

want to go back to price controls. They have seen energy prices rise in

real terms by 40% since 2007. And of course, we are not in control of

that and neither are the energy companies, but they say that when

the wholesale price of gas goes up, their bills go up. When the price

comes down, their bills don't go down, so it is a popular thing to

say there something wrong with the market if prices are that sticky.

Let's freeze them for a brief period and sort out the market. It is

immediate and popular, but does the government start intervening in the

market? I am not saying the market is working perfectly, but there are

different ways of tackling that. Which the coalition is not doing.

The minister could tell is nothing they are doing to improve the energy

market. But you gave him a very tough interview. He was a treasure

in minister. Are the Treasury across everything? You can't expect to be

an expert on everything. He is running the country. My point is

that there is a big contrast in the way the two parties are looking at

it, whether you go with a market approach or government intervention.

You are still very lively. Time for our daily quiz. The question is,

which Tory cabinet Minister has spent time at a £2500 fat farm in

Austria? Was it George Osborne, Eric Pickles, Patrick McLoughlin or

Michael Gove? At the end of the show, Norman will give us the

correct answer. Will I? So, what is the mood like in beautiful

Manchester? Who better to tell us than two of Fleet Street's finest?

Sadly, they were not available. Instead with, we have the

Spectator's James Forsyth and Rachel Sylvester from the Times. Rachel,

are they talking a lot about the possibility of a constituency by

constituency electoral pact with UKIP? Nigel Farage is here today, so

UKIP are dominating the whole thing. I don't think the Tories have worked

out how to deal with him and the way in which local MPs will want to make

deals with UKIP. We interviewed George Osborne last week, and he

said the Tories had to win an overall majority. But he would not

go into what would happen if an individual MP made a deal. He would

not say whether or not they would be sacked. They are trying to work out

what is realistic. It is a rum do, James, if a leader of a minor party

can come to the giant Tory party and dominate events even though he is

not allowed in the conference? UKIP is only part of the problem the

Tories have to deal with, but if you go to a fringe, it is what the

activists want to talk about. The reason for that is, you have seen

Tory activists going over to UKIP. They all know someone who now votes

UKIP. That is why it is creating a problem. I think to be's

intervention by Nigel Farage is actually a weakness. He is admitting

that the best UKIP can hope for is to come top in the European

elections. He is saying, if we come top in the European elections, I

will pull the dogs off after that. It is creating a strangely retro

atmosphere here. It is all marriage, tax allowances. There is Maggie beer

for sale. The Tories are almost caught in the headlights of UKIP,

and the danger is that they are alienating more centrist voters who

would otherwise be attracted to them, those who were originally

attracted to the more compassionate conservatism that David Cameron

offered. James, you are about to become a dad, you will need one of

those iron baby T-shirts. I think you will see the Tories trying to

mix up these messages designed to appeal to UKIP voters, whether on

the European Commission of human rights, combined with more centrist

messages on health and education. The big challenge for Tories is what

to do about the cost of living. George Osborne is trying to say it

is really about the economy and that you can't trust Labour with the cost

of living. But if you talk to the Tories here from the most marginal

seats, they will say this energy price freeze announcement has cut

through, and they need a better response to that. Rachel, at least

Labour has come up with something specific and easily understood. If

you vote for Labour, your energy prices will not rise for 20 months.

You go have a debate about before or after that, but the 20 months, they

are frozen. Is it enough for the Conservatives to talk in general

terms by saying with an economic recovery, you're living standards

will recover? It is a bit vague. I don't think it is enough. It is all

very well going on about a global raise, but if people are hobbling to

the corner shop to get a pint of milk, they don't care about a global

raise will stop there sometimes a lack of urgency in the way they talk

about the cost of living issues. They need to understand that people

asked ugly. They say they understand, but they have not

demonstrated that people are struggling in their policies. These

speeches are leaked so far in advance that we already know what is

in them, but has he got something up his sleeve? Mr Miliband had the

energy freeze up his sleeve for the last minute. Do we get is a prize to

keep is interested? He will want to emphasise the welfare issue. The

Tories can't do fairness through tax cuts, so they will try and do it

through rebalancing the system and ending be something for nothing

culture. George Osborne is taken with how popular the benefits cap

has been, and he is looking for a repeat of that success. Rachel, what

is the overall mood that? The Conservatives have had a good

summer, partly because Labour had a Conservatives have had a good

bad summer. The economy is recovering on a broad range of

indicators, but they still face this index all mountain to climb for an

indicators, but they still face this overall majority. So are they

confident, depressed? Do they think it could be another hung parliament?

They seem a bit thrown in. They were thrown by the Ed Miliband

announcement on price freezes. They thrown by the Ed Miliband

are convinced that it is wrong, but they don't seem to know how to deal

with it tactically. They are thrown by the UKIP threat, and the feeling

is slightly dis- combo dilated. -- this combo plate. That is a good

American word. The Tory party is not sure to celebrate the fact that

there is now clear red water between them and Labour or whether the

centre ground has shifted so that they need to be careful about how to

respond to Ed Miliband. The announcement on price freezes is

clearly politically popular. Cameron is also trying to reassure his party

that he really does want image are the. He will have to get the message

across that he is not just banking on another coalition with Nick Clegg

and will really try to win. So they are talking about things they know

the Lib Dems will not agree on, like the human rights act. It is also

about, whose side are you on? David the human rights act. It is also

Cameron was worried that the Tories would be seen as being on the side

Cameron was worried that the Tories of the big energy companies rather

than the consumer. It is about of the big energy companies rather

showing that you are on the side of the hard-working families, misspelt,

as my colleague noted. But can they demonstrate that with their

speeches, that they are on the side of ordinary people, rather than the

wealthy elite? Or big business, the energy companies and the banks and

the wealthy donors who support the Tory party? James, should we read

anything into the fact that it is George Osborne making the

announcement, not Iain Duncan Smith, the welfare secretary? George

Osborne is a man with political ambitions and he knows this will be

popular with the country. He is dammed if he is going to let someone

else have it. And MP said to me this morning, by George, George's stock

is rising. Perhaps people wrote him off a year ago, but now he is

gaining popularity in the party. If he can be the man who takes the

credit for a recovery, he will be back in the running for the

leadership. But the Tory leadership is a marathon, not a sprint. With

the omnishambles Budget, George Osborne over. He has now dusted

himself down and he will be a contender when Cameron decides to

go. But that depends on the Tories winning the next election. Osborne

and Cameron's fortunes are so in extra doubly linked that if the

Tories lose the election in 2015, that is the end for George Osborne.

But if the Tories win that overall majority, there will not be a

leadership contest, according to Mrs Cameron, because she says she wants

leadership contest, according to Mrs her husband to stay in power until

2020, and she is a powerful woman. I don't think any prime minister who

has just won his first overall majority would want to stand down

straight. Cameron would want to keep going. But is he the prime minister

who finally manages to leave the stage with the crowd wanting more?

If he does win a second term, the European referendum will be an

obvious sticking point. If he wins that, he will be able to say, I have

settled the historic question of that, he will be able to say, I have

Britain's relationship with Europe. That might be the time for him to

retire. I would not read too much into the 2020 comment. But he would

also have to resign if he gets an overall majority, he goes to

Europe, the renegotiations are not successful, he has a referendum in

which little changes with our relationship with Brussels, and he

loses the referendum? Then he is toast, is neat? The referendum

pledge may come back to bite on. It may keep the right-wingers happy for

now, but in the end, he will have to be in the yes camp and say that he

has got adequate reforms from Europe. And a lot of his party will

want to be in the no camp. So it could end up dividing the Tory party

in an attempt to bring unity in the short term. You have got to think,

how much back does Brussels -- how much back from Brussels does David

Cameron needs to get to stay in the EU? That is an awful lot, and it

might be more than is on offer. James, is it possible that some

individual Tory MPs on the very Eurosceptic wing will try to do a

constituency deal with UKIP? I think you will see a handful of them do a

deal with UKIP. You will see a lot more of them make a play to UKIP

voters, saying, I will be campaigning for Britain to leave in

the referendum, so vote for me. It will be like 1997, when you saw Tory

MPs who had a particular referendum party problem, including David

Cameron. And the Conservative Party HQ turned a blind eye. And will UKIP

have enough candidates to stand people in every seat? They will have

to choose the constituencies where they have a hope of doing reasonably

well. You would have thought they might back off from some

constituencies where there are very tough, Eurosceptic Tory MPs. I know

you want to see the Chancellor in action. Karren Brady is still

talking. But is why the Chancellor is ten minutes late on his allotted

time to speak. If you could ask the wind-up, we would be grateful. Other

than the leader's speech, the Chancellor's speech is usually the

biggest? Like you, I am intrigued that it is the Chancellor making

biggest? Like you, I am intrigued this big announcement about

welfare. You would have been mightily annoyed if you're

Chancellor had taken that away from you? I think I might have been. I

think Nigel Lawson and I would have had yet another of our periodic

disagreements. I'm intrigued by that. I was also intrigued by what

everyone is saying about UKIP. Frankly, we have been around this

course before with the Liberals, the Referendum Party and a bit with the

1997 election, which was not spectacularly successful, when

people said we will divide in the party. I think as far as UKIP is

concerned, it makes no sense for us to go into any kind of alliance

locally, nationally or anywhere else, because it gives

respectability to UKIP. We are talking about the right-wing of the

Conservative Party, that any alliance with UKIP brings into play

the centre and the left of the Conservative Party. They will not

want that, people like me don't want that. If you were still party

chairman and you learned that a right-wing, Eurosceptic Tory MP was

doing an electoral pact with UKIP, what would you do? Bring him in, say

it is an accept the book and if he continued, you would have to get rid

of him, it is that straightforward -- bring him in, say it is not

acceptable. Here is George Osborne at last.

Thank you, Karren Brady, that was a brilliant introduction. You're

hired! At every party conference, since the

election, as we have gathered, the At every party conference, since the

question for us, the question for me, the question for our country,

has, is economic plan working? They are not asking that question now.

The deficit down by a surge, exports doubled to China, taxpayers' money

back from the banks, not going in. 1.4 million new jobs created by

businesses, 1000 new jobs announced in this city today. Our plan is

working. We held our nerve in the face of

huge pressure. Now Britain is turning a corner. And that is down

to the resolve and the sacrifice of the people of this country. And, for

that, we owe the British people a huge, heartfelt thank you. Thanks to

you, Britain is on the right track. So now families working hard to get

on, anxious about the future, are asking these questions start can we

make the recovery last? Will I feel it in my pocket? My approach has

always been to be straight with people. So let me answer these

questions directly. Yes, we can make the recovery a lasting one. But it

won't happen by it self. We have to deal with our debts and see through

our plan. Yes, if the recovery is sustained, then families. To feel

better off. Because what matters most for living standards are jobs

and lower mortgage rates and lower taxes. Family finances will not be

transformed overnight, because Britain was made much poorer by the

crash. That is what happens when you get a catastrophic failure of

economic policy of the kind we saw under Labour, when no one prepares

economic policy of the kind we saw in the boom for the bust, when the

banks get bailed out and when government budget spiral out of

control. We will never let that government budget spiral out of

happen to our country again. APPLAUSE

I share non-offer personal as I saw from the Leader of the Opposition

last week. For him, the global free market equates to a race to the

bottom, with the games being shared among a small and smaller group. --

the gain being shared. That is the argument that Karl Marx made in Das

L. It is what socialist beliefs, but socialism brings this about and it

is the historic work of this party to put it right. Because attempts

is the historic work of this party crisis and confiscate wealth crush

endeavour and blight aspiration. And the people who suffer are not the

rich but the hundreds and thousands put out of work, the millions made

poorer, the generation whose lives are blighted. It is working people

who pay the price when the economy is ruined. That is what Labour did

to the workers, and the British people will never let them forget

it. And so, by contrast, I'm an optimist

about the world. I'm a believer in freedom and free markets. I see the

global economy growing. I see hundreds of people in places like

India and China leaving grinding poverty to join it. That is

something to celebrate. It doesn't have to be a threat to this country.

It is a huge opportunity. But we have to understand that the Wealth

of nations depends on some basic truths. Jobs are only created when

people build businesses that are successful and can expand. Exports

only happen if those businesses are making things that others in the

only happen if those businesses are world wants to buy. Investment only

flows if your country is a more attractive place to do business than

flows if your country is a more other countries. And the wealth this

creates could be spread widely across the nation, but only when

every child gets a good education, when each adult has the incentive to

every child gets a good education, work and every family gets to keep

more of what they earn. And to achieve all these things, you need

to get the fundamentals right. The economic stability, sound public

finances, says banks, excellent schools and colleges, competitive

taxes, amazing science, welfare that works. There is no short cuts to any

of these things, just the hard graft of putting right what went so badly

wrong and forging a new attitude in this country that says, we are not

afraid of the future, because we intend to shape it.

So there is no feeling at this conference of a task completed or a

victory one. We know it is not over. Until we fix the addiction to debts

that got this country into this mess in the first place, it is not over.

Until we can help hard-working people to own a home, save and start

a business. Until we have helped the long-term unemployed, it is not

over. Until there is real faith that long-term unemployed, it is not

our children's lives will be better than our own, it is not over. The

battle to turn Britain around is not even close to being over, and we

will finish what we have started. APPLAUSE

What I offer is a serious plan for a grown-up country. An economic plan

What I offer is a serious plan for a for hard-working people that will

create jobs, keep mortgage rates low, let people keep more of their

income, tax-free. It is the only route to better living standards.

Without a credible economic plan, you don't have a living standards

plan. We understand that there can be no recovery for all if there is

no recovery at all. In Italy, the deadlock in Washington this week,

these are stark reminders that the debt crisis is not over. And yet the

last fortnight has shown there is no serious plan coming from any other

party. The liberal Democrats were jostling for position. I have to

tell you today, and click has informed us of his intention to form

a new coalition. For the first time, he is intending to create a

full working relationship with Vince Cable.

LAUGHTER Mind you, at their conference, Vince

Cable did something that was undeniably Tory. If I had been

there, I wouldn't have turned about the Lib Dem economic debate either!

At least they had an economic debate. Labour's economic

At least they had an economic announcements amounted to declaring

war on enterprise, tax rise on business and an apprenticeship

policy that turned out to be illegal. And then there was the

energy announcement that completely unravelled. Now, any politician

would love to tell you that they can wave a magic wand and freeze your

energy bill, everyone wants cheaper energy. That is why we are

legislating to put everyone on the cheapest tariff. But I will tell you

what happens when you draw up policy on the back of a fag packet -

companies will just jack up their prices before, so in the short-term,

prices go up, and companies would prices before, so in the short-term,

not invest this country and build the power station we need so, in the

long term, prices go up. That is Labour 's offer - get hammered with

high prices now, high prices later, higher prices for all. Don't worry,

there will be a phoney freeze on prices in between. How should I put

it? Britain can do better than that. Perhaps with all this talk of

blackouts, we have been a bit unfair on Ed Miliband's leadership. We used

blackouts, we have been a bit unfair to think light is on, but nobody's

home. Turns out we were only half right.

LAUGHTER .

Now, I remember when we were in opposition. We made commitments and

unworkable promises to abolish things like student fees. We felt

good at conferences like this. And then we lost elections. In David

Cameron got us to face the truth about the way we had come to be

seen. He forced us to be credible, to reach out to all parts of

society. Last week, Labour didn't do that. They retreated. Ed Miliband

said he could make all of our problems disappear and send a cheque

said he could make all of our in the post. It is not based on

truth. More borrowing and more debt in the post. It is not based on

remains their economic policy. But they no longer dare talk to the

British people about it. Instead, they would much rather talk about

the cost of living, as if the cost of living was somehow detached from

the performance of the economy. You ask the citizens of Greece what

happens to living standards when the economy fails. He asks on with a

happens to living standards when the mortgage what happens to their

happens to living standards when the living standards when mortgage rates

go up -- you ask someone with a mortgage. Just a 1 cent rise means

an extra £1000 on the average bill. You ask the citizens of this country

what would be disastrous for living standards and they would say higher

borrowing, higher welfare costs, higher taxes. These are not the

solution is to lower living standards, they are the cause of

them. This country is paying a very, very

high price for that lesson. If you want to know the consequences of an

Ed Miliband premiership, just look at a plan of the man who knows him

best, his brother. David Miliband - one, leave Parliament, two, leave

politics, three, leave the country, four dedicate your life to

international rescue. David and Ed Miliband, the greatest

sibling rivalry since the Bible. Kane and not very able. Now, our own

sibling rivalry since the Bible. rescue mission for the British

economy is far from complete. People rescue mission for the British

know the difference between a quick fix from and a credible economic

argument. Here is our serious plan for a grown-up country. First, sound

money. The bedrock of any sustained recovery and improved living

standards is economic stability. That is what the hard work and the

sacrifice of the last three years has been about. In that time, they

brought the deficit down by a third, and the British public know that

whoever is elected will face some very hard choices. Let me tell you

about the principles I bring to that task. Our country's problem is not

that it taxes too little, it is that its government spends too much.

While no responsible Chancellor ever rules out tax changes, I think it

can be done by reducing spending and capping welfare, not by raising

taxes. Surely the lesson of the last arcade is that it is not enough to

clean up the mess after it has happened will stop you have got to

take action before it happens. It should be obvious to anyone that in

the years running up to the crash, this country should have been

running a budget surplus. That is what we mean when we say they did

not fix the roof when the sun was shining. Let us never make that same

mistake again. Never again should anyone doing my job be so foolish

are so deluded, as to believe they have abolished the age-old cycle of

boom and bust. When we have dealt with Labour's deficit, we will have

a surplus in good times as insurance against difficult times ahead. And

provided that the recovery is sustained, our goal is to achieve

that surplus in the next Parliament. That will bear down on our debts,

prepare us for the next rainy day. It will require discipline and

spending control, because if we want to protect the things we care about,

like generous tensions and decent health care, and buying the best

equipment for the brave men and women who fight in our armed forces,

all of us have to confront the costs of modern government and cap working

age welfare bills. And only if we properly controlled public

expenditure will we be able to keep lowering taxes are hard-working

people in a way that lasts. I have never been for tax cuts that are

borrowed. I want low taxes that are paid for. We will also go on

investing in the essential infrastructure of our country, the

roads and railways and science and communications that are the backbone

of the future economy. So we should commit, alongside to running a

surplus and capping welfare, to grow our capital spending at least in

line with our national income. These principles will form the foundation

line with our national income. These of our public finance policy. I will

set out the details next year. For those who ask, is this necessary? ,

I say, what is the alternative? To run a deficit for ever? To leave our

children with our debts? To leave Britain perilously exposed the next

time the storm comes? This crisis took us to the brink. If we don't

reduce our debts, the next could push us over. Let's learn from the

mistakes that got him phew into this mess. Let us about, never again.

This time, we will run a surplus and fix the roof when the sun shines.

First, our plan secures sound public finances. Second, it supports the

aspirations of hard-working people and let them keep more of the money

they earn. We are increasing to £10,000 the amount you can earn

before you pay a penny of income tax. That is a real achievement,

delivered in budget after budget by tax. That is a real achievement,

a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Liberal Democrats

like to point out that during the election, David Cameron said he

like to point out that during the would love to increase the tax

allowance, but warned that it was not easy to afford. He did say that,

and he was right. The difficult thing is not increasing the tax free

allowance, the difficult thing is paying for it, but we have done it.

The result, and income tax cuts for 25 million people, equivalent to a

rise of almost 10% in the national minimum wage. Real money in

people's pockets. For we are the party of hard-working people. To

anyone who questions that, I say, go to the workplaces of Britain, like

the huge Morrisons in Sittingbourne. Meet the forklift truck drivers

there. Go to the war button factory. Meet the people who work

all hours. Hard-working people, better off because of Conservative

tax cuts. These are the people we stand alongside. And because we are

getting the public finances back under control, we have been able to

help in other ways, too. Freezing council tax, cutting beer duty,

tax-free childcare. Thanks to our prime minister, now a £1000 married

couple's allowance, two, a conservative is made and more than

delivered. -- a Conservative promise made and delivered. We have cut fuel

duty, abolished Labour's fuel escalator. I can tell you today that

provided we can find the savings to pay for it, I want to freeze fuel

duty for the rest of this Parliament. Conservatives don't just

talk about being on the side of hard-working people, we show it be

in day out in the policies we deliver.

Now, people aspire to keep more of their income tax-free. And many

aspire to run their own business and work for themselves. My parents

planned carefully, took a risk, set up a small manufacturing company

planned carefully, took a risk, set more than 40 years ago. The company

grew, they employed more people. In the life of the family business, the

orders won, the exports, these were the backdrop of my childhood. I am

hugely proud of what my parents achieved, and I am proud that they

are in this hall today. And you should know this about me. I will

always be on the side of those who use their savings, take a risk, put

everything on the line to set up their own company. Labour increased

small business tax, I have cut it. Labour were extending business rates

to the smallest firms, I have exempted them. Now our new

employment allowance will take a third of all businesses out of

paying national insurance altogether. We Conservatives are

nothing if we are not the party of small business, and that is the way

it is going to stay. And we are the party of homeownership, to. I am the

first person to say we must be vigilant in avoiding the mistakes of

the past. That is why I gave to the Bank of England the powers to stop

dangerous housing bubbles emerging. Bank of England the powers to stop

But too many people asked ill being denied the dream of owning their own

home -- they are still being denied. So instead of starting the next

phase of home buying next year, we are starting it next week. There are

some people, many living in the richest parts of London, who say we

shouldn't be doing these things. I have this to say. Take your

arguments down the road to where house prices have fallen for the

last five years. Take your arguments to Bury or Morecambe, where young

working couples are still living at home with their parents. Take your

working couples are still living at arguments to our great towns and

cities where there are families who have saved for years, earning decent

salaries, who can afford mortgage repayments, but can't possibly

afford it deposit being asked by the banks these days. Take your

arguments to those families and say this policy is not right, you

shouldn't be allowed to buy your own home. I will tell you what they will

shouldn't be allowed to buy your own say back. It is all right for you,

you have got your own home. We have been saving for years, what about

us? I know whose side this party is on. We are the party of love -- the

party of aspiration, and now the party of the Cameron's help to buy.

We are the party of homeownership, and we are going to let the country

We are the party of homeownership, know it. We will also make sure no

one is left behind as our economy recovers. Our goal is nothing short

of a recovery for all. That is the third part of our economic plan.

Lectures from the left on fairness, frankly, stick in the throat. Under

their government, the richest paid frankly, stick in the throat. Under

lower tax rates than their cleaners on tax avoidance boomed, inequality

increased, youth unemployment doubled, the gap between the north

and south grew and the number of households where no one worked

reached record levels. Fair? That was the fairest government of all.

-- the un-fairest government of all. Contrast that with what we have

done. When I say we, I mean we Conservatives. I sit at that cabinet

table, and I know who has really put forward the policies that are

delivering a fairer society. The pupil premium to support the most

disadvantaged children, that was Michael Gove's idea, front and

centre of the last Conservative manifesto. Our commitment on

international aid, delivered by Andrew Mitchell and Justin

Greening. Action on domestic violence, that is Theresa May. The

International campaign to get raped recognised as a war crime, led by

William Hague. New care standards for the elderly - Jeremy Hunt. The

anti-avoidance measures in budget after budget, they are the

painstaking work of our Conservative Treasury team, David Gauke and his

colleagues. Rights for gay people, the biggest rise in the state

pension, all delivered by Conservatives in government. And the

overhaul of our entire welfare system, making sure work always

pays, that is Iain Duncan Smith's life mission. These are all

achievements of a modern, reformed Conservative Party that we have

worked so hard together to create. But as we change our party and

govern our country, there is more to do. I am part of a generation of

Conservatives that came after the great struggles of the 1980s. That

government rescued the country from eight tales bling -- a tailspin into

decline. It renewed the foundations of cities like Manchester, but we

decline. It renewed the foundations should not pretend we got every

thing right. Old problems were solved, but new problems emerged. In

some parts of the country, workless nurse took hold and we did not do

enough to stop that -- workless nests. As a local member of

Parliament, I know some parts of the north of England, we still have to

work hard to overcome long memories of people who thought we did not

work hard to overcome long memories care. Labour made the problem of

welfare dependency worse. By the time they left office, 5 million

people were on out of work benefits. What a waste of life and talent, a

generation of people recycled through the job centre, collecting

their dole cheques year in year out. No one seemed to notice. And opened

or immigration policy meant those No one seemed to notice. And opened

running the country did not care, because there was always an

uncontrolled supplier of low skilled labour from abroad. Well, never

again. We have capped benefits and our work programme is getting people

into jobs. We have cut immigration by a third. What about the long-term

unemployed? Let us pledge here that we will not abandon them, as

previous governments did. Today, I can tell you about a new approach we

are calling helped to work. The first time, all long-term unemployed

people who are capable of work will be required to do something in

return for their benefits and to help them find work. They will do

useful work, putting something back into their community, making meals

for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity. Others

for the elderly, clearing up litter, will be made to attend a job centre

every working day. For those with underlying problems like drug

addiction and illiteracy, there will be an intensive regime of support.

addiction and illiteracy, there will No one will be it gnawed or left

without help. But no one will get something for nothing. Help to work,

and return, work for the dole. A fair welfare system is fair to those

who need it and fair to those who pay for it, too.

? la economic plan, sound finance, backing aspiration, no one left

behind, invested in the future -- our economic plan is. I am

drivelling to China, and when you visit metropolises like there's it

is hard not to be in awe of the scale of what is happening there,

the ambition and the drive. -- I am travelling to China. Some people say

that China is the sweatshop of the world and we should not compete, but

China is also now a huge market for our exports and a home of

innovation. This is a huge challenge for our country. If we get it right,

it is the key to our future prosperity. This is what the debate

about living standards is really all about. I don't want to see other

nations pushing the frontiers of science and invention and commerce

and explain to my children, that science and invention and commerce

used to be our country. I don't want to look back and say that I was part

of a generation that gave up and that we are poorer as a result. I

of a generation that gave up and don't have to be. The other day I

went to meet the people building a car that will travel at 1000 miles

an hour and break the land speed record. It is not being built in

Boston by some huge American defence company, it is not being built in

Beijing by the Chinese government. It is called the Bloodhound, built

in Bristol by British engineers, British apprentices and British

companies. That is why I say we are in charge of our own destiny. In

this great Railway Hall, can you imagine the Nation of Islam barred

in being able imagine the Nation of Islam barred

in being able We are at our best when we are optimists. We are at our

best when we have faith that our country's better days lie not behind

us, but ahead. We have fought hard battles these last three years, held

our nerve when all around, people urged us to give in. And I want

people to look back at these years and say yes, these were years of

difficult cuts and sacrifice, but this was also the time when I bought

my first home, set up my business, when our country invested in the

things that matter for our future. These were the years when we laid

the sound economic foundations on which better living standards are

built, the sound foundations without which better living standards cannot

be built. This is the time for a serious plan for a grown-up

country. We are turning Britain around and we say to the people of

this nation, we rescued the economy together, we will recover together,

and together, we will share in the rewards, for the Sun has started to

rise above the hill and the future looks brighter than it did just a

few dark years ago. Thank you very much. STUDIO: George Osborne

finishes his annual address to the Tory party faithful. He spoke for

finishes his annual address to the just over 35 minutes is. He offered

a serious plan for a grown-up country. He reminded not just the

Labour Party, but the Liberal Democrats that the debt crisis was

not over. He slipped in a little attack on Vince Cable, and I guess

that is because Mr Cable attacked the Tories a couple of weeks ago.

Interestingly, he promised that in the good years of a Conservative

government they would run a surplus rather than a smaller deficit. We

will look at how that might work. At rather than a smaller deficit. We

the moment they predict deficits for as far as the eye will see, but he

said they will build the roof when the sun shone. He said he would

freeze Friel -- fuel duty for the rest of Parliament. I imagine that

will be good for the heavy transport industry. He unveiled his plan for

workfare for the long-term unemployed, which has already been

heavily trailed. He did not use the phrase workfare, but behind closed

heavily trailed. He did not use the doors or in the corridors of

Manchester, that is what ministers are referring to it as. And he had a

plug for High Speed 2. He gave no sign that, despite the lack of

enthusiasm from Labour and a lot of resistance on his own side, he still

called the high-speed train from London to Birmingham and then

further north a great work of engineering. Interestingly, he

didn't get a round of applause for that. Listening to that has been my

guest, Norman Fowler. What did you that. Listening to that has been my

make of it? The problem with all these speeches as they have been in

the paper for at least 24 hours beforehand. In our day, we did not

do it that way. So the response from the audience was that much greater.

If, for example, the workfare proposals had come out of a clear

blue sky, I think the audience would have been cheering. Why do they do

that? Search me, is the answer. They so often get it wrong, the people

who spin in advance. They get not particularly good headlines to begin

with, then when the announcement comes it is yesterday's news. What

do you make of the statement that he will run surpluses in the good

years? I think it is sensible. I think it was a good speech. He has

the great advantage of being a better speaker than most

chancellors. He needs a new joke writer. It is difficult in those

circumstances, in quite a serious speech about the economy, to bring

out the great Morecambe and Weiss jokes. It is not that easy to do. I

was not raising the bar anywhere near Morecambe and Wise, just to be

better. He said we have to stick up the task, that must be the message.

We are 15 months away from the election, how the party will be

judged as how they are in 15 months time, have we made progress and

would labour, frankly, ruin it? That will be the test. You think it was a

great delivery? You seemed quite hesitant. FI was being

supercritical, I would say he should have given more time at times, when

he got to the punch line, he should have delayed it a little. -- if I

was being supercritical. I think he is a fairly good speaker. The effect

of what people were saying... The affection of people for him as a

person has greatly increased. If David Cameron fell under a bus, you

would actually see him now as a successor. Really? Yellow. I think

so. I think he has become a much stronger and much easier to admire

character than he ever was before. Well, listening to Mr Osborne in our

Glasgow studio, is Labour's Treasury spokesperson, Cathy Jamieson.

Welcome. I guess whoever wins the next election, Labour or the

Conservatives or even a hung parliament, the long-term unemployed

are in for it? They will have to get out and do something? I think the

are in for it? They will have to get announcement today from George

Osborne was far less vicious than what Labour has already said. George

Osborne is talking about people having to turn up at the Jobcentres

or being forced to go out and prepare meals for the elderly etc,

we want to see people getting back into jobs. We have made it very

clear that we would have a jobs guarantee, people would have to take

jobs, if young people are out of work for a year or more, the

long-term unemployed for two years, they would be minimum wage jobs but

they would get help and support with the jobs search and some of the

issues around literacy and so on. It is not that different, really? I

think ours is far more ambitious than George Osborne has announced.

It was quite astonishing to hear him talking about getting the economy

back into surplus. In 2010 he promised he would have dealt with

back into surplus. In 2010 he the deficit by 2015, he seems to be

pushing that back into the next Parliament. I don't think his speech

today offered any hope for hard working people across the UK. You

are going to force the long-term unemployed to take a job, to provide

the job, it will be guaranteed for them. This doll is born is going to

force them to take a variety of things, but doing nothing is not an

option -- Mr Osborne is going to force them. What sanctions would you

have on the long-term unemployed if they refuse your force? The issue we

have put forward is that it would be compulsory. These would be jobs that

would be available for a period of six months, people would be obliged

to take them. What is the sanction if they don't? Similar sanctions in

terms of the benefits system. You would take away some of their

welfare? The differences we are actually offering jobs and people

are expected to take them because they would be proper jobs and

supported. What we have heard from George Osborne today is not anywhere

near as ambitious as what we have said we would do. What you both have

in common, correct me if I am wrong, is that if the long-term unemployed

don't do what you want, they will lose at least some of their welfare

payments, correct? The majority of people who have been out of work for

a lengthy period of time are desperate to get back into work. The

answer is that yes, there would be sanctions.

The sanctions would be withdrawal of welfare? Yes, but we would be

offering real jobs for a proper welfare? Yes, but we would be

wage, it is not just forcing people to do unpaid work for their

benefits, it isn't highly different and we think it is reasonable to

expect people to take that. -- it is highly different. I wanted to know

what the sanctions would be. If Labour gets into power and growth

returns to the economy and the economy is doing well, the way it

was in the middle of the last decade, would a Labour government

run surpluses? I think we would have to look at what is going to happen.

We don't know what the state of the can you will be. If it is going

well, would you run surpluses? In an ideal world, we want to see the

economy returning to that position. But this appears to be unfunded

promises. The announcement today on fuel duty fees, which seems to have

been shoehorned in at the last minute because it does not appear to

be funded, he can't see how he will pay for that and he will tell us

that some point. That does not fit with a responsible approach to the

economy. We are not making promises that we cannot guarantee we would

deliver, but we want to see growth continue. Everybody wants to see

that, but let me clarify. If the economy grows under labour for a

large number of years, as it did after 1997, under a Labour

government, would you run surpluses if growth continued? In an ideal

world, we would want to do that. Let's see what the position is,

world, we would want to do that. because we have no idea about the

state of the economy. I am not because we have no idea about the

asking you to run surpluses on year one, if you get four or five years,

would you run a surplus rather than a deficit? We want to be sure that

we can play some infrastructure. We did not hear much from George

Osborne about getting the investment for the jobs. He tries to talk a

good game, but today 's speech delivered far less than even I

expected. And I am sure that your expectations were not high!

Sorry, we have to move on. You know that we don't deal with history

much. But the Labour Party conference last week might as well

have been the War of the roses as far as we are concerned!

Tories in Manchester yesterday held a tribute to former Prime Minister,

Margaret Thatcher, who passed away. But can David Cameron match up to

her? Adam has been finding out. You can't move for tributes to the Iron

Lady, there is even a gift shop dedicated to her.

But who will Conservative Party members vote as the better leader,

Margaret Thatcher or David Cameron? What has she got? Guts and

determination. Could David Cameron do anything to swing your vote? No.

He messed it up on the gay vote for me. Will he have more of a legacy

than the Iron Lady? Probably not. With the Tories ever see the like of

her again? I hope so. Is there a potential Iron Lady in the Tory

ranks at the moment? I don't think so. Cameron is much more democratic

than Thatcher was. I would like to have two balls again, please. I

can't say no to Mrs Thatcher, but I have to say yes to David Cameron.

Most people my age don't know much about Thatcher. I am a fan. I have

seen every thing she has done on TV. Every clip she has done, I have seen

on YouTube. How do you think Mrs Thatcher would react if I thrust

these balls in her face? She would say, you naughty boy! The hall was

packed, there were people standing around the edges and there was an

excitement about politics. Today, that has gone. What is Cameron's

miners' strike? UKIP. In my opinion, someone has paid someone to put

balls in the Cameron box. Quite soon, the Thatcher one will be

overflowing. Then they will have to transfer some over to the Cameron

box. I see a bit of Margaret Thatcher fashion tribute going on

here. I looked like a granny, is that what you mean? No. Just one

more. I have noticed that there is a lot of Maggie memorabilia at this

conference. You were not taken by the Iron Lady ironing board cover?

Hello! No. Who is a stronger leader, Thatcher or Cameron? Both. It is an

Hello! No. Who is a stronger leader, either/or question, and as a

history, lots of people like someone else. I will go for Margaret

Thatcher, because she had balls. Who has got more balls, Thatcher or

Cameron? If David Cameron was here voting, he would vote for the person

I am going to vote for? Lady Thatcher, of course. Prime minister,

who has got more balls, you or Mrs Thatcher? Now, the prime minister

must have seen it as he swept through. The result of the mood box

is that Margaret Thatcher is more popular than he is.

We are now joined by the Conservative chairman, Grant

Shapps, from Manchester. Mr Osborne says that in the good years, he is

now going to run a surplus. But since you are projecting deficits as

far as the eye can see, it will be a long while before you get near a

surplus, isn't it? Well, it takes as long as it does determine the

economy ran from what we now know was the deepest recession this

country experiences the war. Twice as deep as that in America. That

shows how bad it was under the previous government. We are making

progress. We have cut a third off previous government. We are making

the deficit. He made clear that we are going to finish the job and then

make sure that when times are good, are going to finish the job and then

we are running a surplus so that this country can afford it when

there is another rainy day. So not before 2020? I don't know how long

there is another rainy day. So not it will take mobot you have already

seen the deficit reduced by a third. I hope we will have made more

seen the deficit reduced by a third. progress by the time we get to the

election in 2015. What was significant about today was that

George Osborne said that never again, will we have the same mistake

that Labour made of failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

Can we get a few corrections to what has been said? The prime minister

said yesterday on the BBC that 95% mortgages, which was what people

would get and your Help to Buy scheme, he said they were

commonplace. Can we get it on the record that that is not true? I can

tell you that mortgages went up to not just 100% of the value of the

property, but it went beyond. But they were not common. Actually, you

could often get a mortgage for 90%, sometimes 95%. Those mortgage rates

ran for decades without causing any difficulties. When it's beyond that

to 100% of the property, and you could borrow money not just to buy

your house but in addition, that was when it went wrong. We have

prevented that from happening by giving the bank of England more

power to stop it. The prime minister says people can't afford the

deposit, so you are going to help them with that because they can't

afford to service the mortgage. He is saying that they can afford to

pay for the mortgage interest rate at a time when interest rates are at

historic lows. They might not be able to continue to pay when

interest rates rise, and they will be servicing 95 cent of the value of

their home. At the moment, the market is oriented around 80 to 85%

loan to value. But you will allow them to go up to 95%. But that means

you need the most enormous deposit. It does not mean everyone will get

95%. The government will back people who want to get on the housing

ladder who are at the moment prevented because they don't have

ladder who are at the moment upto £60,000 as a deposit. You and

me, Andrew, and many watching this programme, we were able to get loan

to values of 95%. That has not been available to this generation, which

means that 35-year-olds, 37-year-olds are living at home with

mum and dad. We think people in this generation should get the same

opportunities as people in our generation. The only way you can

stop house prices going up with this government subsidy is if you build a

lot more, so why are housing starts under your coalition so poor? We

have had some of the toughest times this country has ever known. As you

know. Housing starts are now up. Not by much. In your first year, housing

starts were 109,000. In your second year, they were 110,000. In your

third year, they were 102,000. They are now running at a rate of

110,000, the same as when you came in. There has been no improvement.

But there will now be. When I was housing minister, there were lots of

factors which dictated building homes. Planning permission is one.

The second is the finance for people building the homes, and the third,

which was not dealt with until this pop lit -- policy, is making sure

people can get mortgages for those homes. The mortgage market was stuck

at only giving mortgages at a loan to value of 80%, and people were

having to get huge deposits together. That is why it was

impossible to provide housing at the speed that we needed it. The

pipeline suggests that there are now more starts that did not come

through in the figures you mention. On UKIP, if a Conservative

backbencher Eurosceptic decides to do a deal with UKIP at the next

election so that UKIP doesn't run against them, as party chairman,

what will you do? Our policy is of against them, as party chairman,

course to have a referendum on a reformed Europe in the next

Parliament by 2017. So all of our candidates will stand on the basis

that the Conservatives will give you a referendum. Secondly, we will run

candidates in all 650 constituencies, as we always do.

Thirdly, they will only ever be on the ballot paper as Conservative

candidates. What other parties do is their business. But if a sitting

Tory MP or an aspiring Tory MP does a deal to be a joint candidate with

UKIP, you will take them off the Tory approved list? Every person who

stands for this election in this country for a party has to be signed

off by that party to legally be the candidate. There will only be people

on the ballot paper described as Conservative candidates. But you

will disown any of your candidates who try to run with UKIP? Or I am

saying is that whether other parties stand is their business. We will

only run Conservative candidates. But if your MP is run as joint

candidates with UKIP, what will you do? How can they be joint if it just

says Conservative on the ballot paper? Whether other parties stand

is their business. They can only stand as Conservatives, signed off

by Conservatives. If Peter Bone does a deal with UKIP and runs as a joint

candidates, will he still be the Tory candidate? I don't understand

what you mean by joint candidate. You can only be the Conservative

candidate. Whether UKIP stand or not is their business. If people want to

have a referendum over Europe, I can't see any point in UKIP

standing. We are the people who will offer the referendum and David

Hamman is the only prime minister who will deliver on that. -- David

Cameron. Who is the Tory minister who lost all this weight at the

Cameron. Who is the Tory minister Austrian fat farm? Is that must be

Eric Pickles. No, it was Michael Gove. Maybe Mr pickles should have

been there, but Michael Gove lost two stone. That is it for today.

Thanks to all my guests. The one O'Clock News is starting on BBC

One. I will be here at noon tomorrow, our usual time, with more

from the Conservative conference from Manchester. James Landale will

be on BBC Two tonight with today at conference after Newsnight. Hope you

can join him and me tomorrow. Till then, bye-bye. Thanks for watching.