Conference Special Daily Politics

Conference Special

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Conference Special. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.




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.


Download Subtitles