:00:12. > :00:17.Why are we falling out of love with political parties. Once upon a time
:00:17. > :00:24.the Conservatives claimed to have two million members, now it is
:00:24. > :00:27.something like 134 thou,000. Here in the town Manchester, site of the
:00:27. > :00:31.Conservative Party Conference, we have once loyal party members who
:00:31. > :00:35.have now left, many of them for UKIP. Can the chairman of the
:00:35. > :00:41.charity persuade them they have made a terrible mistake? The Daily
:00:41. > :00:44.Mail savages Ed Miliband's father and refuses to retract. This paper
:00:44. > :00:50.is saying that he hated Britain. and refuses to retract. This paper
:00:50. > :00:55.And that is a lie. That is a lie. And I'm not willing to let it stand.
:00:55. > :01:00.We will be asking the deputy editor of the Daily Mail why they won't
:01:00. > :01:21.apologise for trashing a dead man's name. Why have we spent all day
:01:21. > :01:30.baking a fancy granary loaf? Oddly enough the most fierce
:01:30. > :01:34.conversations haven't happened here but between Ed Miliband and the
:01:34. > :01:39.Daily Mail. They claim he hated the church the army and wanted a
:01:39. > :01:43.revolution. The visible fury of the the Labour leader today, tested to
:01:43. > :01:49.the limit the old axe I don't know that all is fair in love, -- axion
:01:49. > :01:53.that all is fair in love, war and politics. There was no doubt it was
:01:53. > :01:56.a hatchet job, what Ed Miliband objects to was the fact it was
:01:56. > :02:01.directed at his dead father. The Daily Mail is having none of it and
:02:02. > :02:05.printed his rebuttal alongside an editorial saying it proved why
:02:05. > :02:13.politicians shouldn't be allowed anywhere near regulation of the
:02:13. > :02:17.press. We report. He will use this soapbox during the
:02:17. > :02:22.general election to get down and dirty with the voters. Last week on
:02:22. > :02:26.this box Ed Miliband said he wanted to bring back socialism. Will you
:02:26. > :02:31.bring back socialism? Well that's what we're doing, Sir. He got a
:02:31. > :02:36.taste of the campaign to come. Politics got even dirtier. At the
:02:36. > :02:43.weekend the Mail published an article about the Labour leader's
:02:43. > :02:47.father, "the man who hated Britain", he promoted Marxist dogma, and
:02:47. > :02:51.hated the skween, the church and the army. These were lies, Ed
:02:51. > :02:56.Miliband said, this morning the Daily Mail published his reply and
:02:56. > :02:57.reprinted their original piece, alongside an editorial justifying
:02:57. > :03:17.that article. Next the Labour leader took his
:03:17. > :03:25.dispute to the air waves. It saved his wife and this paper is saying
:03:25. > :03:29.that he hated Britain. That is a lie, that is a lie, I'm not willing
:03:29. > :03:32.to let it stand. The Prime Minister appeared to agree. If someone
:03:32. > :03:37.attacked my dad, who I think about a lot and I miss him every day, I
:03:37. > :03:41.would definitely rush in to print and defend him as best I could. Ed
:03:41. > :03:46.seems to be doing exactly the same thing. So very personal, yes, but
:03:46. > :03:52.about principles too. This is too dirty for a general election Labour
:03:52. > :03:55.thinks. One right-wing blogger sees more calculation. I think Ed knows
:03:55. > :04:00.that the Tory press is going to be gunning for him in the up to the
:04:00. > :04:02.election. This is a pre-emptive opportunistic fightback so that
:04:02. > :04:06.when this comes he's kind of put opportunistic fightback so that
:04:06. > :04:10.down a marker that the Tory press is being horrible to him and his
:04:10. > :04:13.family. There was another consideration, Ed Miliband has
:04:13. > :04:18.supported Lord Justice Leveson's plans to regulate the press. Today
:04:18. > :04:23.supporters of self-regulation said he should back off. My view is it
:04:23. > :04:27.is really important that newspapers are allowed to be pugnacious, and
:04:27. > :04:31.take politicians down a peg or two. Do you think the Mail had a point?
:04:31. > :04:35.It is really important for me not to pass judgment on any particular
:04:35. > :04:38.newspaper. In a way that would be a politician trying to teach an
:04:38. > :04:42.editor how to do his job. And there is a proper division between
:04:42. > :04:44.editors running newspapers and politicians running their parties
:04:44. > :04:49.or their Government departments. Ed Miliband said he wasn't trying to
:04:49. > :04:54.censor the Daily Mail as correct them? Look the Daily Mail publishes
:04:54. > :05:02.what it publishes. It is not about regulation. But it is about me you
:05:02. > :05:05.know using the platform I have as a son, really, to defend my father.
:05:05. > :05:08.And in the end the British public have to make a decision about what
:05:08. > :05:13.they think and whether they think it is fair or not for the Daily
:05:13. > :05:18.Mail to act in this way. My understanding is that team Ed
:05:19. > :05:22.Miliband did value the relationship with the Daily Mail, it had
:05:22. > :05:33.something called the three Ms strategy, the Metro, the Mirror and
:05:33. > :05:34.Skup the Mail, it is Daily Mail is a formidable opponent in a general
:05:34. > :05:40.election, as they have lost it. It a formidable opponent in a general
:05:40. > :05:44.is another defining moment for the Labour leader, but it is simpler
:05:44. > :05:50.than that, his family has already paid a high price for his political
:05:50. > :05:54.ambitions, his David is abroad, his father may only be with him in
:05:54. > :05:59.memory, but that memory is defended. Blood is thicker than ink.
:05:59. > :06:01.We are in London with the deputy editor of the Daily Mail and
:06:01. > :06:05.Alastair Campbell. We have the deputy editor with me,
:06:05. > :06:09.and joining us from Nottingham Alastair Campbell in a moment.
:06:09. > :06:14.Thank you for coming in. Your paper wrote and you restate today that
:06:14. > :06:16.raffle Miliband, who fought for this country -- Ralph Miliband, who
:06:16. > :06:20.fought for this country in the this country -- Ralph Miliband, who
:06:20. > :06:24.Second World War hated Britain, how can you claim that? It is simple,
:06:24. > :06:29.we examined Ralph Miliband's views as they were put forward in his
:06:29. > :06:34.writings. His diaries, his book, his speeches. Those views conveyed
:06:34. > :06:42.an impression of what he thought about Britain. Which is very anti-
:06:42. > :06:46.path theyic to the views of a -- anti-pathetic to the views of the
:06:46. > :06:49.British people. We thought it was right to put the views in the paper.
:06:49. > :06:53.What do you mean by that, he hated Britain and had an evil legacy you
:06:53. > :06:57.said. He was a man who served in the Navy, who couldn't serve fast
:06:58. > :07:03.enough, who offered his life and raised his son here was evil? We
:07:03. > :07:09.didn't say he was evil. You said an evil legacy? I'm sure his service
:07:09. > :07:18.in the Navy was cred ditable, we have not attacked that. We stated
:07:18. > :07:22.his views. What did he say that he hated Britain? He was not a brieft
:07:22. > :07:26.individual, he was a public man, he was an academic, political activist
:07:26. > :07:30.and author. His views were spread widely. His views on British
:07:30. > :07:34.institutions from our schools to our Royal Family to our military,
:07:34. > :07:38.to our universities, to the church, our great universities. He never
:07:38. > :07:44.said he hated Christians? What he said was he felt that all of those
:07:44. > :07:48.things were bad aspects, were unfortunate aspects of British life.
:07:48. > :07:52.That meant he hated Britain? If you take those things together and you
:07:52. > :07:57.combine them with his espousing of a Marxist ideology that, in our
:07:57. > :08:01.view, represented someone who hated British values. In your view.
:08:01. > :08:06.Analysing British politics is not hating your country, surely? We
:08:06. > :08:10.felt and we think we produced evidence to support it that he
:08:10. > :08:14.hated British values. And that his views on many areas were anti-
:08:14. > :08:18.pathetic to British values. If you go beyond the views that he had put
:08:18. > :08:21.forward in those writings that I have mentioned, there is no
:08:21. > :08:24.question that his political point of view was...What Other values he
:08:24. > :08:27.hated then? You can have disdain of view was...What Other values he
:08:27. > :08:32.for a lot of things, you can question a lot of things, surely
:08:32. > :08:36.that is the free speech that your paper so espouses? I wouldn't
:08:36. > :08:41.dispute or argue with anyone's right to question things. What did
:08:41. > :08:47.he hate then? If you take together his views as put forward on all of
:08:47. > :08:51.those institutions, cumulatively they represented a substantial
:08:51. > :08:54.dislike of those institutions and disapproval of them. Furthermore
:08:54. > :09:00.his perspective politically was very much that of a Marxist, he was
:09:00. > :09:04.a supporter of Marxist ideology, he was a supporter of the Marxist
:09:04. > :09:08.ideology that was being used to run Governments in other parts of the
:09:08. > :09:10.continent and other parts of Europe. Which was responsible for an awful
:09:10. > :09:15.lot of terrible, terrible things, Which was responsible for an awful
:09:15. > :09:23.including millions and millions of deaths. So was the point of this
:09:23. > :09:29.article that your paper implies now that Ed Miliband hates Britain and
:09:29. > :09:32.that he is a rabid Marxist or communist? It is certainly not the
:09:32. > :09:36.point of our article to say that Ed Miliband hates Britain. The point
:09:36. > :09:39.of the article was very straight forward, Ed Miliband seeks to be
:09:39. > :09:44.Prime Minister of this country, he has made many speeches over the
:09:44. > :09:49.three years since he became Labour leader, and in many of those
:09:49. > :09:52.speeches he refers to the story of his parents, it is an important
:09:52. > :09:56.part of understanding who Ed Miliband is, the back story of his
:09:56. > :09:59.refugee and immigrant parents and the difficulties they had when they
:09:59. > :10:03.came here and the values they stood for, and how those values shaped
:10:03. > :10:07.him when he was a young man when he was growing up, just as they shaped
:10:07. > :10:11.his brother. If you are to understand Ed Miliband, who has
:10:11. > :10:14.told us he wants to bring back socialism to modern Britain then
:10:14. > :10:19.you need to understand the values that shaped him. Parents are
:10:19. > :10:29.important, I'm wondering if the current Viscount Rothermere who
:10:29. > :10:32.owns your paper is tainted by the article his great grandfather wrote
:10:32. > :10:34.in praise of British fascists? I don't think so. I don't think it is
:10:34. > :10:38.relevant to bring up a piece from don't think so. I don't think it is
:10:38. > :10:43.80 years ago that was written by a member of the family. Let's go to
:10:43. > :10:48.Alastair Campbell who has joined us from Nottingham? Can you hear us?
:10:48. > :10:52.Yes I can, I thought this was going to be a debate not a pathetic
:10:52. > :10:58.ramble from John reading out the lines written for him by Paul Daker.
:10:58. > :11:01.Can I say first of all you said the Mail is a formidable opponent. It
:11:02. > :11:08.is not because it is run by a bully and a coward, and like most cowards
:11:08. > :11:11.he's a hypocrite as well. Paul Daker hasn't the guts himself to
:11:11. > :11:16.come on a programme to defend something I know John knows is not
:11:16. > :11:21.defensible. When he talks about Rothemere and what his relatives
:11:21. > :11:25.wrote about Hitler, the sole bit they relied upon for this piece is
:11:25. > :11:28.something Ed Miliband's dad wrote in his diary when he was 17. What
:11:28. > :11:32.you have to understand about the Daily Mail it is the worst of
:11:32. > :11:36.British values posing as the best. When Ed Miliband went out today he
:11:36. > :11:40.went out and demanded a right of reply and spoke as he did today, he
:11:40. > :11:42.did that and I'm glad that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have
:11:42. > :11:46.supported him in what he did. He did it because he actually believes
:11:46. > :11:50.in genuine political debate and genuine freedom of speech. These
:11:50. > :11:56.people do not believe in genuine debate. If you do not conform to
:11:56. > :12:01.Paul Daker's narrow twisted view of the world, as all of his employees
:12:01. > :12:04.like John has to do you get done in. I say to all the politicians in
:12:04. > :12:06.Britain once you accept you are dealing with a bully and a coward
:12:06. > :12:09.Britain once you accept you are you have absolutely nothing to fear
:12:09. > :12:14.from them. You can start where you want, bully, coward with the worst
:12:15. > :12:20.kind of values? You use those words quoting Alastair, "bully, coward".
:12:20. > :12:26.I'm not a coward, where is Paul Daker and why have you been put up.
:12:26. > :12:31.Where is he, is he on his 50,000 acre Scottish estate? The reality
:12:31. > :12:34.Alastair is that Ed Miliband puts himself forward to be Prime
:12:34. > :12:38.Minister of this country. He puts himself forward on a socialist
:12:38. > :12:42.platform, he makes very clear that the values he grew up with were the
:12:42. > :12:46.values of his parents. He said in his speech today his dad wouldn't
:12:46. > :12:49.support his views, he said that in his speech the other day, he said
:12:49. > :12:52.his dad wouldn't support some of his views today. There are many of
:12:52. > :12:56.his views that his father would have supported and indeed as we
:12:56. > :12:59.know from Damian McBride's book last week, his decision to stand
:12:59. > :13:05.against his brother had much to do with following through in his
:13:05. > :13:11.father's legacy. Do you believe, do you believe, not Paul Daker who has
:13:11. > :13:15.told you what to say tonight. Do you believe that Ed Miliband's dad
:13:15. > :13:19.hated Britain, and do you think it was justified to use a picture of
:13:19. > :13:24.Ralph Miliband's grave in your coverage, answer the question, yes
:13:24. > :13:29.or no, do you believe that? As I have said to you Alastair our piece
:13:29. > :13:32.was based on an examination of Ralph Miliband...Do You support
:13:32. > :13:37.that headline, did Ralph Miliband hate Britain, answer the question?
:13:37. > :13:41.If you would allow me to finish. The two specific point, the
:13:41. > :13:46.headline said the man who haitd Britain, and you had the picture of
:13:46. > :13:49.a gravestone. On the headline it is a well established principle of all
:13:49. > :13:53.journalism, which Alastair may remember from the distant days when
:13:53. > :13:55.he was part of it that the headline and piece should be read in
:13:55. > :13:59.conjunction with each other. If you read that headline in conjunction
:13:59. > :14:02.with the piece which quotes extensively. You are not defending
:14:02. > :14:07.the headline. I am completely. You are embarrassed by Daker and you
:14:07. > :14:14.and your colleagues are embarred by him, Rothemere is looking for you
:14:14. > :14:18.to be successor and you are wriggling now. It was justified and
:14:18. > :14:22.appropriate for the piece. That is why we gave the right of reply. You
:14:22. > :14:27.are being very reason, you hope you get the job when it comes up. You
:14:27. > :14:31.asked about the gravestone, that did not appear on the paper. It was
:14:31. > :14:35.on-line, do you defend the picture. It didn't appear in the paper. Did
:14:35. > :14:39.you defend its use on-line? If you would let me get a word out. It is
:14:39. > :14:44.a straight question, answer it. The picture on-line was a picture of a
:14:44. > :14:47.tombstone and said "grave socialist". It appeared on the
:14:47. > :14:50.website it may be that the publication of that on the website
:14:50. > :14:53.was an error of judgment. When Ed Miliband made a complaint about
:14:53. > :14:57.that on Saturday evening, in fact he spoke to me personally. I know
:14:57. > :15:04.he did. I personally arranged for that picture to be removed. Why not
:15:04. > :15:09.say to my question yes. I think it was error of judgment. Now back to
:15:09. > :15:14.the headline, do you justify the headline, did Ralph Miliband hate
:15:14. > :15:20.Britain? I think it is justified. Having fought for Britain in the
:15:20. > :15:24.war did Ralph Miliband hate Britain? Ralph Miliband's values.
:15:24. > :15:29.You don't support your editor you won't answer the question. You
:15:29. > :15:33.don't support it. His views from anti-pathetic to many people's
:15:33. > :15:39.views in this country. You spoke to Ed Miliband, did Paul Daker speak
:15:39. > :15:43.to him? He as up on the estate hunting and shooting. I spoke to Ed
:15:43. > :15:46.Miliband on Saturday. What did you say to him when he expressed his
:15:46. > :15:51.disdain for the article? I listened to what he said, I didn't agree
:15:51. > :15:55.with him but said we would consider his request for a right of replie.
:15:55. > :16:00.And we granted that in Tuesday's paper. Did you speak about the
:16:00. > :16:04.headline? It wasn't that kind of conversation. No is the answer to
:16:04. > :16:08.that. You weren't listening in. I have a fair idea what went on. The
:16:08. > :16:11.conversation was Ed Miliband raising his complaints, me
:16:11. > :16:14.listening to them calmly and considering his request for right
:16:14. > :16:17.of reply, discussing with colleagues and granting that.
:16:17. > :16:22.Tomorrow you are publishing four pages of character assassination of
:16:22. > :16:27.Ed Miliband because Daker, who you know is losing the plot and
:16:27. > :16:30.Rothemere knows he's losing the plot can't bring himself to accept
:16:30. > :16:34.that he has made a terrible mistake, that your newspaper readers, who
:16:34. > :16:36.kind of go along with the very commercial success that you have
:16:36. > :16:40.got actually now will begin to see what I have known for a very long
:16:40. > :16:45.time that you are the worst of British values posing as the best.
:16:45. > :16:48.And Paul Daker is a poison in our national life, I'm glad at last we
:16:48. > :16:50.are debating him, I hope next time that he has the guts to come and
:16:50. > :16:54.are debating him, I hope next time defend himself and not put you
:16:54. > :16:57.there. First of all in relation to what we are publishing tomorrow,
:16:57. > :16:59.there is no character assassination of anybody tomorrow, there is a
:16:59. > :17:02.news story on what happened today. There is a selection of quotes from
:17:02. > :17:06.people who have been speaking in the media today and there is a
:17:06. > :17:10.background feature about what was happening under the Stalinist
:17:10. > :17:15.regime in Russia during the 40s and 50s. That is factual reporting.
:17:15. > :17:22.What about Hitler? I bow to nobody in my reference for your expertise
:17:22. > :17:26.on the -- reverence of your expertise in spreading poison, you
:17:26. > :17:30.have been doing that since the 1990s. This is the man from the
:17:30. > :17:32.Mirror and knows about character assassination, you must know what
:17:33. > :17:35.it is like to play politics with newspapers? No I have just been at
:17:35. > :17:39.the Tory Party conference, you will find a lot of Tories up there who
:17:39. > :17:41.will remember, I was a journalist on the Daily Mirror I respected
:17:41. > :17:46.politics and politicians, when I worked for the Labour Government
:17:46. > :17:50.and the Labour Party we had to put up with lies from people like this
:17:50. > :17:55.day after day after day. One of the things I argued about with Tony
:17:55. > :17:59.Blair is when we used to publish a daily rebuttal of smears called
:17:59. > :18:02.Mail Watch and Tony was got at by ministers and stopped it. I hope Ed
:18:02. > :18:05.Miliband goes back to it, the public needs to know the truth. The
:18:05. > :18:08.real spin doctors are the journalist, the real poison comes
:18:08. > :18:12.from people like Daker, a coward and bully, and doesn't have the
:18:12. > :18:17.guts to defend himself against anybody, as soon as he is gone from
:18:17. > :18:20.British public life the better. You are defending everything your paper
:18:20. > :18:23.has published so far? I am defending it completely. You have
:18:23. > :18:27.no idea what I believe. I know you are in line for the job, I hope you
:18:27. > :18:31.get it, you are more reasonable than the sociopath. The idea that
:18:31. > :18:36.you as Tony Blair's spin doctor respected politics is laughable.
:18:36. > :18:43.You may laugh but the world will laugh at Mr Paul Daker. Back to
:18:43. > :18:46.Jeremy in Manchester. Welcome back to Manchester.
:18:46. > :18:50.Tomorrow afternoon when the Prime Minister finshes his speech here at
:18:50. > :18:53.the Conservative conference it will end. Labour and the Lib Dems have
:18:53. > :18:58.already headed home with their hangovers and party nick-nack, it
:18:58. > :19:03.has been an oddly passionless conference season this year, maybe
:19:03. > :19:06.it is partly the effect of fixed term parliaments. It is also
:19:06. > :19:11.undeniable that these things are more and more of a minority pursuit,
:19:11. > :19:15.fewer and fewer of husband want to belong to mainstream politic -- us
:19:15. > :19:21.want to belong to mainstream political parties. The chairman of
:19:21. > :19:27.the Conservative Party will explain it all away in a few minutes, but
:19:27. > :19:32.first here is David Grossman explains.
:19:32. > :19:35."One day like this a year will see me right" the song goes, but the
:19:35. > :19:40.Conservatives will need more than that to see them right. The cosy
:19:40. > :19:44.tea shop OK co-s happier times in the 50s when millions of Britains
:19:44. > :19:51.were active part members. These days perhaps another stand has the
:19:51. > :19:55.better visual metaphor. Shock blaifrd -- delivered, provide chest
:19:55. > :19:58.compressions and rescue breath. The British heart foundation is showing
:19:58. > :20:03.how the latest equipment and a little training can make all the
:20:03. > :20:07.difference. The question is are the parties now beyond resuscitation as
:20:07. > :20:10.mass political movements. The fact is when you come to party
:20:10. > :20:14.conferences like this one, the majority of people here aren't
:20:14. > :20:21.party activists as all. They are lobbyists, exhibitors and yes,
:20:21. > :20:25.journalists. Signing copies of his biography of Margaret Thatcher is
:20:25. > :20:28.Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, he knows more
:20:28. > :20:31.than most the mind of the Conservative supporter, but his
:20:31. > :20:35.comments though apply, he says, to all the parties. It is about the
:20:35. > :20:42.nature of the relationship between the party member and the people who
:20:42. > :20:47.run it, which is now very dislocated. Now parties are run by
:20:47. > :20:50.people who are a professional gang of politicians who don't have deep
:20:50. > :20:55.roots in communities over the country. There is not much interest
:20:55. > :21:00.for the members. It is not ticks off OK it is gay marriage and
:21:00. > :21:03.Europe, what you need is a mass movement that comes up from the
:21:03. > :21:08.base and emanates outwards. You see that in lots of other walks of life
:21:08. > :21:12.because of the strength of the internet which allows those things
:21:12. > :21:16.to grow. Political parties are so top-down in their attitudes they
:21:16. > :21:19.don't know what to do with that. Just putting party politics
:21:19. > :21:23.aside...And The Conservatives say that many of the volunteers who
:21:23. > :21:27.help with call banks like this one aren't actually party members, just
:21:27. > :21:31.supporters. It would be a bit odd, a senior minister told me, if we
:21:31. > :21:34.demanded £25 subscription from one a senior minister told me, if we
:21:34. > :21:38.before we would let them campaign for us. That points to another
:21:38. > :21:43.problem, party finance, where they get their cash from? Each of the
:21:43. > :21:47.parties has had its own funding scandals. As the mass membership
:21:47. > :21:51.subscription has disappeared, they went rattling the tin in front of
:21:51. > :21:55.rich donors, who, let's just say, some of them wanted something back
:21:55. > :22:02.in return. The publicity and scrutiny led many donors to close
:22:02. > :22:05.their chequebooks. Now the parties are struggling not only for members
:22:05. > :22:10.but finance as well. They fear that come election time their candidates
:22:11. > :22:15.could be easy pickings for single- ish epressure groups that are well-
:22:15. > :22:20.funded and well-organised. The response from the coalition has to
:22:20. > :22:23.be introduce legislation that ifed would severely restrict how much
:22:24. > :22:31.non-party groups can spend come election time. The Countryside
:22:31. > :22:37.Alliance is campaigning on rural broadband. It is one of a huge
:22:37. > :22:41.array of pressure groups from all across the spectrum worried about
:22:41. > :22:45.the new law. Do you think organisations like yours have
:22:45. > :22:48.rather taken over from political parties? It is an interesting
:22:48. > :22:52.question and not least, for instance our membership is 100,000,
:22:52. > :22:57.I think the Conservatives are talking about a membership of
:22:57. > :23:00.130,000 now, it is a probably thing that in the next few years we
:23:00. > :23:05.willened up having more members than the Conservative Party. So I
:23:05. > :23:08.think to a certain extent organisations like ourselves and
:23:08. > :23:13.others who have even more support do have an awful lot of influence.
:23:13. > :23:16.But of course none of us want to get involved in politics in the
:23:16. > :23:19.day-to-day sense. The last thing we want to be doing is standing as
:23:19. > :23:25.political candidates. The parties are now looking to do without
:23:25. > :23:30.either mass memberships or rich donors by advocating more state
:23:30. > :23:33.funding. According to Charles Moor, a better way forward is to accept a
:23:33. > :23:37.looser kind of party affiliation. Suppose you had a sort of internet
:23:37. > :23:43.party membership that only cost you a pound a year or something like
:23:43. > :23:46.that. If you tried to build the membership you might get somewhere,
:23:46. > :23:50.pretty much the opposite has happened. Therefore political
:23:50. > :23:54.parties have become more like a sort of almost run by clever people
:23:54. > :23:58.at the top, rather than emerging from the general wishes of hundreds
:23:58. > :24:05.of thousands of people. That make them more cut off. The music hasn't
:24:05. > :24:11.stopped for political parties, but they are all struggling with the
:24:11. > :24:16.reality of fewer, older and less engaged members.
:24:16. > :24:22.You may have forgotten about the bread that we mentioned a little
:24:22. > :24:27.earlier in the programme. It is here. A jolly fine loaf it looks
:24:28. > :24:30.too. Why you might wonder? The answer, because the Prime Minister
:24:30. > :24:35.this morning admitted he doesn't know the price of a loaf of bread
:24:35. > :24:41.because he prefers to bake his own. Specifically with Cotswold malted
:24:41. > :24:44.crunch flour. This was too good a metaphor for a desperate producer
:24:45. > :24:50.to ignore, we baked a loaf and brought it here along with some
:24:50. > :24:55.more humble examples from a nearby supermarket. Our question, which of
:24:55. > :25:00.these loaves better represents the modern Conservative Party. Take
:25:00. > :25:05.this metaphor of loaves and let us know. Which ones will I choose from.
:25:05. > :25:08.The cheap or posh bread? I think the truth about party membership is
:25:08. > :25:12.that the world has changed and people don't join political parties
:25:12. > :25:16.in quite the same way. If I was in your shoes and chairman of a party
:25:16. > :25:20.and you lost 100,000 members in eight years I would be a bit
:25:20. > :25:24.depressed? Let me correct the facts. It is worth on record I would love
:25:24. > :25:29.the membership to be higher, of course I would. Secondly the
:25:29. > :25:35.comparison membership, based on the same measures everyone else looks
:25:35. > :25:40.at memberships it gives us 174,000 members. By fiddling the figures
:25:40. > :25:44.you get more? 174,000 is the audited figure I published. I'm a
:25:45. > :25:49.making the point it is comparative to other parties. The point Charles
:25:49. > :25:51.Moore he was making at the end that people should support in different
:25:51. > :26:01.ways is increase league important. Just this week we have set up if
:26:01. > :26:03.you text the word "support" to 8100 you give a pound. That is a good
:26:03. > :26:08.way people are engaging. Why are you give a pound. That is a good
:26:08. > :26:14.people going? I think the world has changed a lot nowadays. A simple
:26:14. > :26:18.example, in my last election I got a large, the largest majority that
:26:18. > :26:21.has been seen in that particular political seat for any party. We
:26:21. > :26:25.are probably the smallest membership that has been seen and
:26:25. > :26:27.we have no branches and traditional struck stuer. Things have
:26:27. > :26:31.we have no branches and traditional but it doesn't mean -- structure.
:26:31. > :26:36.Things have changed but it doesn't mean members aren't engaged. What
:26:36. > :26:41.is the average age of your members? Younger now. And the party
:26:41. > :26:45.generally. It is said to be 68? The Bow Group wouldn't have access to
:26:45. > :26:49.those numbers and I don't know the answer to myself. Shouldn't you?
:26:49. > :26:52.Let me get one answer at the time, specifically you are doing an
:26:52. > :26:55.Alastair Campbell. That is a low blow. I know, I know. But look the
:26:55. > :26:58.Alastair Campbell. That is a low truth is that people ep gauge with
:26:58. > :27:01.the party in lots of different -- engage with the party in lots of
:27:01. > :27:06.different ways. Going back ten years. Let me get the one answer
:27:06. > :27:14.out. Wouldn't have engaged with us, 200,000 people for example by
:27:14. > :27:18.Facebook. And yet every day people do that. We have hundreds of
:27:18. > :27:23.thousand of people requested and we, mail them on our e-mail list. That
:27:23. > :27:28.is contact we would never have been before. And tens of thousands of
:27:28. > :27:31.people donating via text and other methods, the world has changed. How
:27:31. > :27:35.many people have left the party here? Why did you leave? I felt the
:27:35. > :27:40.Conservative Party had become out- of-touch with me, my family and
:27:40. > :27:44.those people in the community in of their policies the people and their
:27:44. > :27:48.politics. Specifically? Education, I was a great believer, I was born
:27:48. > :27:52.and grew up in Moss Side, not far from here. I went to a Grammar
:27:52. > :27:56.School, effectively, and the Conservative Party don't support
:27:56. > :28:01.that. Let's have another view or two about why you left? I left
:28:01. > :28:05.because of tax actually, I'm a local councillor, I was elected as
:28:05. > :28:09.a Conservative and my fellow Conservatives we all stood on a
:28:09. > :28:12.platform of not raising tax. The first thing they did as soon as the
:28:12. > :28:16.cuts came down from Government was raise tax. I felt I could no longer
:28:16. > :28:21.support a party that didn't really put into action what it stood for.
:28:21. > :28:26.One more before you reply, anyone else, you want to have a go with
:28:26. > :28:30.the beard, good thing too? Thank you for standing up for beard-
:28:30. > :28:34.lovers. Mine was more of a long- term drift. I fell out of love with
:28:34. > :28:39.the party, even whilst I was a member in 2007/09 and campaigning
:28:39. > :28:41.as I was on a regular basis and seeing how the Shadow Cabinet
:28:41. > :28:45.weren't really as passionate as members were. They weren't fully
:28:45. > :28:49.engaged until the very last mip. It was a good campaign when -- minute.
:28:49. > :28:53.It was a good campaign in 2010 but it was too late, they all had other
:28:53. > :28:56.jobs. When it came to constituencies we were campaigning
:28:56. > :29:02.on they never shared our passion. All the points are relevant but
:29:02. > :29:07.really there is a disconnect. Charles Moore made a point there is
:29:07. > :29:11.a disconnect between the party elite and membership. Deal with
:29:11. > :29:15.that? You get a lot of single issue campaigns, it doesn't matter if it
:29:15. > :29:18.is the countryside or a specific issue people are passionate about.
:29:18. > :29:22.People like to follow that on their own. What happens now is we will
:29:22. > :29:27.set up a micro cam pain, we are concerned about the way that there
:29:27. > :29:34.is easy access for internet for the children, it is difficult for
:29:34. > :29:36.parents and people know how to regulate. It is something the
:29:36. > :29:39.Conservative Party is concerned about it, we were able to set up a
:29:39. > :29:44.campaign specifically on that issue. We had a lot of parents, mums dads
:29:44. > :29:48.join that campaign who would probably never join a political
:29:48. > :29:50.party so a political party has to change and campaign on the issues
:29:50. > :29:55.that actually matter to people and often they are one-off things. Is
:29:55. > :30:00.there anyone who has just recently joined the party? You tell us why
:30:00. > :30:06.you joined? I joined because it was the party that represents my values
:30:06. > :30:10.and I believe what grant was -- Grant was saying about the
:30:10. > :30:16.membership changing is true. I'm chair of Hertfordshire's County and
:30:16. > :30:21.we have a great Conservative future membership, of the 134,000 figure
:30:21. > :30:27.18thois are under 40, future Conservative members. How come you
:30:27. > :30:29.know that, or the chairman doesn't? Those figures are within the
:30:29. > :30:34.know that, or the chairman doesn't? 174,000 figure that you didn't want
:30:34. > :30:41.me to talk about. You sir in the second row? I'm not a recent joiner
:30:41. > :30:45.in fact, but I would like to let my CF colleague I will represent them.
:30:45. > :30:49.I'm going through the election process at the moment for local
:30:49. > :30:52.authority candidacy in 2015, I believe it is young people, I have
:30:52. > :30:57.said to the association chair on Saturday that it would be CF that
:30:57. > :31:03.would be coming out for me largely. What would be coming out for you?
:31:03. > :31:09.Conservative Future. I see. I have interests in LGBT Tory as well, but
:31:09. > :31:15.that is a different issue. To come back we have an organisation which
:31:15. > :31:21.I support which is LGBT Tory which is single issue LGBT equality. We
:31:21. > :31:24.were great supporters when the same-sex marriage act was passed, I
:31:24. > :31:26.think it is things like that. We will come to that in a moment or
:31:26. > :31:31.think it is things like that. We two. What does he get for his £25?
:31:31. > :31:35.I made the point, it was me disclosed cabinet minister who said
:31:35. > :31:39.that comment to David Grossman earlier. I think the days when a
:31:39. > :31:45.political party says to you, we won't accept your support until you
:31:45. > :31:49.give us £25 are long since gone. I will give you one simple answer.
:31:49. > :31:52.What do they get for £25? This is what you get, you get to vote for
:31:52. > :31:56.the leader when the leadership comes up. You get to vote for who
:31:56. > :32:00.becomes your. That is about every ten years you get a vote. Sure, I'm
:32:00. > :32:03.not arguing against that. You get to vote for the selection of your
:32:03. > :32:07.member, that could be a long time. That might be every 20 years? You
:32:07. > :32:09.get to vote for a selection of councils that happens regularly. If
:32:09. > :32:15.people want to get involved there are other ways to get involved
:32:15. > :32:20.other than give £25. I have set up Team 2015, today we celebrated our
:32:20. > :32:23.3,000th member. These are people who campaign in places that really
:32:24. > :32:29.matter. And they pay £25? They don't, if they want to pay they can.
:32:29. > :32:34.We don't ask for their money but their help. Their blood, sweat and
:32:34. > :32:38.toil, people can join up at Conservatives.com by the way. There
:32:38. > :32:43.are some members you are glad you have lost? No. Not every one? I
:32:43. > :32:48.don't know every one personal low, I don't want to lose members of the
:32:48. > :32:57.party. Every Party Chairman would want that. Not even the swivel-eyed
:32:57. > :33:04.loans. You have -- loons. No. You have never met them? No. Supposed
:33:04. > :33:08.you were to come across a swivel- eyed loon, you might well conclude
:33:08. > :33:12.that it was a God thing that David Cameron didn't listen to the party?
:33:12. > :33:18.I'm a Party Chairman and I want to see the membership grow, I'm
:33:18. > :33:21.confident by the next election that 174,000 and 134 if you let me
:33:21. > :33:25.include the 18,000 young people. That figure will grow and we have
:33:25. > :33:27.taken an important step for the party, which is to be completely
:33:27. > :33:31.open and transparent about membership and publish it, and it
:33:31. > :33:33.allows competition between the different areas of the party to
:33:33. > :33:38.increase it. For hard working people out there, who believe the
:33:38. > :33:42.future of this country is greater, we are sitting in this incredible
:33:42. > :33:45.Manchester Town Hall, a confident age when it was built, we believe
:33:45. > :33:50.there is a confident future for this country. If you are out there
:33:50. > :33:54.and watching you belong in the Conservative Party. Go to
:33:54. > :33:57.Conservatives.com and join. The depth of the Conservative identity
:33:57. > :34:03.Conservatives.com and join. The crisis be can be measured over the
:34:03. > :34:05.confusion in the party over unquestionables. If they stood for
:34:05. > :34:10.everything, they are surely the party of the family. Whilst there
:34:10. > :34:17.may be a family in Britain that may not be dysfuntional, there are
:34:17. > :34:21.certainly no two ideale ka. What constitutes a sensible family
:34:21. > :34:24.policy in 2015 is a source of friction in the party. This is what
:34:25. > :34:28.David Cameron said this week. Marriage is a great institution and
:34:28. > :34:31.helps to build a good and strong society. It is right to back
:34:31. > :34:35.marriage properly in the income tax system. Most other advanced
:34:35. > :34:39.industrial countries do it and we should do it too. I'm proud to be
:34:39. > :34:42.delivering on a promise I made in our manifesto. Critics would say
:34:42. > :34:45.you are not helping the people who need to be helped though, they
:34:45. > :34:49.might be single parents because the partner has left or died, why are
:34:49. > :34:54.you helping those people who are in a stable marriage? We are helping
:34:54. > :34:57.all families. We have cut taxes for 25 million working people. We have
:34:57. > :35:02.put in place measures so you don't pay tax on your first £10,000 of
:35:02. > :35:06.income. We are helping people with the costs of childcare. Marriage is
:35:06. > :35:08.a good institution, other countries recognise marriage properly in the
:35:08. > :35:09.a good institution, other countries tax system, that is what we are
:35:09. > :35:15.doing too. Now we have been joined by two
:35:15. > :35:19.further guests, Laura Perrin is from Mothers At Home Matter, and a
:35:19. > :35:24.critic of the policy, and Joe an from Mothers At Home Matter, and a
:35:24. > :35:28.Cash was a candidate at the election and also part of a
:35:28. > :35:32.feminist Campaign Group. Do you feel that this Government
:35:32. > :35:38.represents you? No I don't. And I have been deeply disappointed with
:35:38. > :35:42.them. I think a classic policy that those how out-of-touch this
:35:42. > :35:46.Government is, is when a cabinet, some of whom is full of
:35:46. > :35:52.millionaires come and take child benefit from middle income earners
:35:52. > :35:58.on £60,000 and replace it with a childcare allowance worth £1200 to
:35:58. > :36:03.some families earning up to £300,000, then they bring in the
:36:03. > :36:09.transferable tax allowance worth £200 to families on £40,000. They
:36:09. > :36:13.make those changes with deeply insulting language, implying that
:36:13. > :36:17.single earner families are not hard working or aspirational, and if you
:36:17. > :36:23.choose to care for your child at home that is a lifestyle choice.
:36:23. > :36:27.That is why there are many statistic at home moms and their
:36:27. > :36:30.families deeply disillusioned with the party. Do you get this? I
:36:30. > :36:33.understand that people have different perspectives on things. I
:36:33. > :36:38.think there has come a time when we need to work more collaberatively
:36:38. > :36:42.together. As a society as well as political parties. There is a lot
:36:42. > :36:47.of disenchantment out there isn't there? Certainly our members, on my
:36:47. > :36:51.Facebook group at home and they just feel that there is nobody in
:36:51. > :36:55.their corner. We respect each choice that a family make, but the
:36:55. > :36:58.Conservative Party should be about personal responsibility and liberty,
:36:58. > :37:02.and to be leaving it to the families to decide how they care
:37:02. > :37:07.for their child, either at home, or by both parties going out to work
:37:07. > :37:10.or a mixture of the two. What current coalition policy does is
:37:10. > :37:15.dictate to families how they should care for their children. They don't
:37:15. > :37:18.view single-earner families as hard working families. They have never
:37:18. > :37:22.referred to them as hard-working families. It is deeply insulting to
:37:22. > :37:31.imply that caring for children at home isn't a job worthy of respect.
:37:31. > :37:34.There are different perspectives on this. Some families don't have
:37:34. > :37:38.choices, they don't have the luxury of choices. It is those families
:37:38. > :37:45.that I would be particularly concerned to speak for. Which is
:37:45. > :37:49.why I lobby for the Fawcett Society on behalf of all women for a fairer
:37:49. > :37:53.society that benefits men, women and families. I think it is
:37:53. > :37:56.understandable when people find themselves in a situation where
:37:56. > :38:00.they feel their choices are being judged. But they have the luxury of
:38:01. > :38:05.making choices, some people don't. It is those people we need to work
:38:05. > :38:10.towards. There has been allowance given towards childcare...How Does
:38:10. > :38:14.the party of family value get itself into this pickle? Grant will
:38:14. > :38:17.have to answer that he's the Party Chairman. It is a fascinating
:38:17. > :38:21.discussion, I don't agree it is a pickle at all. Very simply and not
:38:21. > :38:25.mentioned, we have just this week said we will have transferable tax
:38:25. > :38:28.allowance for married couples, in other words recognise marriage in
:38:28. > :38:31.the tax system, that is something that would help somebody who was
:38:31. > :38:37.potentionally at home. Has anyone here exercised by the Conservative
:38:37. > :38:42.Party and family values? I actually resigned from the Conservative
:38:42. > :38:50.Party because I believe that they were actually going back on the
:38:50. > :38:52.coronation oath in doing their same-sex marriage business. The
:38:52. > :38:57.coronation oath said that all laws same-sex marriage business. The
:38:57. > :39:01.in this country made by the Queen and parliament should be in
:39:01. > :39:06.accordance with the teaching of the Christian faith. Same-sex marriage
:39:06. > :39:10.is not in accordance of the Christian faith. Who else is
:39:10. > :39:14.concerned about gay marriage? I have been a member of the
:39:14. > :39:20.Conservative Party for 50 years, and as Grant said, I have given
:39:20. > :39:25.blood, sweat and toil, but I resigned in February because of the
:39:25. > :39:30.same-sex marriage. Is anyone else concerned about it? It wasn't even
:39:30. > :39:34.part of the manifesto, this is what is galling. It was just introduced
:39:34. > :39:38.at the last minute. It was a free vote in parliament, every MP is
:39:38. > :39:42.able to make up their minds on it and vote independently, by the way
:39:42. > :39:47.there was absolutely no pressure on it. We know how your leadership
:39:47. > :39:53.felt about it? People were allowed their views on it, I don't think
:39:53. > :39:59.any of it is incompatible with having values and strong family
:39:59. > :40:03.values. The tax break being able to transfer tax allowances between
:40:03. > :40:09.husband and wife and married couple applies to any marriage. Is anyone
:40:09. > :40:14.in favour of gay marriage? I happen to be the national chairman of
:40:14. > :40:20.Conservative Future the aforementioned youth wing of the
:40:20. > :40:23.party. A huge amount of our members believe that love and commitment
:40:23. > :40:28.doesn't believe it matters whether a man and a man or woman and a
:40:28. > :40:33.woman love each other, and it should be expressed in the tax
:40:33. > :40:40.system. The church expressed a concern about being involved and it
:40:40. > :40:47.has been he can cemented. Does it - - He can cemented. Does it bother
:40:47. > :40:51.you? We were neutral. It does frustrate when you hear a
:40:51. > :40:54.Government talking about equality and unfairness and they treat
:40:54. > :40:57.others who want to care for children at home in a deeply unfair
:40:57. > :41:00.manner. You don't have a policy children at home in a deeply unfair
:41:00. > :41:06.towards single income families, what you said earlier is exactly
:41:06. > :41:14.why people are so exercised about how you treat -- exorsised about
:41:14. > :41:18.how you treat stay at home moms, as if it is a luxury. A lot of our
:41:18. > :41:22.members make serious sacrifices to care for their children at home.
:41:22. > :41:26.They are not people healthy in any way. And as I said they are making
:41:26. > :41:29.serious sacrifices to care for those children, they are not taking
:41:29. > :41:32.foreign holidays. You have other people like George Osborne coming
:41:32. > :41:36.along and telling you it is a lifestyle choice, or indeed people
:41:36. > :41:42.like yourself saying it is a luxury. It is not. I don't think that is
:41:42. > :41:47.what I was saying. I think. You did suggest it was a choice? I said
:41:47. > :41:53.there are people who don't have that choice. By implication there
:41:53. > :41:56.are many people who do? Many people can't chose to be at home with
:41:56. > :41:59.their children because they can't make ends meet and they have to
:41:59. > :42:02.work. I'm not talking about the luxury of any kind when I talk
:42:03. > :42:06.about those people. Those people I would like to see this Government,
:42:06. > :42:11.this coalition Government doing a lot more to support single mothers
:42:11. > :42:14.who have to go out to work. Families who cannot make ends meet.
:42:14. > :42:20.who have to go out to work. Let's by all means let's gesture
:42:20. > :42:23.towards commitment and show we believe in stable families and
:42:23. > :42:27.units in all shapes and sizes and do more to help people who can't
:42:27. > :42:31.make ends meet. This is not just about a group of mums who stay at
:42:31. > :42:36.home to work. Stay at home to look after their children, of whom I am
:42:36. > :42:40.one, by the way. It is also about the families who don't have the
:42:40. > :42:47.opportunity to make that choice. I'm going to have to cut you off.
:42:47. > :42:49.We are getting to the talk here this week and for the last couple
:42:50. > :42:53.of weeks at other political this week and for the last couple
:42:53. > :42:56.gatherings about what Governments ought to do rings rather hollow
:42:56. > :42:59.when you look across the Atlantic and see what has happened to much
:42:59. > :43:04.of the Government there. No-one blinked last night in the stare
:43:04. > :43:07.down between Democrat and Republican legislator, result? Much
:43:07. > :43:12.of the machinery of Government simply shut down today. Here is
:43:12. > :43:17.what President Obama had to say. The shutdown is not about deficits
:43:17. > :43:21.or budgets, this shutdown is about rolling back our efforts to provide
:43:21. > :43:27.health insurance to folks who don't have it. It is all about rolling
:43:27. > :43:31.back the Affordable Care Act. This more than anything else seems to be
:43:31. > :43:36.what the Republican Party stands for these days. I know it is
:43:36. > :43:41.strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centre
:43:41. > :43:45.piece of their agenda. But that apparently is what it is. And of
:43:45. > :43:49.course what is stranger still is that shutting down our Government
:43:49. > :43:57.doesn't accomplish their stated goal. We have a speechwriter for
:43:57. > :44:00.Geroge Bush but now a critic of the direction the Republican Party
:44:00. > :44:04.seems to be headed. What has gone wrong with the system when a
:44:04. > :44:10.Government can't operate? What has gone wrong here is a strategic
:44:10. > :44:17.mistake. Republicans are opposed to the Obamacare proposal, I am, the
:44:17. > :44:21.sway you repeal it is by having an alternative and winning elections
:44:21. > :44:25.and having a platform. Because Republicans aren't successful the
:44:25. > :44:28.party is frustrated and you have this intense passionate gesture but
:44:28. > :44:34.it is one that will be almost impossible for Republicans to win.
:44:34. > :44:37.Very likely, it is like that scene in Animal House when it is said
:44:37. > :44:44."there comes a time in everyone's in Animal House when it is said
:44:45. > :44:48.life when for a futile gesture" that is where we are now. I want to
:44:48. > :44:52.explore the way the right is breaking up here and in the states
:44:52. > :44:55.in a moment or two. How can you think this will be resolved? Your
:44:55. > :44:59.right is doing great, I don't know what you are talking about. Say
:44:59. > :45:02.that to some of these guys who have left the party? In Britain the
:45:02. > :45:05.that to some of these guys who have Conservatives are preparing to, are
:45:05. > :45:09.not shutting down the Government, they are preparing to have a second
:45:09. > :45:14.term in Government. That is the way it should be, they are developing
:45:14. > :45:25.policies and winning peculiarities, and maybe a bigger one next --
:45:25. > :45:28.plurality and maybe more in the next time the Republican Party
:45:28. > :45:32.aren't winning these gestures and they have these policies that don't
:45:32. > :45:36.work politically. How will it be resolved? With Republicans blinking
:45:36. > :45:40.some time over the next week. We have a much more important deadline
:45:40. > :45:44.coming up in the middle of October, around 17th of October, the debt
:45:44. > :45:47.ceiling, what is not well understood outside the United
:45:47. > :45:50.States is there are two different event. The shutdown of the
:45:50. > :45:54.Government as annoying and irritating and silly as it is, it
:45:54. > :45:59.has happened 17-times over the past 20 years it is the Government
:45:59. > :46:03.running past its budget debt line, it is the debt ceiling which is the
:46:03. > :46:09.end of the world scenario that comes in a couple of weeks. Will
:46:09. > :46:12.there be an end to the world? Everyone understands, they are
:46:12. > :46:15.playing with live ammunition at the moment, then they are playing with
:46:15. > :46:20.live nuclear bombs, people don't do that. The legislators getting paid?
:46:20. > :46:25.That is under the constitution, yes, and juplgs are paid. About 800,000
:46:25. > :46:32.people are if you are lowed, and many are in -- furlowed, and many
:46:32. > :46:35.of those are in Virginia, there is a governor's race there, neck and
:46:35. > :46:38.neck between Democrats and Republican, part of the price will
:46:38. > :46:44.neck between Democrats and be the loss of governorship in the
:46:44. > :46:49.important purple state will be lost to the Republican candidate. You
:46:49. > :46:55.are over here to see the Conservatives? I'm a big fan. This
:46:55. > :46:59.part has not only lost a lot of members, it has also got a
:46:59. > :47:04.political challenge in the shape of UKIP. What do you make of the
:47:04. > :47:07.nature of the right? When the parties lost memberships, you are
:47:07. > :47:10.dealing with disaffiliation from all institutions, the boy Scouts
:47:10. > :47:15.have lost members, the Roman Catholic Church has lost members,
:47:15. > :47:17.clubs and societies of every kind. We are not a joining generation in
:47:17. > :47:21.clubs and societies of every kind. the way that the post-war gin
:47:21. > :47:28.rations were. That is just a general -- generations were. That
:47:28. > :47:30.is just a general phenomenon of post-industrial societies. My
:47:30. > :47:34.advice on UKIP is the conditions are concerned about the loss of
:47:34. > :47:40.votes to the right, don't trade one vote to the right for three votes
:47:40. > :47:44.to the sent. Would you explain that I would say the Conservatives need
:47:44. > :47:48.to deal with the issues. Ukip is dealing with important issues on
:47:48. > :47:53.Europe and the economic crisis, it is important to address those
:47:53. > :47:56.issues, don't be distracted by intensifying your base which is
:47:56. > :48:01.widening the coalition. The tea party is an example what not to do.
:48:01. > :48:05.The experience in Canada is an experience of what to do. The
:48:05. > :48:08.Conservatives widened their base in canned gau practised a politics of
:48:08. > :48:12.inclusion that made the Conservatives in Canada a truly
:48:12. > :48:18.multiethnic party. That is the future, not chasing culturally
:48:18. > :48:22.conservative elements. We leave you with the work of medical engineers
:48:23. > :48:27.from the rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, who say they have
:48:27. > :48:30.created the world's first prosthetic leg whose movement can
:48:30. > :48:49.be controlled directly from the brain like a normal limb.
:48:49. > :48:54.# Daily walking # Close to thee
:48:54. > :48:56.# Just a closer walk with you # Let it be
:48:56. > :48:57.# Dear Lord # Let it be