07/03/2013 Question Time

Tonight we are in the departure hall of the cruise terminal at the

port of Dover. But we are staying Good evening. On the panel, the

Conservative Cabinet minister, Ken Clarke. Labour's Shadow Education

Secretary, Stephen Twigg. The Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips.

The leader of the RMT union, Bob Crow. And the UKIP candidate to

beat the Tories in last week's Thank you. A wonderful sound of a

ferry just leaving the harbour as we start. Is it time we divide

Europe and closed our borders and say we are for? -- say we are for

We are trying to cut down the total number of immigration, but not from

inside Europe. 2 million people had been added to the population during

the term of the previous government, but they are largely coming from

around the world. We already got down the influx quite considerably.

Not by excluding, we don't want to exclude Tories, foreigners,

students, certainly not skilled people. But having sensible rules

and then applying them properly to a level we can afford. As far as

Europe, what we need to do is press on, the full advantage as out of a

single market. Really, the British are pressing the current drive for

reform to open up further, to extend further and make ourselves a

big block in world affairs. We have the biggest market in the world,

let's make it effective and extended to more things. You can't

have a single market without having the free movement of people.

can't say we are full, in other words? There are a vast number of

British people working in Europe. If we suddenly say to our partners,

we are not letting any foreigners come here. Of course, we expect to

have a lot of investment and trade. I think they'd think we've taken

leave of our senses. There are rules. People can come here to work,

skilled people are desirable. The Polish people came here and did

work. They claimed far less in benefit and the equivalent British

people would have done. So you have no hesitation saying, steady as we

go, it's fine. As long as they are rules. You can't just turn up

because you want Health Service treatment, you can't just come

because you want benefits. You do have to be looking for work. It's

partly because our administration has over the years been pretty

pathetic at enforcing those rules. We have perfectly good and sensible

rules. You can tidy them up a bit. They is a crisis we are in economic

Lee in the world, the British suddenly start saying they are

selected foreigners who we are not going to allowed to come here, or

we wish to trade more and more with friendly countries but no, we are

closing our borders to your people. I think we would make the situation

worse. Diane James, the Tories have got it dead right? I couldn't

disagree more. I believe you are spot on, and so does UKIP. In terms

of we have got to admit that enough is enough. We've got to close the

door on the open, and controlled immigration policy that the EU has

in place. Ken has made a whole series of points. I cannot see, and

ensured no EU country is suddenly going to say, just because we

introduce a policy, it would mean leaving the EU to be able to

achieve that, that they are suddenly going to throw out all of

the pensioners who have settled, who bring a very good income into

their countries, the vast number of highly skilled and professional

people that work in France and Germany. What we are concerned

about, and I am particularly concerned about, I can draw

numerous anecdotes from the campaign last week, is when you

undermine at the lowest level, as in young people wanting their first

job and wanting to then work through and aspire and achieve

ambition, when you undermine that then we have got a problem. That is

what the EU policy is allowing to happen at the moment. Is your view

that you couldn't get anywhere without leaving the EU? Is that

your point? Yes. I understand the policy that is being proposed, is

that there will be a necessity for someone to have one year's

residency in the UK if they were another European National, which

would then entitled them to NHS services, benefits and so on. I

wonder if the panel would like to comment on the possibility way you

have a large number of people who have been working in other European

countries, maybe for two or three years, maybe for four or more, who

are British nationals, returning to this country because the countries

they are working in are not very successful at this particular time,

Portugal, Spain and so on. When they come back, are they going to

be asked to qualify for benefits? Other woman in the second rd.

wanted to come back on Ken's point about allowing skilled workers into

the country. Isn't it time we Let me start with that, it's such

an important point. Week failed consistently under all governments

to get in a far our young people to get a high quality skills they need,

high quality apprenticeships. That's got to be a top priority. If

we get that right, we won't need as many highly skilled people from

other parts of the world. Will you be able to stop them coming in?

need a proper policy on that. To answer the actual question, I don't

think we need to close Borders. I do think we need policies that are

clearer and firmer than we have had. That's why Yvette Cooper has spoken

to date about acknowledging mistakes that Labour made when we

were in government. We did get some of this wrong, including a European

migration where other countries delayed bringing in the full rights

for people to move to those countries, we in 2004 didn't do

that. Be under estimated the number of people coming in. We got that

wrong and we acknowledge that. We now need a set of policies for the

future that doesn't close the door but introduces fairness into the

system. One of the ways to get fairness is to have benefits in

education. The other is about people being undercut in terms of

jobs. Employers that aren't paying the minimum wage. Employers that of

including accommodation costs in the minimum wage. That should not

be happening. That is why we are having people going out and

recruiting from other parts of the world and cutting out local workers

here. There are things we need to address, and we can do what about

closing of Borders entirely, which is neither realistic nor desirable.

To come to the ladies point, I'm a secondary school teacher and I

teach a lot of European immigrant children. The majority of them are

really hard-working students. Within a year or two most of them

are fluent in English. We were training our young people with

BTECs. The current education policy, with having to do EBaccs,

humanities and whatever else, it means we are not training a large

proportion of our students properly. We are not helping ourselves.

is your view on closing the shutters and saying that we are

full up? I like the ability that I can move to Europe if I wanted to

and work. If we are going to have people moving here and we accept

that, we have to put things in place to ensure they can be

functioning people within our society. And you on the left.

main concern in immigration is people come over her and the work

for three months, a company will get them in. They are only

contracted to back three months. Once they are finished they are

then out there and they claim benefits from that. That can bring

in another group of people to work. Then the people from the previous

three months, what are they doing in England? They are just claiming

benefits and don't go anywhere else. And there are too many people in

that category? Definitely. In Dover we have a lot of youth unemployment

any weight. We already have plenty of Eastern Europeans doing the same.

Do we need any more coming in from Bulgaria and Romania next year? We

need the youths that we have in this country to learn some skills,

even if they are low skilled, and get some low-skilled jobs. We

haven't got more low-skilled jobs for Eastern Europeans coming in.

answer to the question, we can't close the border because we belong

to a club, one of whose foundation no rules is open borders. If you

don't like the rules of the club, you have to get out of it. I

personally think, I'm very glad that at last we are having this

discussion because for a long time immigration was a taboo subject,

but the proposals that the government is making all suggesting

now caught in a kind of panic to pretend that they are dealing with

this problem, such as new rules of residency to qualify for Health

Service or benefits, I don't think that's going to work. Either the EU

itself is going to say, this is against our rules, or our own

courts are going to say, because of human rights, we can't discriminate

against people from abroad. I think we should come out of Europe, I've

always thought that, I didn't ever think we should go in. Because I

always thought this was a political project above all. Whatever the

economic benefits, and I don't think Britain has got many economic

benefits from Europe, I think the essence of a nation is that we

should be able to govern ourselves in accordance with our own needs.

One of which is to determine our own population number and our own

population's needs. We may want to bring in people from abroad. People

from abroad often add greatly to the value of the nation. But it

should be for us as a sovereign nation to decide what we need, how

many people we need to come in, what kind of people. This is a

proper debate for us to have. At the moment, we belong to wear club

which says, oh, no, you can't have that debate because you now belong

to wake club where there open borders and where these rules are

no longer yours to make. I think this is an anti-democratic position.

I think the European Union is an anti-democratic project. I believed

that Britain should reassert its Bob Crow. I want to distinguish

between the European Union and Europe will start my union's policy

is clear, to come out of the European Union. But we want to be

involved in Europe, working with other groups of workers who we

believe are our friends. My view, personally, is that your

nationality is purely an accident of birth. Were you were born is

your nationality. It wasn't too long ago, 45-50 years ago, that

London Transport was going out to the West Indies because there was a

shortage of labour for people working on London Underground and

London Transport. It's not an issue of what your nationality is. The

issue at the end of the day is that the European Union and not Europe

is anti-democratic and the reason why they are open in the borders to

allow Bulgarians, Romanians and Polish is a relevant. There are

people in this audience tonight who are probably Irish, maybe some of

their family of Polish. The reason we have opened the borders Up is

because the people coming to this country are economic migrants, who

are coming to this country looking for work. By version of the fact

they are coming into this country, they are lowering the rates and

conditions for those people who are working here. We should be

absolutely clear that the person wants to come to this country, why

are we saying to the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal that your

footballers can't come and play for you because they are immigrants?

They come here because they got a work permit. The simple thing to

say is if you want to come to this country, you have a work permit.

You couldn't go to Australia without a work permit. You couldn't

go to Cuba without a work permit. So why should people come to

Britain without a work permit? But at the end of the day, it's about

time we didn't wait for Cameron to be re-elected, to get a referendum.

We should have a referendum now to decide if we are going to be part

of the European Union or not. My Ken Clarke, what can you reply on

the point that people come here to keep wages low and therefore

undermine the working conditions of people already here? Where we have

a minimum wage, that should be stopped. The Europeans don't stop

us enforcing contracts and the minimum wage on anybody, whatever

nationality. You can't discriminate. When I go to Europe as a tourist or

doing my job, I take a little health card and I get offered

health treatment in whatever country amid on the same basis as

the locals. That is how it works. If you work in Europe as a British

person, if you stay there and -- you acquire rights to benefits. It

goes both ways. You can't say you will stop it without expecting them

to say, well, we will stop your people coming here. I congratulate

the two ladies. They took us on to skills training, apprenticeship,

motivating our young people. Together with capital investment,

that is the way to give jobs and stimulate our economy. At a time of

crisis, it is too easy for parties like UKIP to say we can solve youth

unemployment by stopping the Bulgarians coming here. If you

start voting for that kind of protest movement, you take your eye

off the ball. I would love to argue the merits of what we are doing. We

have a private sector that has created a million more jobs since

we came to power. We have thousands of Bulgarians here picking

vegetables and fruit. They come because you can't get British

people to do it. What have you done about manufacturing in this

country? You have shut down coal, steel and Fisheries and there is

not one kid that can leave school without an apprenticeship because

of the disastrous policy of yours. The man in blue? To answer the

question the gentleman said at the back, the question was about

whether the country is full. On our current trajectory, there will be

75 million of us on this little island. The immigration issue is

for populist cheap shots from UKIP. The real issue is that there are

too many people in this country now. If you live in the south-east, all

the roads are full, the trains are full. We are crowded. There are too

many people. Too many people coming and I agree. The birthrate is wrong,

you mean? The issue should not lapse into this populist politics

you get from UKIP. We need three more cities the size of Birmingham

by 2050. The woman on the right? Everybody keeps mentioning the word

workers, and Ken Clarke said that if we work in another European

country, we establish rights. I wonder how those benefits compare

to the benefits people get here which, within three months or so...

And the man at the front? When we talk about an in-out referendum, my

worry is whether people get the information they need. The same

facts are being tested by both parties in Scotland over their

referendum. When the Scots announce their referendum, David Cameron

said, why don't you get on with it? Now he is asking for a referendum

in four years' time. Let's move on. If you want to join

in tonight, there are two ways of doing it. You can go on put up or

text us. -- you can go on Twitter Mark Cheeseman. David Cameron

advocates austerity. Vince Cable suggests spending. Who is right?

Let's keep this one simple. We have the Budget coming up on the lines

are drawn. The issue is whether we should ease up a bit and get more

growth, or whether as Cameron says, we must stick as we are. There will

be no surprises with what some members of the panel say, let's

start with Stephen Twigg. Plan a clearly is not working. It is good

to hear Vince Cable saying that, although he has had to row back a

bit today. In 2012, the UK economy barely grow at all. We are not in a

good state. That needs to change. We need a boost to capital spending.

We have argued for a long time as part of the five point plan for

jobs and growth that we should bring forward investment in things

like schools and housing. We have a housing shortage and a lot of

schools that need refurbishment. There are parts of the country

without enough schools. We should employ construction workers and

employ people in the supply chain and create apprenticeships to give

a boost to the economy that is needed. What is it about Vince

Cable that you agree with? He has made that point and we have made

that point consistently. David Cameron's speech suggests that he

is not listening to concerns being raised by his own Cabinet colleague

and which are being shared now by the majority of the British people

who have seen that this plan is not creating jobs. What chance does the

Business Secretary have of his plan creating jobs? I'll would not bet

on it. David Cameron and George Osborne are determined to go down

this ideological road. They do not want to spend public money. But it

makes economic sense to do this to get the recovery we need. Melanie

Phillips. An ideological objection to spending more public money, that

is quite a formulation. This country is in extraordinary

difficulties because of its extraordinarily high level of debt.

We have lived far beyond our means for too long. So to say that we

should spend more is, on that basis, deeply irresponsible. Except that

Vince Cable says interest rates are low and it is a good time to borrow.

If you read Vince Cable's article in the New Statesman, it is hard to

see what he is saying, because it is a bit opaque. He does not say we

should be borrowing more. He says this is a difficult decision and

there are arguments on both sides. He says the question is whether the

Government should borrow more at current a very low interest rates

to finance more capital spending. Such a strategy does not undermine

the central objective of undermining the deficit. He says

that is an argument. By is not in favour of it? He implies he is in

favour of it, but that is a detail. Surely that is the substance of the

thing. Should the Chancellor listen to this? He should not listen to

Vince Cable. On the other hand, the government has not done what it

should be doing. It has topped up cuts as if we are living in a

tremendous age of austerity. In fact, it has not actually cut

spending. This is a complex matter, spending and growth. I think you

need to encourage people to personally spend. You need to cut

their taxes. We have a crippling amounts of green taxes which are

putting up the cost of fuel. In my view, the green agenda is a

complete green herring. So your Budget would be a tax-cutting

Budget? So it and taxes would be cut to make people feel more

wealthy. At the same time, I would cut spending. For example,

international aid is costing us some �12 billion a year. We are

spending more on international aid them on the police. I would close

down the department for international aid. That is

simplistic. We need a fairer tax system to tax the wealthy when the

gap between rich and poor has never been so wide. Bob growth. -- Bob

Crow, as a trade unionist looking at what the Budget might do, what

do you think of what Vince Cable has said? The Budget will be

whatever it has been for any Tory Chancellor, to look after the rich

at the expense of the poor. The word austerity has been used to

roll back all the gains working people have had since World War II,

attacking the National Health Service, attacking comprehensive

education. You have only got to see the figures this week. When

Thatcher was elected, she was giving council houses back for

people to buy so that people had the right to buy their house. Now

20% of council houses sold off under Thatcher are being run by

private landlords. People under the Conservative government have been

flocking houses to people who have nowhere else to live. If you look

at the policies of Labour, liberals and Tories, they all support

privatisation, they all support keeping the anti-trade union laws

in place and they all support illegal laws around the world. You

only get growth by getting more working people to have more money

in our pockets to start spending that money. Instead of talking

about tax cuts for the rich, they should raise the minimum wage for

those at the bottom who will then spend at that money and rejuvenate

the economy. The biggest thing is to get people back to work. We have

1 million builders on the dole, claiming social security and not

paying tax, and we have a shortage of social housing. Surely it is

time to get the builders back to work so that they pay tax, don't

draw social security and we give them homes to live in and we give

dignity and respect to builders and other people. In the Depression,

Henry Ford doubled wages for the workers because he understood that

if people had more money, they spent more money and the economy

grow. The disaster has been mass unemployment, for lower wages.

Britain is now one of the worst ranked wages in the world. We have

dropped about 40 it in the world compared to where we were eight

years ago. Ken Clarke, that is a hefty attack not just on Tory

governments, but the other parties as well. What do you make of Vince

Cable and what he said? And maybe comment on what Bob Crow said.

Firstly, David Cameron, Vince Cable, George Osborne and the rest of the

Cabinet are all agreed that we have to get the burden of debt down. It

distill the worst in Europe. We are still spending at a lunatic level.

We are not having to cut as fast as other countries because we have

more competence in getting it down. We were spending �5 for every �4 we

raised. One of the last act of the Labour government was to cut

capital spending by 25% because even they were getting worried

about the impact of the money we were spending in other areas. We

are now spending more on capital investment than the previous Labour

government. But Bob says you should spend more and get builders back to

work. We are trying to build a high-speed train, Bob, because

capital investment has to be of some economic value. We are

spending a lot. What are you giving too young people? 1,000,016 to 24-

year-olds on the dole. Unless you give them hope, they will wander

away. I agree, but it is a tragedy that we were handed a situation

where a young people, particularly those leaving school after the

credit crunch and the recession, are coming out and there was

nothing for them. The answer is not to reopen coalmines or put up

social security benefits and start spending money in all directions,

the answer is to create a modern, competitive economy for which our

young people are properly trained. What about the idea that Vince

Cable appeared to put an which Bob Crow seems to think is good as well

of using low interest rates to borrow and build housing? We are

concentrating on housing. The planning system has to be reformed.

The funding to lend scheme is restoring the mortgage market

rapidly. You must realise what a tragedy we took over. I am used to

succeeding Labour governments who left the place in a mess, but never

on this scale. Gordon Brown and New Labour were a catastrophe. All they

said was, let's spend a bit more money and let us borrow it.

It is keeping our flexible labour market. It's Margaret Thatcher's

labour market that means we are still creating jobs in the present

difficult market. It misses out the banking crisis and what have to be

done to rescue RE economy from the banking crisis. Forgive me if I'm

wrong, it was you... It was an international banking crisis. You

can't blame Gordon Brown for the American banking crisis. It was not

international at first, it was in Wall Street and the City of London.

You would have heard me denouncing the changes in regulation that your

lot were making. Creating the FSA. It was what I was saying. George

Osborne said we were over-regulated the banking sector. It was bad

regulation, pathetic regulation. Your government, when we had an

obvious credit boom which was followed by a terrible credit

crunch, did nothing about it. All you did was give knighthoods to the

most prosperous bankers. Let me go to the woman here and then I come

to you. Spain and Ireland are two countries in Europe which are awash

with empty houses. Whole villages, towns. Houses are not the cure all

of the problem that we have. The government is giving the banks so

much money that they pay savers and in particular pensioners an

absolute pittance. We are terrified to spend money. When migrants come

into England, we see them. We see them come in through this port,

which is the closest port to Europe. They bring everything with them. If

they are coming over to be self- employed and start a company, they

bring all their machinery, all their goods. They only employed

their own. There are companies here which only advertise in Eastern

Europe. They won't touch any body that already lives here. And the

wages are lower. Those Europeans that do work here, and it isn't

just Europeans, it is also the Asians, they are sending their

money home. They do not spend it in the UK. Unless we can have some

spending, we cannot grow. Diane James. The question, what appears

to be a split between David Cameron and Vince Cable and which way the

government should go now. I thought the first part of the question was

what we could expect from the Budget. I think we are going to get

more of the same. It comes down to the very brink of approach that

George Osborne has. Or you could say the very obstinate approach he

has. He seems absolutely focused, with David Cameron's support, of

going a single route. There appears to be no Plan B. He doesn't even be

able to contemplate a Plan B. That is much more worrying. I hear what

Ken says. How many times have you people and other friends and

relatives heard this refrain, well, you left us with a mess, Labour. We

are three years into way five-year government. To keep on laying the

blame at the previous government is The man at the back in the second

row. When our credit rating was downgraded, Moody's complemented

the government on the political will to think out the financial

crisis. To implement Vince Cable's ideas of Keynesian economics would

simply undermine that plan of austerity. They commented that the

deficit reduction, it was going at two slower pace. If you bring in

that kind of borrowing now, you will simply downgrade our rating

even more. Vince Cable a couple of weeks ago said it wasn't keen Xian.

You don't agree with Vince Cable on very much. I do, I do on

infrastructure spending. Could it be that neither party has got the

right solution? That what is needed is tax cuts for working people

rather than the wealthy. When this government came in, one of the

first things they did was raised a tax on consumption, be raised VAT.

Then they are going to cut corporation tax but they haven't

done anything about business rates, which destroys people who provide

several jobs and get landed with a bail. I'd like to ask anybody who

would answer that question because I don't know. There is going to be

a tax cut in April, and it's for millionaires. The government is

cutting the top rate of tax. At a time when we have austerity, a

rising gap between rich and poor, and yet the only people getting a

tax cut on millionaires. That has Let's stick with the current

political scene but take a topical question from Brian Haw. Relating

to what happened last week. Does the emergence of UKIP at the

Eastleigh by-election represent a danger to the Tories at the next

election? Is this a danger to the Tories? What they do about it? It's

no good asking you, Diane James, whether you think you are a danger

to the Tories because presumably you think you do. Bob Crow, what do

you think? There are Tories... The policies they promote of four big

business. As I said earlier, the policies of both New Labour,

liberals and UKIP are all ones of big business, keeping anti-trade

union laws in place, emasculating working people so they can't fight,

lowering pay. That's what you've had over 35-40 years of destroying

in the structure in this country. What's going to happen to UKIP?

That's not for me to save. I would say that the Tories should be

particularly concerned about UKIP because they are saying, in my view,

they are asking people, they should have a referendum now. Why should

they elected a government which has lost all sorts of credibility, and

at the end of that you will get a referendum? It's good enough for

the Spanish, Irish and other groups of people throughout Europe have a

say and Europe, why can't we have a referendum before we go into the

next general election? If I was the Tories, I'd be extremely concerned

about what damage UKIP is doing. UKIP are really poor excuse for a

political party. They just focus on the vulnerable people in society

and scaremonger them into getting their votes macro. I think they are

disgusting. Can I go back please... No, No. She thinks you are

disgusting. Why are you saying disgusting? You pray on vulnerable

people in society who feel they are going to be attacked by immigrants

coming into our country when there are a lot of positives immigrants

bring to our country. Let me go back to our policy on taxation.

Please answer her question. trying to get there. I don't think

we are in any... We have got a very, very good policy to encourage young

people into work. We also have been the only party to identify what is

undermining our economy at the moment and what is undermining the

employment prospects for young people. What you say is rubbish.

How are 4 million Bulgarians going to come to our country when they

only got a population of 7 million people - it's absurd! We didn't say

that. I read your party literature at Eastleigh. The way that figure

came about was a survey conducted in Bulgaria by the Bulgarian

government. They identified that 56 % of the respondents indicated they

would like to leave the country. Why did you use such unbalanced

data in your publications, when all it does is get people into voting

for you because they think they don't want migrants in the country?

The data was produced by the Bulgarian government. If you are

casting decisions about the quality of Bulgarian data, I can't comment.

We mealy sight of what was in the public domain and used that in a

correct and accurate fashion. an issue of whether you thought

they were all going to come or just a large percentage of Bulgarians

would rather be living here and in Bulgaria. The message from the

survey conducted there was that 56 %, and 56 % of the figures...

implication was they are all going to come. We drew the conclusion,

and it was from the Bulgarian government data, but that

proportion of the population wanted to leave that country. In terms of

the proportion of residents that have already left that country, a

Germany and a significant proportion are in the UK. We happen

to be, in terms of our benefits system and our entitlement system,

the most attractive destination in Europe. Just remember, if you are

rate Bulgarian or Romanian at the moment, you might be on a basic

weekly wage of a couple of hundred pounds. You will come here and

double that just in terms of your benefits. A very strong case for

saying that the controls are needed. It's really important we have a

proper and balanced debate about immigration. In the earlier

question we managed to do that. If we do go down a route of

scaremongering and taking a survey and then assuming that everyone who

says they'd rather live somewhere else is then going to come and live

here, that doesn't make a proper, balanced debate about immigration

or Europe. To answer the question, I think all of us in the main

established political parties have to recognise there is a lot of

voter disenchantment. The Tories slip to third place in Eastleigh,

it was a terrible result for them, but I don't think any of us can be

complacent. People are disillusioned with politics, they

want different answers from politicians. That's why all of us,

whichever party we are in, have got to engage with legitimate public

concerns, but the run immigration, jobs and the economy, the health

service, and I hope that that is what we can do. I respect that UKIP

is clearly a serious political party engaged in serious debate,

but I hope that they will not engage in some of the tactics that

we heard about earlier. Do you think they might let Labour through

by hurting the Tory vote in enough constituencies? I'm not going to

get into that kind of speculation. Some Labour people switch to UKIP,

Tories switch, Lib Dems switched. Lord Ashcroft did some interesting

polling about people voting in Eastleigh, where they might vote at

a future election. It's very hard to know. We've got to win back

people who switched away from us in 2005. A lot of them went to the Lib

Dems and the Tories, but some of them might be tempted to vote UKIP.

I completely agree with the lady at the back there. UKIP are just

picking up... Everyone is disenchanted with politicians.

Nobody believes that you are connected with society and that

needs to be addressed. But I think the scaremongering, there are a lot

of scared people out there. It's going to be a dangerous time come

the next election because parties like UKIP, who do say some

outrageous things, they are going to capitalise on it. Melanie

Phillips. In answer to the question, UKIP Auret danger to the Tories

because of the danger they will split the Tory vote. Mr Cameron has

made a tremendous lot for his own back because he scorned UKIP as a

party of, what was it, closet racists, blinis and fruit cakes.

Rather like we've been hearing from members of the audience this

evening. Since very large numbers of people who always used to vote

Conservative have the same kind of views about immigration, b e u,

human rights, traditional values of one kind or another, Mr Cameron

basically insulted his own core vote. He insulted the vast majority

of Conservatives. As a result, Conservatives have felt for years,

true Conservatives, first of all, toe to be disenfranchised because

they're so called Conservative Party had actually decided it had

become left wing in order to gain power. Not only did they become

disenfranchised, but they became subjected to the kind of insults

that we've heard from members of the audience. In which people who

have a perfectly reasonable point of view, that while immigrants are

going to add greatly to the value of the nation, there has got to be

a limit, you cannot have everyone coming in. There are genuinely

profound reasons why British people might want to retain democratic

control over their government rather than see a lid to the EU.

These are legitimate points of view. You may disagree, you are welcome

to disagree, but people scaremongering, racists,

disgusting... This is why... It is this vilification of the point of

view of ordinary, decent people in their millions which is what Mr

Cameron has managed to achieve. He's managed to tap his core

constituency, I don't want you on board because I think you are

disgusting. You backwoodsman, you Conservatives. I'm going to turn

this into not the Conservative Party. Look where it's got him, and

Melanie has assured me that I am now a Conservative Party that is

now more left wing. The use certainly are! I was a mainstream

But the idea that the current Conservative Party has swung to the

left is extreme. Even Bob Crow would agree with me. It is the most

remarkable thing I have ever heard. When we were joining the European

Union, it was the League of Empire loyalists that used to disrupt our

meetings and say we were letting foreigners in and betraying the

country. To go back to Eastleigh, when I was in the Thatcher

government, I used to do by- election specials. Night after

night, I never had a winner. No governing party has gained a seat

since the early 1980s. In Eastleigh, it was the first time a party of

the Government actually won and held its seat. We were not good at

that as Conservatives in the 1980s. The people of Eastleigh that did

not vote because of the Bulgarian hordes, they were discontented with

the political class because they think the parliament has mishandled

the things and they blame politicians for the present trouble.

But the scandals seem to be more Liberal Democrat scandals this time.

There is a sad case today of somebody fiddling his driving.. The

idea that that shows that Liberal Democrats are all not to be trusted

with their driving licences or vote Labour, they are better with their

driving speeding points, it is just a personal thing. Some of the

protests are just anti protests. A lot of the votes were from people

who had not voted at all recently. In Italy, they have Beppe Grillo.

And to be fair, if I had to have either Beppe Grillo or Nigel Farage,

I would take Nigel Farage. He is less of a clown. Diane James?

James certainly, but not Silvio Berlusconi. They had a total

rejection. But at the moment, UKIP, which only has policies which are a

bit nasty sometimes on Europe and immigration, they have no sensible

policy on any other subject, they are the things that make headlines,

they are capturing all the people who say "a plague on all your

houses". We must address that. We must show a strong, competent,

courageous government and get across to people that it will take

a long time to get a modern, competitive economy. We are

reforming the country and try to reform Europe so we stand up better

in the modern world against the new changes we have got. As for putting

UKIP in charge of the Syrian crisis... Why do you say that?

is not a governing party. They know what they are against, and they

don't know what they are for. agree with Melanie. I disagree with

two of the ladies who called people disgusting. It is a democracy and

everybody has got that choice. But Bob Crow is white. We need action

and less of the rhetoric. We need jobs for working people and better

pensions for working people. have only got an hour and we have

taken three-quarters of it. Let me get this question from Jennifer

Maidman, please. When even senior clergy admit that they cannot live

according to the religious dogma they promote, is it time for a

radical rethink of Church teachings on gender, sex and sexuality?

you catch that? The question refers, I suspect, to the troubles of the

Roman Catholic Church in Scotland with Cardinal De Bruyne, but also

with a whole lot of other scandals. When even senior clergy admit that

they cannot live according to the dogma they promote, is it time for

a rethink of Church teachings on gender, sex and sexuality? If the

question is referring to the difficulties of the Catholic Church

and Cardinal O'Brien and the many scandals in the Catholic Church

about paedophile priests, there is a fundamental problem that the

Catholic Church has, which is its repudiation of human sexuality and

its complete ban on married priests. Personally, I am not a Catholic, I

am a Jew. The Jewish religion puts an enormous priority on marriage

and children. But there is something very unnatural about

expecting human beings to live in a state of chastity, without wives

and children. While that can't be entirely explain the phenomenon of

paedophile priests, it is a significant part of it. It is a

crisis for the Catholic Church. I am not somebody who thinks that

churches have to run with the secular tide and adapt themselves

to changing social mores, because churches are different. There is no

reason why churches which could hear two religious precepts should

take on board what our social sexual attitudes are white. I would

defend a Church's White to have a Conservative point of view. But if

you deny human nature and you make it impossible to be a full human

being and you expect people to sublimate a natural state of

affairs, you are asking for trouble. For many years, the Church has

covered this up. What is shocking towards all is are not just that

this phenomenon is happening, but bad for so many years, it has been

covered up. Even today, it is being covered up. And with Cardinal

O'Brien, he was constantly attacking homosexuality as captives

of sexual aberration. Stephen Twigg. I am not religious, I was brought

up in a non-religious family, so I always tread with care when

questions like this come up, partly for some of the reasons Melanie has

given. Politicians of any faith have to tread with care. That said,

there is a mismatch between the things he was saying and the things

he was doing. That raises legitimate concerns for public

debate. Religions have an absolute right to have their own teachings.

However, in most religions, there is a debate about this. Whilst they

do not think there is an obligation to match some development of

secular thinking, in reality, religions are made up of their

followers, and those debates do happen. There is a debate among

Catholics, Anglicans, Christians and Jews and Muslims about a lot of

those questions. The more we can get to a position where those

within religious faiths who are arguing for principles of equality

and justice and proper human treatment, the better that will be

the society and the better that will be full religions. In this

country, we have an established religion, so I would like to see

the Church of England doing that by making progress in terms of women

bishops and the Church's attitude to gay men. Let me correct Melanie.

The Catholic Church does not stop married priests. In my parish, we

have a married priest and by and Catholic. There is a set of the

Catholic Church which does allow married priests. Get your facts

right. It is not just the Catholic Church which has had these problems.

It is important that we recognise that the Catholic Church is trying

to overcome the problems. In my parish, we have a very strong child

protection policy. Everyone who has any dealings with children or

vulnerable adults has to go through all the checks and is monitored. So

the Church is trying. There is something coming up now with the

conclave in Rome where, if the right person is appointed, we could

see quite a few changes in the church, and I hope we do. Bob Crow.

Personally, I am atheist myself. I respect people's religion and the

great work that religious people do. I couldn't care less if people were

in the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim faith. As long as it is a religion

of love, looking after their neighbour, and not doing harm. You

can't say because there have been a few bad eggs in one particular

religion that the whole religion is wrong. Are we saying because of the

Savile row that the whole BBC of wrong, or because of the phone

hacking row but all newspaper journalists are wrong? We should

respect people if they are religious, respect the work they do

and not pull them down for the vast number of people in the religious

work that be fantastic work on behalf of the community. The person

on the side? What makes it worse is that it seems to be the first

instinct of the cardinal and other people to deny it. And then in a

few days they say oh, actually, I did. Surely it would be better to

come clean straightaway and say sorry and put their hand up. It

makes them look so shallow if they deny everything and then in a few

days' time, because they think it is going to come out anyway, they

had better now say they did it. Diane Jones. I feel very sad to

both the Anglican and Catholic Church. There is this battleground

developing over and over again between the traditionalists and the

modernisers. I wish that battle was not under way. I wish the scandals

were not happening. When you put this in the context of declining

church numbers, it is not helping a key pillar, no matter what the

faith is, a key pillar of what holds a good society together. So I

just feel sad. I agree with the point you are making. Why did it

have to be drawn out in the way it was with the car at -- Catholic

cardinal in Scotland? I feel for him and anybody involved in this.

The battle is unnecessary and I would rather see something move on.

She only it is better to be honest. Ken Clarke? We are all torrent of

religions and everybody is entitled to choose how conservative or

Liberal they are on these things. I don't think one should lay it down.

All the great religions of have to decide how far they have religious

precepts and how far they must make sure they are not just stuck in

cultural norms acquired from some time ago and how far they should

change. The Catholics and Anglicans, with their problems over women

priests, and the Muslims do have problems over the role of women,

how much is God-given and what is just perhaps these attitudes that

we should not have. Even ultra Orthodox Jews would have a married

woman shave her hair off or put away gone. All those communities

are capable of having an intelligent discussion about what

their religion requires and what should be changed in the modern

world. Time is up, I'm afraid. We plan to be in Cardiff next week. We

have Francis Maude for the Tories on the panel, Chuka Umunna for

Labour and Theo Paphitis, the businessman. The week after, we

will be in York, the day after the Budget. To come on the programme,