:00:04. > :00:14.Tonight, we're in Birmingham. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:14. > :00:20.As ever, a big welcome to you at home, and a welcome to our audience
:00:20. > :00:22.here who are going to be putting the questions which, of course, our
:00:22. > :00:26.panel don't know until they hear them from the lips of our audience.
:00:26. > :00:31.The Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, is with us; Labour's
:00:31. > :00:35.shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the leader of the Liberal
:00:35. > :00:40.Democrats in Wales, Kirsty Williams; the political director of the
:00:40. > :00:46.website Huffington Post UK, Mehdi Hasan; and the political sketch
:00:46. > :00:50.writer for the Daily Mail, Quentin Letts.
:00:50. > :01:01.APPLAUSE Thanks very much. Let's get
:01:01. > :01:05.cracking. A question from Alison Swayne to start with. Is stopping
:01:05. > :01:11.benefits for young people really the best way of getting them into work,
:01:11. > :01:14.education, or training? This is David Cameron's speech and the
:01:14. > :01:20.proposal that, in the next manifesto, everyone under 25 earning
:01:20. > :01:23.or learning, not doing nothing. Yvette Cooper? I think we do need to
:01:23. > :01:27.get young people into jobs and Yvette Cooper? I think we do need to
:01:27. > :01:31.something has to be done. The government should be doing something
:01:31. > :01:34.about unemployment among the under-25s. We've seen youth
:01:34. > :01:38.unemployment go up to around one million, and long-term youth
:01:38. > :01:42.unemployment has gone up by a third just since the election. Something
:01:42. > :01:47.does have to be done, but this announcement we have had seems to be
:01:47. > :01:50.policy-making on-the-hoof. It seems to be very confused. The real answer
:01:50. > :01:56.is to get people into jobs, that's what we would do, that's what Labour
:01:56. > :01:59.would do: guarantee young people a job. If they can't find an
:01:59. > :02:04.alternative or take up a guaranteed job that we would give and fund for
:02:04. > :02:09.them, then, yes, they - How do you guarantee someone a job? How can you
:02:09. > :02:13.possibly guarantee someone a job? Of course we can. We would raise a fund
:02:14. > :02:19.from the tax on bankers' bonuses, we've said how we would work on it,
:02:19. > :02:23.and we've done it before through things like the Futures Job fund.
:02:23. > :02:26.You make sure there's a job to go to. There are employers who will
:02:26. > :02:32.always take on anybody who comes to them under the age of 25? We've done
:02:32. > :02:38.this before - With 100 per cent success. The Futures Job Fund - even
:02:38. > :02:41.the department of work and pensions said it was successful. You could
:02:41. > :02:45.work with the private sector, work with businesses across the country.
:02:45. > :02:46.Guarantee people a job, if they don't take it, there will be
:02:46. > :02:48.Guarantee people a job, if they responsibilities on people. They
:02:48. > :02:53.actually have to take that job and you can't have people thenning stuck
:02:53. > :02:57.on on benefits for a long time. So you would stop their benefits? You
:02:57. > :03:00.would have penalties. But you guarantee people a job. The problem
:03:00. > :03:03.I have with what the government is doing is there is no effort to
:03:03. > :03:07.guarantee people a job. There is no effort to make sure there is a job
:03:07. > :03:10.for people to go to; they can't answer the basic questions about
:03:10. > :03:15.whether this withdrawal of benefits will apply to care levers who don't
:03:15. > :03:19.have a home to go back to, whether it will apply to a graduate who has
:03:19. > :03:23.worked for several years and then loses their job, will they suddenly
:03:23. > :03:27.lose everything? Does it apply to people looking after children,
:03:27. > :03:31.parents of children? We had muddled answers from them. It could be
:03:31. > :03:35.completely counterproductive, and to be doing this in such a chaotic way
:03:35. > :03:38.doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Can you guarantee people a
:03:38. > :03:42.job? That's what we should be doing: getting those people into work and
:03:42. > :03:48.not having another lost generation. APPLAUSE
:03:48. > :03:52.Thank you very much I have to say we had more questions on this topic
:03:52. > :03:56.tonight than on anything else. Grant Shapps, the Prime Minister said we
:03:56. > :03:59.should ask as we write our next manifesto, and the implication was
:03:59. > :04:04.this was going to become policy. Is that right? Yes, what we are saying
:04:04. > :04:07.is if you're currently working, the chances are - and you're under 25,
:04:07. > :04:14.the chances are you're struggling to move out of home. You won't be able
:04:14. > :04:17.to get the deposit together all our help-to-buy scheme will help.
:04:17. > :04:20.There's a strange paradox if you're not working, then the system will
:04:20. > :04:25.give you Housing Benefit to enable you to go and rent that flat. That
:04:25. > :04:28.can't be right that you're put at a disadvantage by not working, and
:04:28. > :04:29.this measure is aimed at both sorting that out and also making
:04:29. > :04:32.sure that people are able to get on sorting that out and also making
:04:32. > :04:36.to the work ladder straightaway either earning or learning from a
:04:36. > :04:39.young age because all the evidence shows that when people do that, they
:04:39. > :04:42.have much better outcomes throughout the rest of their lives. How are you
:04:42. > :04:44.going to get people into a job? We're going to have - we have got
:04:44. > :04:48.going to get people into a job? the work programme. Which isn't
:04:49. > :04:54.working. It it has worked twice - I am giving you the facts. The Work
:04:54. > :04:58.Programme has worked twice as well as the Flexible New Deal that it
:04:58. > :05:01.replaced. It has got a lot of people into jobs for the first time. If,
:05:01. > :05:04.after three years, people still are not in jobs, we don't think it's
:05:04. > :05:08.good enough to leave people on the scrap-heap, say sorry, we're not
:05:08. > :05:12.interested in you any more. We're interested in them. We're going to
:05:12. > :05:16.do one of three things: ask them to come to the Job Centre every day so
:05:16. > :05:18.they are properly engaged with the jobs market, will help them to get
:05:18. > :05:21.there if transport is the issue, make sure they're looking for a job
:05:21. > :05:26.every day. We're going to help out if there are long-term issues, if it
:05:26. > :05:32.is a problem of literacy that is preventing someone from getting a
:05:32. > :05:35.job, we will - You waited for three years before you give people
:05:35. > :05:40.intensive literacy help and support? You make them fill the job centres.
:05:40. > :05:46.How big is this Job Centre going to be that you're going to put
:05:46. > :05:50.everybody into rather than getting them jobs? The government left a
:05:50. > :05:56.million people unemployed for a decade - It's gone up by a third.
:05:56. > :06:03.Youth long-term unemployment. Let me finish the answer. Let him finish
:06:03. > :06:05.his point. If somebody is still not working but claiming unemployment,
:06:05. > :06:07.then they should work for the community and put something back
:06:07. > :06:10.into the community for 35 hours a community and put something back
:06:11. > :06:12.week and spend the rest of the time looking for a job. I don't think
:06:12. > :06:17.week and spend the rest of the time it's good enough to leave people on
:06:17. > :06:20.the scrap-heap, ignore them as if they don't matter. We have been
:06:20. > :06:23.successful, and you will admit having claimed there will be a
:06:23. > :06:26.million more people out of work, we've got more people in work than
:06:26. > :06:29.at any time. This is designed to save money in the long-term, isn't
:06:30. > :06:34.it, so that you're not paying people - In the short-term - How much are
:06:34. > :06:38.you going to save? You've got a figure of £2 billion a year, right?
:06:38. > :06:42.Look, everybody who works is always going to be much better both for
:06:43. > :06:46.them and for society, and for the Treasury than someone who doesn't
:06:46. > :06:48.work. What we are doing here is signalling that, in the next
:06:48. > :06:53.manifesto, this is something we would want to pursue, and I can tell
:06:53. > :06:57.you we would not include people who are on ESA, for example, that's when
:06:57. > :07:01.people are disabled or unable to work, and so on. You've got to wait
:07:01. > :07:07.because the Liberal Democrats don't go along with it. I've scenic Clegg
:07:07. > :07:10.today has said he would be want to go look at the proposal in more
:07:10. > :07:14.detail. I don't think it is acceptable to leave people on the
:07:14. > :07:19.scrap-heap and assume they can't work. Let's hear from some members
:07:19. > :07:24.of our audience. Thank you. The argument seems to be coming round
:07:24. > :07:27.again to job creation. As an accountant, the biggest problem that
:07:27. > :07:33.we still have today is raising finance from the bankers.
:07:33. > :07:38.What is the answer to that, please? So you think job creation is not
:07:38. > :07:42.possible, not feasible in the present? We need to create more jobs
:07:42. > :07:46.for these young people. That sounds fantastic. The reality of it is
:07:46. > :07:51.small and medium-sized businesses want to create jobs. We need the,
:07:51. > :07:58.for instance, from the bankers to do that. How are we going to resolve
:07:58. > :08:04.it? Applause applause Let me hear from other people and then we will
:08:04. > :08:10.get an answer to that. Will this proposed measure not lead to higher
:08:10. > :08:14.levels of homelessness? No. If you're in working at the moment and
:08:14. > :08:17.under 25, if you know anyone in that category, you will know they are
:08:17. > :08:25.struggling to move to their own place. That doesn't heed to
:08:25. > :08:29.homelessness -- lead to homelessness in itself. If you're out of work,
:08:29. > :08:32.you're able to move out at taxpayers' expense. That can't be
:08:32. > :08:35.right. Another answer to the point, we've managed to create in the
:08:35. > :08:39.private sector 1.4 million jobs since this government came to power
:08:39. > :08:42.just three years ago. It far exceeds what people expected to happen. It
:08:42. > :08:46.just three years ago. It far exceeds massively replaces, but many times
:08:46. > :08:51.over the numbers lost in the private sector. This country - Grant,
:08:51. > :08:55.you'ring properly answering the questions, but I don't want you to
:08:55. > :09:00.dominate the whole discussion. Kirsty Williams. We do need more
:09:00. > :09:03.jobs, the current coalition government has created 1.4 million
:09:03. > :09:07.jobs in the private secretary, but we need more, and Vince Cable and
:09:07. > :09:10.other coalition colleagues have tried to create an opportunity for
:09:10. > :09:14.banks to lend more money, but there's more that the banks could be
:09:14. > :09:20.doing. We have aspirations for a million more jobs. Of course, no
:09:20. > :09:24.government would want - not want 18 to 25-years-old in work, so we have
:09:24. > :09:27.to tackle the problems why they don't end up in, would. We need jobs
:09:27. > :09:32.and training for them. This coalition government has created 1.2
:09:32. > :09:36.million apprentices so those people can have workplace learning, and we
:09:36. > :09:40.have to recognise the people most likely to end up in this category
:09:40. > :09:46.are children from our poorest backwards, and we have --
:09:46. > :09:49.backgrounds. They are leaving school without the skills they need. Why do
:09:49. > :09:54.you oppose the Conservative proposal? Because I think it
:09:54. > :09:59.stereotypes the reasons why 18 to 24-years-old potentially can become
:09:59. > :10:02.unemployed. I graduated university during the recession of the 1990s. I
:10:03. > :10:05.struggled to find a be Jo. Luckily for me, I was able to go home to my
:10:05. > :10:08.struggled to find a be Jo. Luckily family and they were able to help me
:10:08. > :10:11.until I was able to find work when family and they were able to help me
:10:11. > :10:14.the economy began to get better. We stereotype people. We don't know the
:10:14. > :10:17.circumstances of individuals. Of course, if people turn down the
:10:17. > :10:22.offer of help that is available, then there should be shankses for
:10:22. > :10:25.that. We already have that in our benefits system with issues around
:10:25. > :10:33.conditionality, but we've got to get pupils from our poorest background
:10:33. > :10:36.leaving schools with the right skills and that is why Pupil Premium
:10:36. > :10:37.leaving schools with the right is so important.
:10:37. > :10:44.APPLAUSE The woman there on the right. It is
:10:44. > :10:50.good that however many jobs have been created by this government. We
:10:50. > :10:58.need more. But they need to be full-time worthwhile jobs.
:10:58. > :11:02.APPLAUSE Not just a few hours a week at a
:11:02. > :11:08.local supermarket where the person still has not enough money to live
:11:08. > :11:11.on. My feeling about this is that it is a question of economic reality.
:11:11. > :11:20.One can talk about creating jobs or the desirability of youngstersing in
:11:20. > :11:21.jobs - -- youngsters being in jobs, it's desirable. The welfare bill in
:11:21. > :11:24.this country is enormous. It is too it's desirable. The welfare bill in
:11:24. > :11:28.big. We can't afford it any more. We spend more on benefits than we do on
:11:28. > :11:35.defence, than we do on education. That's a good thing. Than we do on
:11:35. > :11:40.the police. Even we spend more on welfare than we even do on the BBC,
:11:40. > :11:44.so this is a problem that we have to grip. We can't just go on ignoring
:11:44. > :11:46.it any more because that's what happened in the past. The
:11:46. > :11:51.politicians haven't been honest about the sums. That's why we've got
:11:51. > :11:55.this horrendous debt problem in this country. It is terribly difficult to
:11:56. > :12:02.reduce spending on benefits because many people are very needy, but my
:12:02. > :12:08.personal prejudice on this would be if you have to pick on one group of
:12:08. > :12:13.people, I would rather, reluctantly say this, rather reduce spending on
:12:13. > :12:19.youngsters than I would reduce spending on the elderly, say, and
:12:19. > :12:24.there is evidence, I think, that Iain Duncan-Smith's programme of
:12:24. > :12:27.welfare reform is reducing the unemployment, of people claiming
:12:27. > :12:31.unemployment, employment is going up, the private sector has played a
:12:31. > :12:32.blinder, an awful lot of jobs have been created in the private sector,
:12:32. > :12:37.and Yvette talks about another lost been created in the private sector,
:12:37. > :12:40.generation. Well, if it is another lost generation, that shows there is
:12:40. > :12:44.one at the moment which shows that the system - I remember what
:12:44. > :12:47.happened in the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher's lost generation was
:12:48. > :12:51.devastating for people. It is not difficult. It jolly well is
:12:51. > :12:54.different. There is long-term youth unemployment going up and up and
:12:54. > :12:57.people stuck on the dole for years unemployment going up and up and
:12:57. > :13:02.on end. It is different this time because unemployment is falling and
:13:02. > :13:06.employment is rising, and it is heck of a task to reduce the welfare
:13:06. > :13:09.bill, but if you had to do it for anyone, then I would say, there is
:13:10. > :13:13.this good Labour policy of the national minimum wage which means
:13:13. > :13:18.that jobs are paying better than they were in the Thatcher days.
:13:18. > :13:22.Quentin has actually made most of my point there. It doesn't make sense
:13:22. > :13:26.to keep on borrowing to spend money on welfare. If you're borrowing to
:13:26. > :13:32.spend investing, I think the Prime Minister said earn or learn, so the
:13:32. > :13:37.intention is to put people these people to learning if they can't get
:13:37. > :13:40.a be Jo. It doesn't make sense to borrow money. Who is going to pay
:13:40. > :13:46.the money back. The budget is in deficit. The deficit of about 100
:13:46. > :13:52.billion a month and that keeps going up and up, so you have to cut the
:13:52. > :13:56.welfare budget from elsewhere. In response to this gentleman and
:13:56. > :14:05.Quentin, but call me old-fashioned, I think it's a good thing we spend
:14:05. > :14:09.more money on poor and vulnerable in our country than foreign defence and
:14:09. > :14:14.wars. The majority of the welfare in this budget goes to pensioners, not
:14:14. > :14:20.people on Housing Benefit, to Daily Mail readers. It wasn't people on
:14:20. > :14:22.Housing Benefit who - it wasn't the long-term unemployed who made
:14:22. > :14:25.themselves unemployed and caused the global financial crisis, so I am not
:14:25. > :14:27.sure why they should have to pick up the bill. To address the original
:14:27. > :14:30.sure why they should have to pick up question that was asked, I am always
:14:30. > :14:33.amused when I hear David Cameron talking about this subject, and
:14:33. > :14:40.talking about this subject, a man who has never had to worry about
:14:40. > :14:44.having a roof over his head. APPLAUSE His first job at
:14:44. > :14:47.Conservative Central Office he got thanks from a phone call at
:14:47. > :14:51.Buckingham Palace who put in a good word for him, so I am amused when he
:14:52. > :14:58.lectures people on job prospects or housing situations. He told people
:14:58. > :15:02.he should go to school even though the government got rid of the
:15:03. > :15:07.educational maintenance allowance. He told people to go to university
:15:07. > :15:12.even though his government brought in tuition fees. He told young
:15:12. > :15:15.people to get apprenticeships even though on his government's watch,
:15:15. > :15:20.they've gone down by 12 per cent year on year. Now, I want to go
:15:20. > :15:25.back. That's not true. Bring down the welfare budget, then? I would
:15:25. > :15:32.take the accountant's point. You have to bring jobs in. There are 2.5
:15:32. > :15:36.million jobs in. There are half a million people vacancies. How do you
:15:36. > :15:47.squeeze five people into one job. Stop blaming the unemployed forking
:15:47. > :15:51.unemployed. It is good po - This country has a deficit. Caused by
:15:51. > :15:55.whom? No matter how it was causing, blame it on bankers, I personally
:15:55. > :15:58.think that the previous government had a lot to do with it. The
:15:58. > :16:07.solution can't be yet more borrowing. More jobs. On the jobs
:16:08. > :16:09.front, as we've already - on the jobs front at least we have, and
:16:09. > :16:12.front, as we've already - on the is undenial a lot of jobs. You must
:16:12. > :16:16.not interrupt every other word, nor must you, Grant, interrupt him. One
:16:16. > :16:21.at a time is much better because then people listening and interested
:16:21. > :16:25.can hear the argument instead of hearing the rant. Can I at least
:16:25. > :16:29.correct one fact. There are more apprenticeships, 1.2 million more
:16:29. > :16:34.apprenticeships since this government came to power. Employment
:16:34. > :16:37.is at an all-time record at nearly 30 million people in this country,
:16:38. > :16:42.and despite what we were told when we started to reduce that deficit,
:16:42. > :16:45.we've cut a third off the deficit so far - work in progress - we were
:16:45. > :16:53.told by Labour it would create a million more unemployed. It has not.
:16:53. > :16:57.At least please accept - You're borrowing. According to the public
:16:57. > :17:01.accounts committee, the work programme has got 3.6 per cent of
:17:02. > :17:11.the people on the scheme into work. If that is working, then - You're
:17:11. > :17:18.quoting - You said it's working - It is. People will be switching off in
:17:18. > :17:21.droves if we get into an argument about the 3.6. Yvette Cooper on the
:17:21. > :17:27.substantial point about cutting welfare that the gentleman there
:17:27. > :17:29.made? I think the best way to cut the social security bills is to get
:17:29. > :17:32.more people into work. That means we've got to invest in those young
:17:32. > :17:36.people, get them into jobs of the we've said how we would pay for it.
:17:36. > :17:40.We would tax the bankers' bonuses because we think that is a fair way
:17:40. > :17:43.to do it. I think that is the right way to do it. That will deliver
:17:43. > :17:47.returns for years to come as you get those people to stay in jobs because
:17:47. > :17:51.once you know if people don't get that first job, it is so much harder
:17:51. > :17:57.to get the next job later on. Grant is turning his back on them. We have
:17:57. > :18:00.had three wasted years from this government and youth long-term
:18:00. > :18:06.unemployment which is the serious problem has gone up by a third. I am
:18:06. > :18:08.really concerned as a teacher in a secondary school in Birmingham I
:18:08. > :18:12.hear people on the panel saying that we should reduce funding and support
:18:12. > :18:13.to young people. I think that is frightening, really. What we've got
:18:13. > :18:17.to do is invest in our young people frightening, really. What we've got
:18:17. > :18:21.at the earliest stage possible, particularly at secondary school so
:18:21. > :18:24.we can give them a passport to success. That passport to success
:18:25. > :18:26.are good qualifications and they can go out in the wide world and
:18:26. > :18:29.are good qualifications and they can achieve. I think it's depressing to
:18:29. > :18:34.hear that we want to cut. Do you think there are circumstances -
:18:34. > :18:39.APPLAUSE Do you think there are circumstances
:18:39. > :18:41.when stopping benefits to under-25s would be justified or are you saying
:18:41. > :18:44.when stopping benefits to under-25s in no circumstances? I think as one
:18:44. > :18:47.who works with young people, I think we should support at every
:18:47. > :18:50.opportunity. That's not answering the question. Do you think there are
:18:50. > :18:55.any circumstances in which benefits should be cut? No. I do think with
:18:55. > :19:00.regards to what I've heard to pupil premium, which is something that
:19:00. > :19:03.really assists us in closing the gap in people who on free school meals
:19:03. > :19:08.so we have consistency from the front door to school and back home
:19:08. > :19:11.that they're in the same level playing field. We've got a lot of
:19:11. > :19:14.questions. It is vital and it makes a massive difference because we know
:19:14. > :19:18.those are the children most likely not to get the qualifications they
:19:18. > :19:21.need to make their way in life. If we educate people properly and give
:19:21. > :19:26.them opportunities to train and a job, they will keep their own roof
:19:26. > :19:30.over their head and provide for their family. That's why we've got
:19:30. > :19:34.to get education right and focus on our youngest people. We must move on
:19:34. > :19:40.to another question. Just to say, text or Twitter is at your disposal
:19:40. > :19:51.of course tonight. If you want to argue the case:
:19:51. > :19:56.Now the next question, please. Has the
:19:56. > :20:01.Daily Mail gone too far with its smear attack against Ed Miliband's
:20:01. > :20:07.father? Has the Daily Mail gone too far with
:20:07. > :20:11.the Ed Miliband's smear campaign on his father. If this was an attack on
:20:11. > :20:16.my dad, I would feel upset about it and want a right to reply which I
:20:16. > :20:20.know he has had. I think they certainly went too far with a
:20:20. > :20:23.particular headline they used online. The Mail on Sunday has
:20:23. > :20:29.apologised for something else, remarkably, which happened after all
:20:29. > :20:33.this had come to everyone's attention, which was to send
:20:33. > :20:36.journalists quite inappropriately to a memorial service, and they've
:20:36. > :20:40.apologised unreservedly for that. I do think that it is right there is a
:20:40. > :20:43.vibrant press in this country. I do think there are too many reasons to
:20:43. > :20:52.try to restrict it. I have to say that I have had occasion to be
:20:52. > :20:53.annoyed with newspapers many times over, including the Daily Mail,
:20:53. > :20:55.actually, but in the end it doesn't over, including the Daily Mail,
:20:55. > :20:57.make me conclude that we should bring this so draconian law to
:20:57. > :20:58.make me conclude that we should prevent them. I do think that this
:20:58. > :21:00.is a work in progress. Of course, prevent them. I do think that this
:21:00. > :21:04.the whole process of Leveson and everything that comes afterwards is
:21:05. > :21:08.still ongoing, and next week there is a Privy Council meeting where
:21:08. > :21:12.they will be looking at the newspapers' suggestion for a Royal
:21:12. > :21:15.Charter on this which may or may not stack up. I have serious concerns
:21:15. > :21:19.about what happened but I don't want to then knee jerk into preventing
:21:19. > :21:25.press freedom. Do you think the Mail should apologise? They have. No, the
:21:25. > :21:28.Mail on Sunday has apologised. The Do you think the Mail should
:21:28. > :21:30.apologise? They have. No, the Mail on Sunday has apologised. The Mail.
:21:30. > :21:31."An evil legacy and why we won't apologise." I notice Michael Gove,
:21:32. > :21:35.your colleague said he didn't think apologise." I notice Michael Gove,
:21:35. > :21:36.there was any reason for the Mail to do anything, that's what you got
:21:36. > :21:40.there was any reason for the Mail to with the free press. On a personal
:21:40. > :21:44.level, if that was my dad, I would feel aggrieved about it. That is
:21:44. > :21:48.slightly different. Then you have to have a route of redress, and that is
:21:48. > :21:57.being able to get something published in the paper. I don't want
:21:57. > :22:02.a knee jerk which is you go to the next stage where they're saying they
:22:02. > :22:05.can't write what they want. There is the legitimate question of what
:22:05. > :22:09.drives someone's motives who inspired all of us who are in
:22:09. > :22:14.politics, the greater concern for me in all of this, frankly, is what
:22:14. > :22:17.would Ed Miliband be like as a Prime Minister, as far as I can see go
:22:17. > :22:19.back to what we've been discussing, the spending, borrowing, and debt
:22:20. > :22:23.that got us into this mess in the first place and to the extent that
:22:23. > :22:26.that was guided by things in his upbringing, I think that's
:22:26. > :22:29.interesting. But I don't accept that his father was somehow anti-British,
:22:29. > :22:34.and I don't think that using the diary of somebody as a teenager is
:22:34. > :22:41.an appropriate way to judge the man who now would like to be Prime
:22:41. > :22:45.Minister. APPLAUSE
:22:45. > :22:54.Quentin lets, you've been writing for the Mail for the last 12 years.
:22:54. > :23:00.Yes, when I heard this story today about the behaviour of the Mail on
:23:00. > :23:05.Sunday reporter, I was put in mind of the Emperor Hirohito in Japan in
:23:05. > :23:10.1945 who said the events hadn't turned necessarily to the advantage
:23:10. > :23:14.of Japan and I will not defend the indefensible, and that behaviour was
:23:14. > :23:28.clearly indefensible. I am glad the Mail on Sunday has apologised for
:23:28. > :23:31.that. Lord rot mere, the - Lord Rothermere has apoll the - Lord
:23:31. > :23:34.Rothermere has apoll gefilte. -- apologised. The thing that was
:23:34. > :23:39.apologised for for was sneaking a couple of reporters into a private
:23:39. > :23:42.memorial service at Guy's Hospital. Yes, terrible. The Mail on Sunday's
:23:42. > :23:46.memorial service at Guy's Hospital. editor has apologised. But the Mail
:23:46. > :23:52.on Sunday is a different paper from the Daily Mail. I will try to defend
:23:52. > :23:56.the defendable because I think it is the coverage or the essay that was
:23:56. > :24:03.written about Ed Miliband's dad, because we need to know first of all
:24:03. > :24:07.that Ed Miliband in every speech I've heard him make refers to his
:24:07. > :24:12.father who was a very prominent intellectual, philosopher, a
:24:12. > :24:15.Marxist. This was - he was perhaps what they call about the useful
:24:15. > :24:19.idiot, sometimes, the people who what they call about the useful
:24:20. > :24:24.were promoting Marxism at a time of the Cold War, when Britain was up
:24:24. > :24:33.against Russia, and Marxism was the code, the Creed of the Soviet Union.
:24:33. > :24:37.It is difficult to analyse somebody's political beliefs without
:24:37. > :24:41.coring into their personality as well, and this article was doing
:24:41. > :24:47.that, so I would say that because Ed Miliband uses his dad in his
:24:48. > :24:51.speeches as a political fool, if you like, I think that makes him,
:24:51. > :24:56.particularly after the speech he gave at his party conference, which
:24:56. > :25:03.was wildly left-wing, and Marxist based, I would argue - he was
:25:03. > :25:08.proposing among other things the theft of private land. Supported by
:25:08. > :25:15.t International Monetary Fund, those well-known markists!
:25:15. > :25:20.APPLAUSE -- marksist! Let's pick up on the
:25:20. > :25:24.phrase that got, at got, it was "the man who hated Britain". Yes, the
:25:24. > :25:29.headline on the piece of the tabloid newspaper headlines are not always
:25:29. > :25:32.understated, and it was saying the man who hated Britain. Did he hate
:25:32. > :25:37.Britain? The 17-year-old write in the diary something about he thought
:25:37. > :25:41.he wouldn't mind if Britain lost the Second World War. A 17-year-old boy
:25:41. > :25:47.writes that, I think we can accept that a 17-year-old boy might change
:25:47. > :25:50.his mind later on. He was older, Ralph Miliband, when it came to the
:25:50. > :25:55.Falklands war, and he was furious that we won it. He wanted us to lose
:25:55. > :26:02.it. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I am not sure
:26:02. > :26:06.it is. I just feel that it is a point of view, isn't it? It is an
:26:06. > :26:10.essay, it is a political argument. This was from the authorised
:26:10. > :26:16.biography of Ralph mill ban. It is not as if any bins were being rooted
:26:17. > :26:21.through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron, so it was a
:26:21. > :26:26.strong piece, it was a controversial piece, the Daily Mail is a
:26:26. > :26:33.controversial and strong newspaper, but was it really completely out of
:26:33. > :26:38.order? I am shot sure it was. Kirsty? Quentin, this is a man who
:26:38. > :26:39.fought for his country. APPLAUSE The
:26:39. > :26:41.fought for his country. country that he didn't have to fight
:26:41. > :26:45.for. He chose to do that. That, in my
:26:45. > :26:49.mind equates to somebody who cares very deeply about the country that
:26:49. > :26:53.they live in. You're right to say, as politicians, sometimes we're all
:26:53. > :26:56.guilty of it, we put our entries out there in a desperate attempt to make
:26:56. > :27:01.ourselves look a little bit more human and a little bit more normal
:27:01. > :27:04.and sometimes the press then have an opportunity to reflect on that, but
:27:04. > :27:07.there is a world of difference between examining the beliefs of Ed
:27:07. > :27:11.Miliband and the influence his father may or may not have had on
:27:11. > :27:15.him and that odious headline about how he hated the country based on,
:27:15. > :27:20.as you quite rightly say, a diary entry of a 17-year-old, and, let's
:27:20. > :27:23.face it, we've all said and written daft things when we are 17. It was
:27:23. > :27:28.wrong to conflate that story which is a legitimate look at how a father
:27:28. > :27:36.influences a son into an odious headline, and Ed Miliband has every
:27:36. > :27:40.right to call the Daily Mail out on Is the press's maturity under
:27:40. > :27:44.question question here in that they're smearing someone's father.
:27:44. > :27:47.You wouldn't want your father, no-one here would want their father
:27:47. > :27:53.smeared in the newspaper publicly, I really don't think it is anyone's
:27:53. > :27:58.business talking about that. If it was a smear but Quentin lets was
:27:58. > :28:09.saying it wasn't a smear. It was a view, it was a political argument.
:28:09. > :28:14.Quentin has said, and the Daily Mail has said and repeated it this
:28:14. > :28:20.evening that Ralph Miliband hated Britain. I just think this is
:28:20. > :28:23.shocking to decide to pursue as distort and twist the words of a
:28:23. > :28:33.dead father in order to pursue an attack on a son.
:28:33. > :28:37.APPLAUSE I think it's about basic standards of
:28:37. > :28:41.decency. You don't do that, you don't twist the words of a father in
:28:41. > :28:47.that way when he's not able to pursue a libel case, he's not able
:28:47. > :28:53.to reply himself. You also don't go gate-crash a private memorial
:28:53. > :28:58.service for a dead uncle in order to continue to pursue that attack on
:28:58. > :29:03.the son. This idea as well that I think look, none of us panellists
:29:03. > :29:06.have fought for our country or signed up for our country, and I
:29:06. > :29:13.doubt very many people on the Mail have done so, either, and I think
:29:13. > :29:17.people who have not served their country and fought for their country
:29:17. > :29:22.should really think twice about deciding that they have a monopoly
:29:22. > :29:23.on caring for this country and determining British values over
:29:23. > :29:26.someone who fought for British determining British values over
:29:26. > :29:31.values when British values were really at stake.
:29:31. > :29:39.APPLAUSE Do you think Paul Dacre should
:29:40. > :29:44.resign? I think he should certainly apologise very swiftly for this. The
:29:44. > :29:48.dignified thing as well for Quentin and Paul Dacre to do is recognise
:29:48. > :29:52.what Mail readers are saying as well as all the political parties and
:29:52. > :29:57.recognise that this went too far and apologise now. It's been a bizarre
:29:57. > :30:01.week even by journalistic standards. Last Saturday the Mail published a
:30:02. > :30:05.headline, "The man who hated Britain". On Tuesday, they published
:30:05. > :30:13.this bonkers leader saying he's got a jealous legacy referring to the
:30:13. > :30:19.jealous God of Deuteronomy, and then a reporter goes to gate-crash a dead
:30:19. > :30:24.uncle's memorial. What is next? Grave robbing. Where the man was
:30:24. > :30:28.buried came into the store Ie. That's the only thing they've
:30:28. > :30:30.apologised so far. There's been a grave misjudgment, deeply
:30:30. > :30:34.hypocritical judgment on the part of grave misjudgment, deeply
:30:34. > :30:37.the Mail here in asking these questions and posing these issues.
:30:37. > :30:41.When you talk about who hates Britain or who who has legacy, who
:30:41. > :30:48.do you think has it? A man who sucked up to the Nazis, who made
:30:48. > :30:56.friends with Joseph Geobels, the owner and founder of the Daily Mail,
:30:56. > :31:01.Lord Rothermere or a man who served in the Royal Navy, Ralph Miliband?
:31:01. > :31:05.Who hated Britain more? This has opened up a whole debate about the
:31:05. > :31:08.Daily Mail. You want to talk about who hates Britain. Let me finish.
:31:08. > :31:12.This is a paper that, in recent years, said that there was nothing
:31:12. > :31:17.natural about the death of the gay pop star Stephen Gately, who said
:31:17. > :31:21.that the French people should vote for the National Front, who attacked
:31:21. > :31:29.Danny boil for having a mixed race couple in his Olympics opening
:31:29. > :31:37.ceremony, who called mow Farrow a plastic brit. Let's have a debate
:31:38. > :31:43.about who hates Britain more, it is the gay-baiting, woman-hating Daily
:31:43. > :31:54.Mail. APPLAUSE If
:31:54. > :32:00.that is a hatchet job, so be it. We can't really let the stuff go
:32:00. > :32:05.through without mentioning at least that Mehdi's mates on the left when
:32:05. > :32:09.Lady Thatcher died were doing a lot of grave-dancing then. It was awful.
:32:09. > :32:14.I am glad to hear you say that. She was the Prime Minister. You have had
:32:14. > :32:18.a long speech, let Quentin answer. Working for the Daily Mail, you're
:32:18. > :32:23.never going to be a favourite of the left, a favourite of bishops and
:32:23. > :32:28.Princes, and kings, and prime ministers. Daily Mail is outside the
:32:28. > :32:35.political village. LAUGHTER
:32:35. > :32:37.It is. There is the old LAUGHTER It is. There is the old expression
:32:37. > :32:42.about "outside the tent". That's the It is. There is the old expression
:32:42. > :32:45.Mail. We don't get invited on the Mail to all the cosy David Cameron
:32:45. > :32:49.dinner parties. The Mail tries to stand up for what its readers are
:32:49. > :32:53.interested in and its readers' points of view. The Mail was being
:32:53. > :32:58.attacked today by Nick Clegg, for instance. Well, Cleggy was calling
:32:58. > :33:02.us all sorts of terribly rude things because maybe we in the past have
:33:03. > :33:07.been brisk on him. John Prescott was having a go at us. Gordon Brown
:33:07. > :33:13.loved you, didn't he? I have a wonderful quote from him which you
:33:13. > :33:16.ought to - which plays to your cause, "Paul Dacre delivered one of
:33:16. > :33:26.the great newspaper success stories. He also shows great personal warmth
:33:26. > :33:30.and kindness as well as -" I am allowed to disagree on the Daily
:33:30. > :33:35.Mail line. I took a less positive view of Gordon. Who else was
:33:35. > :33:41.attacking us. Michael Heseltine. Lord Moore. Lots of Tories. We don't
:33:41. > :33:46.tend to approve of the European Union - Quentin Charles Moore has
:33:46. > :33:50.attacked you for doing this, Margaret Thatcher's biographer. We
:33:50. > :33:52.don't approve of political correctness, that makes us
:33:52. > :33:55.unpopular. If you say things like that in Britain, we don't approve of
:33:55. > :33:59.the BBC, those million-pound that in Britain, we don't approve of
:33:59. > :34:02.pay-offs to BBC executives. Is that because you hate Britain?
:34:02. > :34:05.LAUGHTER When you say things like that -
:34:05. > :34:11.Let's bring this to a close. We've got your point too. You've worked in
:34:11. > :34:19.the political village for many years, Quentin. There was a massive
:34:19. > :34:24.amount of applause when Mehdi was making his point. I think Ed
:34:24. > :34:28.Miliband shot himself in the foot when he stood on the soapbox saying,
:34:28. > :34:32."I am going to bring socialism back." I don't want it in this
:34:33. > :34:38.country. I believe in capitalism because we need wealth to feed the
:34:38. > :34:44.budgets for schools, teachers, everything that goes in local
:34:44. > :34:49.council, so bring it on. I don't want socialism. I believe in a free
:34:49. > :34:57.press. I don't like some of the things that go on, my own party I
:34:57. > :35:06.belong to, we ride them off. Which is that? UKIP. The fact of the
:35:06. > :35:10.matter is we are all in some ways following from our parents' views,
:35:10. > :35:18.yes, and I think it is important for this country to realise just what
:35:18. > :35:26.socialism does and has done, and the further we are aremoved away from
:35:26. > :35:30.it, the better. Did you think that the attack on Ralph Miliband was
:35:30. > :35:34.fair in the Mail? I haven't actually read it, I've only gone what is said
:35:34. > :35:42.on the media. Attacking family members, no, no, but it is important
:35:42. > :35:46.that we influences from parents is brought to the fore. That's fine,
:35:46. > :35:49.you can have that debate, and you can argue in the newspapers whether
:35:49. > :35:52.what Ed Miliband has said is right or wrong, and I don't want to go
:35:53. > :35:56.back to socialism, either, but the way they've approached that has not
:35:56. > :36:02.brought any good things for the Mail, and, actually, just brings
:36:02. > :36:07.everybody down. It makes the whole media - The woman with the
:36:07. > :36:12.spectacles there. I have several points to make, so I am - Not
:36:12. > :36:21.several, please! I will make one - Choose your best point. Quentin
:36:21. > :36:28.continuously justifies that smear as an essay. It was not an essay. It
:36:28. > :36:32.was disgusting anti-Semitic slander over a dead man. We must not
:36:33. > :36:37.dissociate this from the Mail's normal conduct. It normally
:36:37. > :36:44.demonises people from marginalised groups and they do this legitimate
:36:44. > :36:46.the dominant class's ideology. They profit out of demonising people. I
:36:46. > :36:49.the dominant class's ideology. They think we're taking the wrong
:36:49. > :36:54.question by saying OK about who actually loved Britain or hated
:36:54. > :36:58.Britain, it doesn't really matter because, to be honest, it would
:36:58. > :37:05.still be a disgusting anti-Semitic piece whether or not Ralph Miliband
:37:05. > :37:06.hated Britain or not. Thank you for the point. I think it's important we
:37:06. > :37:08.apply the same standards to everyone the point. I think it's important we
:37:08. > :37:11.and all newspapers left or right. I am disappointed I didn't hear the
:37:11. > :37:13.outrage we heard before from Eddie when the Guardian attacked David
:37:13. > :37:16.Cameron's father after he passed when the Guardian attacked David
:37:16. > :37:20.away in a completely spurious piece, or the Mirror went through the
:37:20. > :37:26.dustbins of David Cameron and unearth the nappies of his disabled
:37:26. > :37:30.son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me this should apply
:37:30. > :37:32.across the field. I don't, as I say, personally favour the press
:37:32. > :37:35.restrictions which will prevent a vibrant free press, from us having
:37:36. > :37:39.the debate and argument that has taken place tonight, many of the
:37:39. > :37:42.points on which I agree with, but I do think it should be applied across
:37:42. > :37:45.the field. When it comes to regulation of the press, are you in
:37:45. > :37:48.favour of the policy that the Daily Mail supports of having virtually no
:37:48. > :37:50.control on the press? Are you in favour of the other things that is
:37:50. > :37:55.control on the press? Are you in going to be - No - That's a very
:37:55. > :37:58.misleading question. Hang on, we need to point out that was a
:37:58. > :38:05.severely loaded question by the chair, because the proposal that is
:38:05. > :38:09.from the newspaper associations about the press - about the new
:38:09. > :38:14.press regulations are really pretty tough. We're talking about
:38:14. > :38:17.million-pound fines. Sorry, of the two proposals, theone supported by
:38:17. > :38:22.the Mail and other newspapers, and Private Eye and many other people,
:38:22. > :38:25.is the more lenient of the tw. David, there is - Don't argue about
:38:25. > :38:29.that, because that is the case. There is a danger - I am trying to
:38:29. > :38:32.keep calm here - but there is a danger that the BBC has an agenda
:38:32. > :38:36.here. The Daily Mail is very critical of the BBC and has been
:38:36. > :38:41.very critical of the BBC's conduct recently with paying off £1 million
:38:41. > :38:45.to its former executives. Don't accuse me of having an agenda chosen
:38:45. > :38:49.for me by the BBC, thank you very much. You're a member of the
:38:49. > :38:56.establishment and the Mail isn't. The Mail isn't part of the
:38:56. > :39:01.establishment! Let's come back to t question. Grant Shapps, of the two
:39:01. > :39:03.proposals, are you in favour of the tougher regulation which is going to
:39:03. > :39:06.be considered or the slightly less tough regulation? We've come forward
:39:06. > :39:09.with the tougher regular legacy. But are you in favour? Of course,
:39:09. > :39:15.otherwise we wouldn't come forward with it. The question now - That
:39:15. > :39:18.depends on what all at parties and the newspapers get together or the
:39:18. > :39:21.question now is, and they have to be taken in order next week, the Privy
:39:21. > :39:24.Council looks at the newspapers' version of the Royal Charter, they
:39:24. > :39:28.will then look at our version, the government's version of the Royal
:39:28. > :39:32.Charter. There is not actually huge differences here, this is down to
:39:32. > :39:35.something quite technical about who appoints the body over the body over
:39:35. > :39:39.the body. The most important thing is to make sure there is a proper
:39:39. > :39:42.right of redress but we benefit from living in a country where we can
:39:42. > :39:46.properly debate things, and in the end, the government coming in the
:39:46. > :39:49.future who wants to muzzle the media just doesn't have that opportunity.
:39:49. > :39:54.I think that's more valuable to us as Brits. We will move on because
:39:54. > :40:00.we've only 20 minutes to go. Neil Dance, please. Does the recent shift
:40:00. > :40:06.away from the centre by both parties signify a deepening rift in the
:40:06. > :40:15.fabric of society. Talking of Labour and conferences at their -- talking
:40:15. > :40:18.of Labour and Tories at the party conferences? I don't buy the premise
:40:18. > :40:24.of the question about this. One of the most distorting things in modern
:40:24. > :40:28.politics is this idea of centre ground, a geographical place that
:40:28. > :40:31.politics is this idea of centre every politician devices towards. I
:40:31. > :40:35.just don't buy it. Take, for example, what Quentin referred to
:40:35. > :40:39.earlier as a wildly left-wing speech by Ed Miliband last week. If you
:40:39. > :40:43.look at the public polling, the majority of people want to go much
:40:43. > :40:47.beyond Ed Miliband, they want to renationalise the railways. A
:40:47. > :40:52.imagine show a favour of that of the energy companies, of the 50 p tax
:40:52. > :40:55.rating brought in on people on £100,000. If you talk about where
:40:55. > :40:59.the centre is, the public on many issues, on some they're not, on
:40:59. > :41:04.immigration is much to the right of this mythical centre but on issues
:41:05. > :41:07.of public services and the ownership of these utility companies and
:41:07. > :41:12.taxation of the rich, the public is to the left. Would you agree that
:41:12. > :41:16.the two parties have pulled apart a bit over this conference season in
:41:16. > :41:19.terms of the political - From each other? Yes, I think they have. Does
:41:19. > :41:21.it mean they've pulled apart from a centre ground, not necessarily. At
:41:21. > :41:27.least we will have a proper choice centre ground, not necessarily. At
:41:27. > :41:32.at the next election. As they did in America, with Barack Obama talking
:41:32. > :41:34.in left-wing terms if not acting in it so hopefully we'll have a good
:41:34. > :41:39.choice at the next election. I think the American example is a really bad
:41:39. > :41:49.one. What has happened in Washington at the moment is that there is lack
:41:49. > :41:52.of co-operation about and between the political parties. There is
:41:52. > :41:55.movement and it's beginning to be clear what the priorities of what
:41:55. > :41:59.the right and left are during this conference season, and I think what
:41:59. > :42:03.we do need is an anchoring force in the centre because I do believe that
:42:04. > :42:08.is where most British people and voters find themselves. If we pull
:42:08. > :42:11.apart the opportunity to work together to solve the problems - Are
:42:11. > :42:16.you in the centre? I think what we do is try to ensure that we have got
:42:16. > :42:20.strong economic policies to get us out of this recession and continue
:42:20. > :42:25.to drive What economic policies? To drive the economy forward but we try
:42:25. > :42:28.to do that to make sure we're living in a fairer society. The debate
:42:28. > :42:32.we've been having at our conference has been all about the cost of
:42:32. > :42:35.living crisis. I don't think that that is a marginal issue; I don't
:42:35. > :42:39.think that's a narrow issue. I don't think it is just a left-wing issue.
:42:39. > :42:42.I think it's a mainstream issue that's affecting people right across
:42:43. > :42:50.the country because prices are going up and up, bills are going up and up
:42:50. > :42:54.and wages just are not keeping up for the 30 --. For the 39 months
:42:54. > :42:57.that David Cameron has been Prime Minister, prices have gone up more
:42:57. > :43:03.than wages. People are worse off in practice. What about the question
:43:03. > :43:06.that was asked. Neil's point is what does that mean for the centre
:43:06. > :43:09.ground. I think what we're talking about is the centre ground. It is
:43:09. > :43:14.exactly the thing that people across the country of all incomes and
:43:14. > :43:17.backgrounds are worried about. Yes, we're setting out practical things
:43:17. > :43:24.to do about iterers - freezing energy bills, for example, for two
:43:24. > :43:29.years, while we reform the market, increasing free childcare so parents
:43:29. > :43:33.can manage to balance family life. You're doing your agenda again. It
:43:34. > :43:38.is a - there is a bigger difference thing. I think there is a bigger
:43:38. > :43:42.difference about between us and the Conservatives. That difference - Is
:43:42. > :43:45.the gap widening? I think that was the point of the question, wasn't
:43:45. > :43:49.it? Yes, because we've set out practical things you could do about
:43:49. > :43:53.it, they haven't. Al-they're doing instead is saying that you should
:43:53. > :43:56.just simply then those on the highest income. They're the ones who
:43:56. > :44:00.just simply then those on the have had the tax cuts, ignoring
:44:00. > :44:03.people on the middle. We have had three wasted years of no economic
:44:03. > :44:07.growth. Now that the economy is finally growing, there is still a
:44:07. > :44:10.big challenge to make sure that the growth is strong enough but also
:44:11. > :44:14.most, importantly, to make sure that everybody benefits, and you don't
:44:14. > :44:19.have a small minority benefitting and everybody elsing left behind.
:44:19. > :44:21.That is what is unfair. APPLAUSE
:44:21. > :44:25.First of all, to answer the question, I think the answer is
:44:26. > :44:29.that, yes, there is now a very significant difference. Ed Miliband
:44:29. > :44:33.believes there is a total difference between the cost of living and that
:44:33. > :44:37.is in some way not connected at all to the economy growing. We believe
:44:37. > :44:40.that if you want to have a better quality of life for everybody, then
:44:40. > :44:45.you have to grow a bigger economy, and once you've done that of course
:44:45. > :44:48.people will all benefit. The idea somehow that Mehdi puts forward that
:44:48. > :44:52.our policies are not on the popular side is interesting. Welfare that
:44:52. > :44:56.works, so, that it actually pays to get a job - popular; an economy
:44:56. > :45:01.where we've got the deficit by a third - popular; immigration cut by
:45:01. > :45:04.a third - popular. I think we're on the side of the public who want, for
:45:04. > :45:08.example, a European referendum which we promised and we will deliver if
:45:08. > :45:12.we are elected next time. In fact, there is a bill going through
:45:12. > :45:15.parliament. If you accept there is been this widening gap between the
:45:15. > :45:19.two parties, why do you think that's happened? What do you attribute it
:45:19. > :45:22.to? I think that is the simple as this: Ed Miliband challenged the
:45:22. > :45:27.unions who, it turned out, were accused of fixing a number of selec
:45:27. > :45:30.40 Labour Labour selections around the country for candidates for the
:45:30. > :45:34.next election. He stood up to the unions and said, "I am going to
:45:34. > :45:40.something about it. Two months later in the end, he completely
:45:40. > :45:44.capitulated to them when the GMB promised to withdraw - So you moved
:45:44. > :45:48.away? What's happened is he has realised he can't stay in power
:45:48. > :45:52.without the money from his unions, he has turned immediately to try to
:45:53. > :45:57.satisfy their agenda. As opposed to taking money from bankers? I didn't
:45:58. > :46:04.interrupt you. People want to know not that their enly will be low for
:46:04. > :46:08.- They do want to know that. They do. Their electricity will stay
:46:08. > :46:14.competitive for 20 years, not 20 Morse. It isen kindergarten
:46:14. > :46:18.economics. Unfortunately, we only have one political party in this
:46:18. > :46:22.country. We've got a liberal wing of the European wing, a Conservative
:46:22. > :46:26.wing of the European party, a Labour wing of the European party. 70 per
:46:26. > :46:29.cent of our laws are governed by Europe. All you're arguing about is
:46:29. > :46:33.that little 30 per cent. That's why you're in the centre. That's why
:46:33. > :46:36.people are turned off politics because there's no difference
:46:36. > :46:39.between the lot of you. You might talk about influences, you might
:46:39. > :46:44.talk about this or that, but basically you're only talking about
:46:44. > :46:49.that 30 per cent. You said M Shapps about jailration. You've reduced --
:46:49. > :46:52.immigration. That is not EU immigration. What are you doing
:46:52. > :47:00.about European immigration? What are you going to do about those coming
:47:00. > :47:04.from Romania next January? It is overall immigration, including EU
:47:04. > :47:08.immigration. The only way to get a European referendum is to vote
:47:08. > :47:11.Conservative in the next election. You promised that before and you've
:47:11. > :47:16.not delivered that before. We actually have a bill in parliament.
:47:16. > :47:20.You promised it before. You're misquoting history, that was before
:47:20. > :47:23.the Lisbon Treaty was passed. We didn't have that in our manifesto.
:47:24. > :47:28.Let's get the facts straight. Was it Neil asked the question about the
:47:28. > :47:34.centre, if we can get back to the question. It's difficult to say what
:47:34. > :47:39.is centrist in politics. So my mind, the really centrist thing is being
:47:39. > :47:41.realistic about the economy. In that respect at the party conference
:47:41. > :47:47.season we've just had, and my respect at the party conference
:47:48. > :47:51.goodness we sketch writers are glad it is over, the Labour Party went
:47:51. > :47:55.cart wheeling over the horizon to the left. You can argue actually on
:47:55. > :47:59.the economy that UKIP is more central and more in the centre
:47:59. > :48:05.ground now than the Labour Party. The person for that I'm afraid is a
:48:05. > :48:09.guy called he'd Balls who n for that I'm afraid is a guy called he'd
:48:09. > :48:13.Balls who is -- Ed balls, who is a maniac free spender. I have to be
:48:13. > :48:18.careful because his beloved is next to me, and he is - Yvette, do you
:48:18. > :48:21.send him out shopping? Do you entrust him with the household
:48:21. > :48:25.finances? I don't know. I dread to this how much money he dread to this
:48:25. > :48:26.how much money he spends. -- I dread this how much money he dread to this
:48:27. > :48:29.to think how much money he spends. this how much money he dread to this
:48:29. > :48:32.This is the defining issue of the party conferences was that on the
:48:32. > :48:37.economy, Labour has just disappeared over the left-wing horizon. If that
:48:37. > :48:40.is what you care about, should you not be pointing out that all the
:48:40. > :48:44.things we announced, we said how we would fund them, we said how we
:48:44. > :48:47.would pay for them and what we would do, all the things that were
:48:47. > :48:51.announced at the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conference they
:48:51. > :48:57.didn't say how they would fund them at all. They're borrowing more than
:48:57. > :49:01.250 billion more because they've made a (messy) of the economic
:49:01. > :49:04.management. You keep talking about taxing bankers more. If you talk
:49:05. > :49:07.about that, the bankers won't come to this country, they will go
:49:08. > :49:14.elsewhere. The woman in red there? I think my
:49:14. > :49:18.point really is we hear all the time from the Conservatives about hard
:49:18. > :49:22.working families, you can't stop saying the phrase. You bet your
:49:22. > :49:26.bottom dollar we're going to be hard-working families, with tuition
:49:26. > :49:32.fees trebling, with kids staying at home until they're 25, with the
:49:32. > :49:42.soaring energy bills, we will be hard working families!
:49:42. > :49:47.APPLAUSE They normally say, "Britain's hard
:49:47. > :49:50.working families". That's the cliche. I just to come back on the
:49:50. > :49:54.question, I think both of the parties have shifted to the left and
:49:54. > :49:59.right respectively to try and cut off and strangle some of the power
:49:59. > :50:01.that would happen by UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. If we had another
:50:02. > :50:06.hung parliament it would increase the amount of power that the smaller
:50:06. > :50:09.parties would have and that's why they have shifted away. You think
:50:09. > :50:17.they've deliberately moved away? Yes. So the Liberal Democrats have -
:50:17. > :50:21.So that he will have less support and UKIP will have less support.
:50:21. > :50:25.We've stayed - Conservatives have stayed exactly where we are were.
:50:25. > :50:28.We're on the side of hard-working people.
:50:28. > :50:31.LAUGHTER The reason I use that line is because most people in this
:50:32. > :50:35.country recognise that you can't just magic money from nowhere. You
:50:35. > :50:40.have to have a economy which generates jobs. What about fuel
:50:40. > :50:44.duties? It isn't about trying to divide up the cake that is there. We
:50:44. > :50:49.need to grow the cake to make a bigger economy. You haven't done
:50:49. > :50:52.very good at it? Because we've - Unemployment is - Quite against what
:50:52. > :50:56.people thought was going to happen. We've gone through the longest
:50:56. > :51:01.recession, and the deepest downturn which was much, much worse than
:51:02. > :51:05.people realised. But the economy was growing and you delayed it by three
:51:05. > :51:09.wasted years. We have had a lot to dig ourselves out of because of
:51:09. > :51:18.where your government left us. I want to take one more question
:51:18. > :51:22.before we finish. It is another very political question. Will David
:51:22. > :51:25.Cameron's help-to-buy policy help get young people on the housing
:51:25. > :51:28.Cameron's help-to-buy policy help ladder or inflate the market further
:51:28. > :51:30.and make it harder to buy in the long-term. Are you hoping to get on
:51:30. > :51:35.the housing ladder? Yes, well, it's a dream at the moment, but
:51:35. > :51:40.eventually. Would you use the help-to-buy scheme if you did? Are
:51:40. > :51:46.you thinking of doing that? No, I am not. No. Too expensive? Yes, at the
:51:46. > :51:49.moment, I am just saving as much as I possibly can. So the question is
:51:49. > :51:53.whether in effect it will make things worse because houses will get
:51:53. > :51:59.more expensive as a result of the policy. Kirsty Williams, this is a
:51:59. > :52:04.dough litigation policy. What do you think? I hope that it will enable
:52:04. > :52:07.many teem to realise their dream of owning their own property. We have
:52:07. > :52:12.to be mindful. We don't want the policy to result in another bubble
:52:12. > :52:15.on house prices and that is why the government has given the power and
:52:15. > :52:19.instructed the Bank of England that will review this policy on an annual
:52:19. > :52:22.basis. It is a time-limited policy. After three years, it will require
:52:22. > :52:24.the permission of the Bank of England to continue with it. There
:52:24. > :52:29.are lots of young people who are England to continue with it. There
:52:29. > :52:32.caught in a trap where they can afford the monthly repayments on a
:52:32. > :52:35.mortgage, sometimes paying more in rent than they would in a mortgage,
:52:35. > :52:38.but it is that deposit, it is getting over the hump of the deposit
:52:38. > :52:43.to secure that home. If we can help them to do that, I think it's a good
:52:43. > :52:49.thing. It also then takes some pressure off the rented sector for
:52:49. > :52:54.people who either don't want to or are unable to - If the houses are
:52:54. > :52:57.not coming on stream, how do you prevent it increasing house prices?
:52:57. > :53:02.Because the coalition government has a policy of building more homes. Of
:53:02. > :53:06.course, we need to build more homes, as our population grows, it is our
:53:06. > :53:09.living patterns changing. We need more houses and the coalition
:53:09. > :53:13.government is building those homes. I think it is right to help
:53:13. > :53:17.first-time buyers. I hope you can get a chance to get on the housing
:53:17. > :53:20.ladder because lots of people haven't been given that chance
:53:20. > :53:23.because house prices have just riven so fast and it is been hard to get
:53:23. > :53:25.mortgages and to get the opportunity to get on the housing ladder. I
:53:25. > :53:28.mortgages and to get the opportunity think it's right to help first-time
:53:28. > :53:32.buyers. Particularly would be better if the Bank of England looked at
:53:32. > :53:33.this straightaway and looked at this this more frequently. I think that
:53:33. > :53:37.this straightaway and looked at this would be a sensible way to make sure
:53:37. > :53:40.that you look at these risks in terms of getting the details right
:53:40. > :53:45.and actually the impact on the wider economy. I do think as well it won't
:53:45. > :53:51.work unless we build more homes. But we are. Actually, you're not. It is
:53:51. > :53:53.the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, not just in the
:53:53. > :53:57.financial crisis, of course, everybody understands the housing
:53:57. > :54:00.market was hit by a financial - global financial crisis, but in the
:54:00. > :54:03.last three years since the financial crisis was over, we have had drops
:54:03. > :54:12.last three years since the financial in the numbers of housesing built.
:54:12. > :54:18.That is a huge problem, building up huge problems for the future, and I
:54:18. > :54:36.think the government needs to really answer whether they're targeting
:54:36. > :55:14.this most effectively because they You may. It doesn't have to be a
:55:14. > :55:19.nationalisation. That might incur a very grievous loss for them if they
:55:19. > :55:28.bought at a high market. But compulsory purchase orders already
:55:28. > :55:34.exist. It is already possible for councils and. More borrowing, more
:55:34. > :55:37.debt. How long do you sit by and wait if organisations are not doing
:55:37. > :55:53.their bit? We've got to have action right across the board in order to
:55:53. > :56:02.get more homes built otherwise you won't do anything. Who is requesting
:56:02. > :56:21.to build the houses that the developer builds? We have all kinds
:56:21. > :56:24.of people building homes at the moment, private sector companies,
:56:24. > :56:27.of people building homes at the you have local councils that are
:56:27. > :56:30.involved. There is an appetite to build, but you've got to get that
:56:30. > :56:31.going, and the government hasn't done that.
:56:31. > :56:36.going, and the government hasn't First-time buying has always been a
:56:36. > :56:40.problem. I bought my first place at 25, a basement flat and it promptly
:56:40. > :56:42.lost a third of its value because there was a housing slump.
:56:42. > :57:24.It is very important for people to have their own place,
:57:24. > :57:32.Your interventions will have to do for that answer. If you can refer to
:57:32. > :57:37.the Huffington Post. We haven't had enough of Mehdi! We will be in
:57:37. > :57:45.Cambridge next week. We have Dianant for Labour, Joe Swinson for the
:57:45. > :57:54.Liberal Democrats. That's in Cambridge.
:57:54. > :57:59.Go to our website or apply to: