03/10/2013 Question Time

Tonight, we're in Birmingham. Welcome to Question Time.

As ever, a big welcome to you at home, and a welcome to our audience

here who are going to be putting the questions which, of course, our

panel don't know until they hear them from the lips of our audience.

The Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, is with us; Labour's

shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the leader of the Liberal

Democrats in Wales, Kirsty Williams; the political director of the

website Huffington Post UK, Mehdi Hasan; and the political sketch

writer for the Daily Mail, Quentin Letts.

APPLAUSE Thanks very much. Let's get

cracking. A question from Alison Swayne to start with. Is stopping

benefits for young people really the best way of getting them into work,

education, or training? This is David Cameron's speech and the

proposal that, in the next manifesto, everyone under 25 earning

or learning, not doing nothing. Yvette Cooper? I think we do need to

get young people into jobs and Yvette Cooper? I think we do need to

something has to be done. The government should be doing something

about unemployment among the under-25s. We've seen youth

unemployment go up to around one million, and long-term youth

unemployment has gone up by a third just since the election. Something

does have to be done, but this announcement we have had seems to be

policy-making on-the-hoof. It seems to be very confused. The real answer

is to get people into jobs, that's what we would do, that's what Labour

would do: guarantee young people a job. If they can't find an

alternative or take up a guaranteed job that we would give and fund for

them, then, yes, they - How do you guarantee someone a job? How can you

possibly guarantee someone a job? Of course we can. We would raise a fund

from the tax on bankers' bonuses, we've said how we would work on it,

and we've done it before through things like the Futures Job fund.

You make sure there's a job to go to. There are employers who will

always take on anybody who comes to them under the age of 25? We've done

this before - With 100 per cent success. The Futures Job Fund - even

the department of work and pensions said it was successful. You could

work with the private sector, work with businesses across the country.

Guarantee people a job, if they don't take it, there will be

Guarantee people a job, if they responsibilities on people. They

actually have to take that job and you can't have people thenning stuck

on on benefits for a long time. So you would stop their benefits? You

would have penalties. But you guarantee people a job. The problem

I have with what the government is doing is there is no effort to

guarantee people a job. There is no effort to make sure there is a job

for people to go to; they can't answer the basic questions about

whether this withdrawal of benefits will apply to care levers who don't

have a home to go back to, whether it will apply to a graduate who has

worked for several years and then loses their job, will they suddenly

lose everything? Does it apply to people looking after children,

parents of children? We had muddled answers from them. It could be

completely counterproductive, and to be doing this in such a chaotic way

doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Can you guarantee people a

job? That's what we should be doing: getting those people into work and

not having another lost generation. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much I have to say we had more questions on this topic

tonight than on anything else. Grant Shapps, the Prime Minister said we

should ask as we write our next manifesto, and the implication was

this was going to become policy. Is that right? Yes, what we are saying

is if you're currently working, the chances are - and you're under 25,

the chances are you're struggling to move out of home. You won't be able

to get the deposit together all our help-to-buy scheme will help.

There's a strange paradox if you're not working, then the system will

give you Housing Benefit to enable you to go and rent that flat. That

can't be right that you're put at a disadvantage by not working, and

this measure is aimed at both sorting that out and also making

sure that people are able to get on sorting that out and also making

to the work ladder straightaway either earning or learning from a

young age because all the evidence shows that when people do that, they

have much better outcomes throughout the rest of their lives. How are you

going to get people into a job? We're going to have - we have got

going to get people into a job? the work programme. Which isn't

working. It it has worked twice - I am giving you the facts. The Work

Programme has worked twice as well as the Flexible New Deal that it

replaced. It has got a lot of people into jobs for the first time. If,

after three years, people still are not in jobs, we don't think it's

good enough to leave people on the scrap-heap, say sorry, we're not

interested in you any more. We're interested in them. We're going to

do one of three things: ask them to come to the Job Centre every day so

they are properly engaged with the jobs market, will help them to get

there if transport is the issue, make sure they're looking for a job

every day. We're going to help out if there are long-term issues, if it

is a problem of literacy that is preventing someone from getting a

job, we will - You waited for three years before you give people

intensive literacy help and support? You make them fill the job centres.

How big is this Job Centre going to be that you're going to put

everybody into rather than getting them jobs? The government left a

million people unemployed for a decade - It's gone up by a third.

Youth long-term unemployment. Let me finish the answer. Let him finish

his point. If somebody is still not working but claiming unemployment,

then they should work for the community and put something back

into the community for 35 hours a community and put something back

week and spend the rest of the time looking for a job. I don't think

week and spend the rest of the time it's good enough to leave people on

the scrap-heap, ignore them as if they don't matter. We have been

successful, and you will admit having claimed there will be a

million more people out of work, we've got more people in work than

at any time. This is designed to save money in the long-term, isn't

it, so that you're not paying people - In the short-term - How much are

you going to save? You've got a figure of £2 billion a year, right?

Look, everybody who works is always going to be much better both for

them and for society, and for the Treasury than someone who doesn't

work. What we are doing here is signalling that, in the next

manifesto, this is something we would want to pursue, and I can tell

you we would not include people who are on ESA, for example, that's when

people are disabled or unable to work, and so on. You've got to wait

because the Liberal Democrats don't go along with it. I've scenic Clegg

today has said he would be want to go look at the proposal in more

detail. I don't think it is acceptable to leave people on the

scrap-heap and assume they can't work. Let's hear from some members

of our audience. Thank you. The argument seems to be coming round

again to job creation. As an accountant, the biggest problem that

we still have today is raising finance from the bankers.

What is the answer to that, please? So you think job creation is not

possible, not feasible in the present? We need to create more jobs

for these young people. That sounds fantastic. The reality of it is

small and medium-sized businesses want to create jobs. We need the,

for instance, from the bankers to do that. How are we going to resolve

it? Applause applause Let me hear from other people and then we will

get an answer to that. Will this proposed measure not lead to higher

levels of homelessness? No. If you're in working at the moment and

under 25, if you know anyone in that category, you will know they are

struggling to move to their own place. That doesn't heed to

homelessness -- lead to homelessness in itself. If you're out of work,

you're able to move out at taxpayers' expense. That can't be

right. Another answer to the point, we've managed to create in the

private sector 1.4 million jobs since this government came to power

just three years ago. It far exceeds what people expected to happen. It

just three years ago. It far exceeds massively replaces, but many times

over the numbers lost in the private sector. This country - Grant,

you'ring properly answering the questions, but I don't want you to

dominate the whole discussion. Kirsty Williams. We do need more

jobs, the current coalition government has created 1.4 million

jobs in the private secretary, but we need more, and Vince Cable and

other coalition colleagues have tried to create an opportunity for

banks to lend more money, but there's more that the banks could be

doing. We have aspirations for a million more jobs. Of course, no

government would want - not want 18 to 25-years-old in work, so we have

to tackle the problems why they don't end up in, would. We need jobs

and training for them. This coalition government has created 1.2

million apprentices so those people can have workplace learning, and we

have to recognise the people most likely to end up in this category

are children from our poorest backwards, and we have --

backgrounds. They are leaving school without the skills they need. Why do

you oppose the Conservative proposal? Because I think it

stereotypes the reasons why 18 to 24-years-old potentially can become

unemployed. I graduated university during the recession of the 1990s. I

struggled to find a be Jo. Luckily for me, I was able to go home to my

struggled to find a be Jo. Luckily family and they were able to help me

until I was able to find work when family and they were able to help me

the economy began to get better. We stereotype people. We don't know the

circumstances of individuals. Of course, if people turn down the

offer of help that is available, then there should be shankses for

that. We already have that in our benefits system with issues around

conditionality, but we've got to get pupils from our poorest background

leaving schools with the right skills and that is why Pupil Premium

leaving schools with the right is so important.

APPLAUSE The woman there on the right. It is

good that however many jobs have been created by this government. We

need more. But they need to be full-time worthwhile jobs.

APPLAUSE Not just a few hours a week at a

local supermarket where the person still has not enough money to live

on. My feeling about this is that it is a question of economic reality.

One can talk about creating jobs or the desirability of youngstersing in

jobs - -- youngsters being in jobs, it's desirable. The welfare bill in

this country is enormous. It is too it's desirable. The welfare bill in

big. We can't afford it any more. We spend more on benefits than we do on

defence, than we do on education. That's a good thing. Than we do on

the police. Even we spend more on welfare than we even do on the BBC,

so this is a problem that we have to grip. We can't just go on ignoring

it any more because that's what happened in the past. The

politicians haven't been honest about the sums. That's why we've got

this horrendous debt problem in this country. It is terribly difficult to

reduce spending on benefits because many people are very needy, but my

personal prejudice on this would be if you have to pick on one group of

people, I would rather, reluctantly say this, rather reduce spending on

youngsters than I would reduce spending on the elderly, say, and

there is evidence, I think, that Iain Duncan-Smith's programme of

welfare reform is reducing the unemployment, of people claiming

unemployment, employment is going up, the private sector has played a

blinder, an awful lot of jobs have been created in the private sector,

and Yvette talks about another lost been created in the private sector,

generation. Well, if it is another lost generation, that shows there is

one at the moment which shows that the system - I remember what

happened in the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher's lost generation was

devastating for people. It is not difficult. It jolly well is

different. There is long-term youth unemployment going up and up and

people stuck on the dole for years unemployment going up and up and

on end. It is different this time because unemployment is falling and

employment is rising, and it is heck of a task to reduce the welfare

bill, but if you had to do it for anyone, then I would say, there is

this good Labour policy of the national minimum wage which means

that jobs are paying better than they were in the Thatcher days.

Quentin has actually made most of my point there. It doesn't make sense

to keep on borrowing to spend money on welfare. If you're borrowing to

spend investing, I think the Prime Minister said earn or learn, so the

intention is to put people these people to learning if they can't get

a be Jo. It doesn't make sense to borrow money. Who is going to pay

the money back. The budget is in deficit. The deficit of about 100

billion a month and that keeps going up and up, so you have to cut the

welfare budget from elsewhere. In response to this gentleman and

Quentin, but call me old-fashioned, I think it's a good thing we spend

more money on poor and vulnerable in our country than foreign defence and

wars. The majority of the welfare in this budget goes to pensioners, not

people on Housing Benefit, to Daily Mail readers. It wasn't people on

Housing Benefit who - it wasn't the long-term unemployed who made

themselves unemployed and caused the global financial crisis, so I am not

sure why they should have to pick up the bill. To address the original

sure why they should have to pick up question that was asked, I am always

amused when I hear David Cameron talking about this subject, and

talking about this subject, a man who has never had to worry about

having a roof over his head. APPLAUSE His first job at

Conservative Central Office he got thanks from a phone call at

Buckingham Palace who put in a good word for him, so I am amused when he

lectures people on job prospects or housing situations. He told people

he should go to school even though the government got rid of the

educational maintenance allowance. He told people to go to university

even though his government brought in tuition fees. He told young

people to get apprenticeships even though on his government's watch,

they've gone down by 12 per cent year on year. Now, I want to go

back. That's not true. Bring down the welfare budget, then? I would

take the accountant's point. You have to bring jobs in. There are 2.5

million jobs in. There are half a million people vacancies. How do you

squeeze five people into one job. Stop blaming the unemployed forking

unemployed. It is good po - This country has a deficit. Caused by

whom? No matter how it was causing, blame it on bankers, I personally

think that the previous government had a lot to do with it. The

solution can't be yet more borrowing. More jobs. On the jobs

front, as we've already - on the jobs front at least we have, and

front, as we've already - on the is undenial a lot of jobs. You must

not interrupt every other word, nor must you, Grant, interrupt him. One

at a time is much better because then people listening and interested

can hear the argument instead of hearing the rant. Can I at least

correct one fact. There are more apprenticeships, 1.2 million more

apprenticeships since this government came to power. Employment

is at an all-time record at nearly 30 million people in this country,

and despite what we were told when we started to reduce that deficit,

we've cut a third off the deficit so far - work in progress - we were

told by Labour it would create a million more unemployed. It has not.

At least please accept - You're borrowing. According to the public

accounts committee, the work programme has got 3.6 per cent of

the people on the scheme into work. If that is working, then - You're

quoting - You said it's working - It is. People will be switching off in

droves if we get into an argument about the 3.6. Yvette Cooper on the

substantial point about cutting welfare that the gentleman there

made? I think the best way to cut the social security bills is to get

more people into work. That means we've got to invest in those young

people, get them into jobs of the we've said how we would pay for it.

We would tax the bankers' bonuses because we think that is a fair way

to do it. I think that is the right way to do it. That will deliver

returns for years to come as you get those people to stay in jobs because

once you know if people don't get that first job, it is so much harder

to get the next job later on. Grant is turning his back on them. We have

had three wasted years from this government and youth long-term

unemployment which is the serious problem has gone up by a third. I am

really concerned as a teacher in a secondary school in Birmingham I

hear people on the panel saying that we should reduce funding and support

to young people. I think that is frightening, really. What we've got

to do is invest in our young people frightening, really. What we've got

at the earliest stage possible, particularly at secondary school so

we can give them a passport to success. That passport to success

are good qualifications and they can go out in the wide world and

are good qualifications and they can achieve. I think it's depressing to

hear that we want to cut. Do you think there are circumstances -

APPLAUSE Do you think there are circumstances

when stopping benefits to under-25s would be justified or are you saying

when stopping benefits to under-25s in no circumstances? I think as one

who works with young people, I think we should support at every

opportunity. That's not answering the question. Do you think there are

any circumstances in which benefits should be cut? No. I do think with

regards to what I've heard to pupil premium, which is something that

really assists us in closing the gap in people who on free school meals

so we have consistency from the front door to school and back home

that they're in the same level playing field. We've got a lot of

questions. It is vital and it makes a massive difference because we know

those are the children most likely not to get the qualifications they

need to make their way in life. If we educate people properly and give

them opportunities to train and a job, they will keep their own roof

over their head and provide for their family. That's why we've got

to get education right and focus on our youngest people. We must move on

to another question. Just to say, text or Twitter is at your disposal

of course tonight. If you want to argue the case:

Now the next question, please. Has the

Daily Mail gone too far with its smear attack against Ed Miliband's

father? Has the Daily Mail gone too far with

the Ed Miliband's smear campaign on his father. If this was an attack on

my dad, I would feel upset about it and want a right to reply which I

know he has had. I think they certainly went too far with a

particular headline they used online. The Mail on Sunday has

apologised for something else, remarkably, which happened after all

this had come to everyone's attention, which was to send

journalists quite inappropriately to a memorial service, and they've

apologised unreservedly for that. I do think that it is right there is a

vibrant press in this country. I do think there are too many reasons to

try to restrict it. I have to say that I have had occasion to be

annoyed with newspapers many times over, including the Daily Mail,

actually, but in the end it doesn't over, including the Daily Mail,

make me conclude that we should bring this so draconian law to

make me conclude that we should prevent them. I do think that this

is a work in progress. Of course, prevent them. I do think that this

the whole process of Leveson and everything that comes afterwards is

still ongoing, and next week there is a Privy Council meeting where

they will be looking at the newspapers' suggestion for a Royal

Charter on this which may or may not stack up. I have serious concerns

about what happened but I don't want to then knee jerk into preventing

press freedom. Do you think the Mail should apologise? They have. No, the

Mail on Sunday has apologised. The Do you think the Mail should

apologise? They have. No, the Mail on Sunday has apologised. The Mail.

"An evil legacy and why we won't apologise." I notice Michael Gove,

your colleague said he didn't think apologise." I notice Michael Gove,

there was any reason for the Mail to do anything, that's what you got

there was any reason for the Mail to with the free press. On a personal

level, if that was my dad, I would feel aggrieved about it. That is

slightly different. Then you have to have a route of redress, and that is

being able to get something published in the paper. I don't want

a knee jerk which is you go to the next stage where they're saying they

can't write what they want. There is the legitimate question of what

drives someone's motives who inspired all of us who are in

politics, the greater concern for me in all of this, frankly, is what

would Ed Miliband be like as a Prime Minister, as far as I can see go

back to what we've been discussing, the spending, borrowing, and debt

that got us into this mess in the first place and to the extent that

that was guided by things in his upbringing, I think that's

interesting. But I don't accept that his father was somehow anti-British,

and I don't think that using the diary of somebody as a teenager is

an appropriate way to judge the man who now would like to be Prime

Minister. APPLAUSE

Quentin lets, you've been writing for the Mail for the last 12 years.

Yes, when I heard this story today about the behaviour of the Mail on

Sunday reporter, I was put in mind of the Emperor Hirohito in Japan in

1945 who said the events hadn't turned necessarily to the advantage

of Japan and I will not defend the indefensible, and that behaviour was

clearly indefensible. I am glad the Mail on Sunday has apologised for

that. Lord rot mere, the - Lord Rothermere has apoll the - Lord

Rothermere has apoll gefilte. -- apologised. The thing that was

apologised for for was sneaking a couple of reporters into a private

memorial service at Guy's Hospital. Yes, terrible. The Mail on Sunday's

memorial service at Guy's Hospital. editor has apologised. But the Mail

on Sunday is a different paper from the Daily Mail. I will try to defend

the defendable because I think it is the coverage or the essay that was

written about Ed Miliband's dad, because we need to know first of all

that Ed Miliband in every speech I've heard him make refers to his

father who was a very prominent intellectual, philosopher, a

Marxist. This was - he was perhaps what they call about the useful

idiot, sometimes, the people who what they call about the useful

were promoting Marxism at a time of the Cold War, when Britain was up

against Russia, and Marxism was the code, the Creed of the Soviet Union.

It is difficult to analyse somebody's political beliefs without

coring into their personality as well, and this article was doing

that, so I would say that because Ed Miliband uses his dad in his

speeches as a political fool, if you like, I think that makes him,

particularly after the speech he gave at his party conference, which

was wildly left-wing, and Marxist based, I would argue - he was

proposing among other things the theft of private land. Supported by

t International Monetary Fund, those well-known markists!

APPLAUSE -- marksist! Let's pick up on the

phrase that got, at got, it was "the man who hated Britain". Yes, the

headline on the piece of the tabloid newspaper headlines are not always

understated, and it was saying the man who hated Britain. Did he hate

Britain? The 17-year-old write in the diary something about he thought

he wouldn't mind if Britain lost the Second World War. A 17-year-old boy

writes that, I think we can accept that a 17-year-old boy might change

his mind later on. He was older, Ralph Miliband, when it came to the

Falklands war, and he was furious that we won it. He wanted us to lose

it. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I am not sure

it is. I just feel that it is a point of view, isn't it? It is an

essay, it is a political argument. This was from the authorised

biography of Ralph mill ban. It is not as if any bins were being rooted

through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron, so it was a

strong piece, it was a controversial piece, the Daily Mail is a

controversial and strong newspaper, but was it really completely out of

order? I am shot sure it was. Kirsty? Quentin, this is a man who

fought for his country. APPLAUSE The

fought for his country. country that he didn't have to fight

for. He chose to do that. That, in my

mind equates to somebody who cares very deeply about the country that

they live in. You're right to say, as politicians, sometimes we're all

guilty of it, we put our entries out there in a desperate attempt to make

ourselves look a little bit more human and a little bit more normal

and sometimes the press then have an opportunity to reflect on that, but

there is a world of difference between examining the beliefs of Ed

Miliband and the influence his father may or may not have had on

him and that odious headline about how he hated the country based on,

as you quite rightly say, a diary entry of a 17-year-old, and, let's

face it, we've all said and written daft things when we are 17. It was

wrong to conflate that story which is a legitimate look at how a father

influences a son into an odious headline, and Ed Miliband has every

right to call the Daily Mail out on Is the press's maturity under

question question here in that they're smearing someone's father.

You wouldn't want your father, no-one here would want their father

smeared in the newspaper publicly, I really don't think it is anyone's

business talking about that. If it was a smear but Quentin lets was

saying it wasn't a smear. It was a view, it was a political argument.

Quentin has said, and the Daily Mail has said and repeated it this

evening that Ralph Miliband hated Britain. I just think this is

shocking to decide to pursue as distort and twist the words of a

dead father in order to pursue an attack on a son.

APPLAUSE I think it's about basic standards of

decency. You don't do that, you don't twist the words of a father in

that way when he's not able to pursue a libel case, he's not able

to reply himself. You also don't go gate-crash a private memorial

service for a dead uncle in order to continue to pursue that attack on

the son. This idea as well that I think look, none of us panellists

have fought for our country or signed up for our country, and I

doubt very many people on the Mail have done so, either, and I think

people who have not served their country and fought for their country

should really think twice about deciding that they have a monopoly

on caring for this country and determining British values over

someone who fought for British determining British values over

values when British values were really at stake.

APPLAUSE Do you think Paul Dacre should

resign? I think he should certainly apologise very swiftly for this. The

dignified thing as well for Quentin and Paul Dacre to do is recognise

what Mail readers are saying as well as all the political parties and

recognise that this went too far and apologise now. It's been a bizarre

week even by journalistic standards. Last Saturday the Mail published a

headline, "The man who hated Britain". On Tuesday, they published

this bonkers leader saying he's got a jealous legacy referring to the

jealous God of Deuteronomy, and then a reporter goes to gate-crash a dead

uncle's memorial. What is next? Grave robbing. Where the man was

buried came into the store Ie. That's the only thing they've

apologised so far. There's been a grave misjudgment, deeply

hypocritical judgment on the part of grave misjudgment, deeply

the Mail here in asking these questions and posing these issues.

When you talk about who hates Britain or who who has legacy, who

do you think has it? A man who sucked up to the Nazis, who made

friends with Joseph Geobels, the owner and founder of the Daily Mail,

Lord Rothermere or a man who served in the Royal Navy, Ralph Miliband?

Who hated Britain more? This has opened up a whole debate about the

Daily Mail. You want to talk about who hates Britain. Let me finish.

This is a paper that, in recent years, said that there was nothing

natural about the death of the gay pop star Stephen Gately, who said

that the French people should vote for the National Front, who attacked

Danny boil for having a mixed race couple in his Olympics opening

ceremony, who called mow Farrow a plastic brit. Let's have a debate

about who hates Britain more, it is the gay-baiting, woman-hating Daily

Mail. APPLAUSE If

that is a hatchet job, so be it. We can't really let the stuff go

through without mentioning at least that Mehdi's mates on the left when

Lady Thatcher died were doing a lot of grave-dancing then. It was awful.

I am glad to hear you say that. She was the Prime Minister. You have had

a long speech, let Quentin answer. Working for the Daily Mail, you're

never going to be a favourite of the left, a favourite of bishops and

Princes, and kings, and prime ministers. Daily Mail is outside the

political village. LAUGHTER

It is. There is the old LAUGHTER It is. There is the old expression

about "outside the tent". That's the It is. There is the old expression

Mail. We don't get invited on the Mail to all the cosy David Cameron

dinner parties. The Mail tries to stand up for what its readers are

interested in and its readers' points of view. The Mail was being

attacked today by Nick Clegg, for instance. Well, Cleggy was calling

us all sorts of terribly rude things because maybe we in the past have

been brisk on him. John Prescott was having a go at us. Gordon Brown

loved you, didn't he? I have a wonderful quote from him which you

ought to - which plays to your cause, "Paul Dacre delivered one of

the great newspaper success stories. He also shows great personal warmth

and kindness as well as -" I am allowed to disagree on the Daily

Mail line. I took a less positive view of Gordon. Who else was

attacking us. Michael Heseltine. Lord Moore. Lots of Tories. We don't

tend to approve of the European Union - Quentin Charles Moore has

attacked you for doing this, Margaret Thatcher's biographer. We

don't approve of political correctness, that makes us

unpopular. If you say things like that in Britain, we don't approve of

the BBC, those million-pound that in Britain, we don't approve of

pay-offs to BBC executives. Is that because you hate Britain?

LAUGHTER When you say things like that -

Let's bring this to a close. We've got your point too. You've worked in

the political village for many years, Quentin. There was a massive

amount of applause when Mehdi was making his point. I think Ed

Miliband shot himself in the foot when he stood on the soapbox saying,

"I am going to bring socialism back." I don't want it in this

country. I believe in capitalism because we need wealth to feed the

budgets for schools, teachers, everything that goes in local

council, so bring it on. I don't want socialism. I believe in a free

press. I don't like some of the things that go on, my own party I

belong to, we ride them off. Which is that? UKIP. The fact of the

matter is we are all in some ways following from our parents' views,

yes, and I think it is important for this country to realise just what

socialism does and has done, and the further we are aremoved away from

it, the better. Did you think that the attack on Ralph Miliband was

fair in the Mail? I haven't actually read it, I've only gone what is said

on the media. Attacking family members, no, no, but it is important

that we influences from parents is brought to the fore. That's fine,

you can have that debate, and you can argue in the newspapers whether

what Ed Miliband has said is right or wrong, and I don't want to go

back to socialism, either, but the way they've approached that has not

brought any good things for the Mail, and, actually, just brings

everybody down. It makes the whole media - The woman with the

spectacles there. I have several points to make, so I am - Not

several, please! I will make one - Choose your best point. Quentin

continuously justifies that smear as an essay. It was not an essay. It

was disgusting anti-Semitic slander over a dead man. We must not

dissociate this from the Mail's normal conduct. It normally

demonises people from marginalised groups and they do this legitimate

the dominant class's ideology. They profit out of demonising people. I

the dominant class's ideology. They think we're taking the wrong

question by saying OK about who actually loved Britain or hated

Britain, it doesn't really matter because, to be honest, it would

still be a disgusting anti-Semitic piece whether or not Ralph Miliband

hated Britain or not. Thank you for the point. I think it's important we

apply the same standards to everyone the point. I think it's important we

and all newspapers left or right. I am disappointed I didn't hear the

outrage we heard before from Eddie when the Guardian attacked David

Cameron's father after he passed when the Guardian attacked David

away in a completely spurious piece, or the Mirror went through the

dustbins of David Cameron and unearth the nappies of his disabled

son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me this should apply

across the field. I don't, as I say, personally favour the press

restrictions which will prevent a vibrant free press, from us having

the debate and argument that has taken place tonight, many of the

points on which I agree with, but I do think it should be applied across

the field. When it comes to regulation of the press, are you in

favour of the policy that the Daily Mail supports of having virtually no

control on the press? Are you in favour of the other things that is

control on the press? Are you in going to be - No - That's a very

misleading question. Hang on, we need to point out that was a

severely loaded question by the chair, because the proposal that is

from the newspaper associations about the press - about the new

press regulations are really pretty tough. We're talking about

million-pound fines. Sorry, of the two proposals, theone supported by

the Mail and other newspapers, and Private Eye and many other people,

is the more lenient of the tw. David, there is - Don't argue about

that, because that is the case. There is a danger - I am trying to

keep calm here - but there is a danger that the BBC has an agenda

here. The Daily Mail is very critical of the BBC and has been

very critical of the BBC's conduct recently with paying off £1 million

to its former executives. Don't accuse me of having an agenda chosen

for me by the BBC, thank you very much. You're a member of the

establishment and the Mail isn't. The Mail isn't part of the

establishment! Let's come back to t question. Grant Shapps, of the two

proposals, are you in favour of the tougher regulation which is going to

be considered or the slightly less tough regulation? We've come forward

with the tougher regular legacy. But are you in favour? Of course,

otherwise we wouldn't come forward with it. The question now - That

depends on what all at parties and the newspapers get together or the

question now is, and they have to be taken in order next week, the Privy

Council looks at the newspapers' version of the Royal Charter, they

will then look at our version, the government's version of the Royal

Charter. There is not actually huge differences here, this is down to

something quite technical about who appoints the body over the body over

the body. The most important thing is to make sure there is a proper

right of redress but we benefit from living in a country where we can

properly debate things, and in the end, the government coming in the

future who wants to muzzle the media just doesn't have that opportunity.

I think that's more valuable to us as Brits. We will move on because

we've only 20 minutes to go. Neil Dance, please. Does the recent shift

away from the centre by both parties signify a deepening rift in the

fabric of society. Talking of Labour and conferences at their -- talking

of Labour and Tories at the party conferences? I don't buy the premise

of the question about this. One of the most distorting things in modern

politics is this idea of centre ground, a geographical place that

politics is this idea of centre every politician devices towards. I

just don't buy it. Take, for example, what Quentin referred to

earlier as a wildly left-wing speech by Ed Miliband last week. If you

look at the public polling, the majority of people want to go much

beyond Ed Miliband, they want to renationalise the railways. A

imagine show a favour of that of the energy companies, of the 50 p tax

rating brought in on people on £100,000. If you talk about where

the centre is, the public on many issues, on some they're not, on

immigration is much to the right of this mythical centre but on issues

of public services and the ownership of these utility companies and

taxation of the rich, the public is to the left. Would you agree that

the two parties have pulled apart a bit over this conference season in

terms of the political - From each other? Yes, I think they have. Does

it mean they've pulled apart from a centre ground, not necessarily. At

least we will have a proper choice centre ground, not necessarily. At

at the next election. As they did in America, with Barack Obama talking

in left-wing terms if not acting in it so hopefully we'll have a good

choice at the next election. I think the American example is a really bad

one. What has happened in Washington at the moment is that there is lack

of co-operation about and between the political parties. There is

movement and it's beginning to be clear what the priorities of what

the right and left are during this conference season, and I think what

we do need is an anchoring force in the centre because I do believe that

is where most British people and voters find themselves. If we pull

apart the opportunity to work together to solve the problems - Are

you in the centre? I think what we do is try to ensure that we have got

strong economic policies to get us out of this recession and continue

to drive What economic policies? To drive the economy forward but we try

to do that to make sure we're living in a fairer society. The debate

we've been having at our conference has been all about the cost of

living crisis. I don't think that that is a marginal issue; I don't

think that's a narrow issue. I don't think it is just a left-wing issue.

I think it's a mainstream issue that's affecting people right across

the country because prices are going up and up, bills are going up and up

and wages just are not keeping up for the 30 --. For the 39 months

that David Cameron has been Prime Minister, prices have gone up more

than wages. People are worse off in practice. What about the question

that was asked. Neil's point is what does that mean for the centre

ground. I think what we're talking about is the centre ground. It is

exactly the thing that people across the country of all incomes and

backgrounds are worried about. Yes, we're setting out practical things

to do about iterers - freezing energy bills, for example, for two

years, while we reform the market, increasing free childcare so parents

can manage to balance family life. You're doing your agenda again. It

is a - there is a bigger difference thing. I think there is a bigger

difference about between us and the Conservatives. That difference - Is

the gap widening? I think that was the point of the question, wasn't

it? Yes, because we've set out practical things you could do about

it, they haven't. Al-they're doing instead is saying that you should

just simply then those on the highest income. They're the ones who

just simply then those on the have had the tax cuts, ignoring

people on the middle. We have had three wasted years of no economic

growth. Now that the economy is finally growing, there is still a

big challenge to make sure that the growth is strong enough but also

most, importantly, to make sure that everybody benefits, and you don't

have a small minority benefitting and everybody elsing left behind.

That is what is unfair. APPLAUSE

First of all, to answer the question, I think the answer is

that, yes, there is now a very significant difference. Ed Miliband

believes there is a total difference between the cost of living and that

is in some way not connected at all to the economy growing. We believe

that if you want to have a better quality of life for everybody, then

you have to grow a bigger economy, and once you've done that of course

people will all benefit. The idea somehow that Mehdi puts forward that

our policies are not on the popular side is interesting. Welfare that

works, so, that it actually pays to get a job - popular; an economy

where we've got the deficit by a third - popular; immigration cut by

a third - popular. I think we're on the side of the public who want, for

example, a European referendum which we promised and we will deliver if

we are elected next time. In fact, there is a bill going through

parliament. If you accept there is been this widening gap between the

two parties, why do you think that's happened? What do you attribute it

to? I think that is the simple as this: Ed Miliband challenged the

unions who, it turned out, were accused of fixing a number of selec

40 Labour Labour selections around the country for candidates for the

next election. He stood up to the unions and said, "I am going to

something about it. Two months later in the end, he completely

capitulated to them when the GMB promised to withdraw - So you moved

away? What's happened is he has realised he can't stay in power

without the money from his unions, he has turned immediately to try to

satisfy their agenda. As opposed to taking money from bankers? I didn't

interrupt you. People want to know not that their enly will be low for

- They do want to know that. They do. Their electricity will stay

competitive for 20 years, not 20 Morse. It isen kindergarten

economics. Unfortunately, we only have one political party in this

country. We've got a liberal wing of the European wing, a Conservative

wing of the European party, a Labour wing of the European party. 70 per

cent of our laws are governed by Europe. All you're arguing about is

that little 30 per cent. That's why you're in the centre. That's why

people are turned off politics because there's no difference

between the lot of you. You might talk about influences, you might

talk about this or that, but basically you're only talking about

that 30 per cent. You said M Shapps about jailration. You've reduced --

immigration. That is not EU immigration. What are you doing

about European immigration? What are you going to do about those coming

from Romania next January? It is overall immigration, including EU

immigration. The only way to get a European referendum is to vote

Conservative in the next election. You promised that before and you've

not delivered that before. We actually have a bill in parliament.

You promised it before. You're misquoting history, that was before

the Lisbon Treaty was passed. We didn't have that in our manifesto.

Let's get the facts straight. Was it Neil asked the question about the

centre, if we can get back to the question. It's difficult to say what

is centrist in politics. So my mind, the really centrist thing is being

realistic about the economy. In that respect at the party conference

season we've just had, and my respect at the party conference

goodness we sketch writers are glad it is over, the Labour Party went

cart wheeling over the horizon to the left. You can argue actually on

the economy that UKIP is more central and more in the centre

ground now than the Labour Party. The person for that I'm afraid is a

guy called he'd Balls who n for that I'm afraid is a guy called he'd

Balls who is -- Ed balls, who is a maniac free spender. I have to be

careful because his beloved is next to me, and he is - Yvette, do you

send him out shopping? Do you entrust him with the household

finances? I don't know. I dread to this how much money he dread to this

how much money he spends. -- I dread this how much money he dread to this

to think how much money he spends. this how much money he dread to this

This is the defining issue of the party conferences was that on the

economy, Labour has just disappeared over the left-wing horizon. If that

is what you care about, should you not be pointing out that all the

things we announced, we said how we would fund them, we said how we

would pay for them and what we would do, all the things that were

announced at the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conference they

didn't say how they would fund them at all. They're borrowing more than

250 billion more because they've made a (messy) of the economic

management. You keep talking about taxing bankers more. If you talk

about that, the bankers won't come to this country, they will go

elsewhere. The woman in red there? I think my

point really is we hear all the time from the Conservatives about hard

working families, you can't stop saying the phrase. You bet your

bottom dollar we're going to be hard-working families, with tuition

fees trebling, with kids staying at home until they're 25, with the

soaring energy bills, we will be hard working families!

APPLAUSE They normally say, "Britain's hard

working families". That's the cliche. I just to come back on the

question, I think both of the parties have shifted to the left and

right respectively to try and cut off and strangle some of the power

that would happen by UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. If we had another

hung parliament it would increase the amount of power that the smaller

parties would have and that's why they have shifted away. You think

they've deliberately moved away? Yes. So the Liberal Democrats have -

So that he will have less support and UKIP will have less support.

We've stayed - Conservatives have stayed exactly where we are were.

We're on the side of hard-working people.

LAUGHTER The reason I use that line is because most people in this

country recognise that you can't just magic money from nowhere. You

have to have a economy which generates jobs. What about fuel

duties? It isn't about trying to divide up the cake that is there. We

need to grow the cake to make a bigger economy. You haven't done

very good at it? Because we've - Unemployment is - Quite against what

people thought was going to happen. We've gone through the longest

recession, and the deepest downturn which was much, much worse than

people realised. But the economy was growing and you delayed it by three

wasted years. We have had a lot to dig ourselves out of because of

where your government left us. I want to take one more question

before we finish. It is another very political question. Will David

Cameron's help-to-buy policy help get young people on the housing

Cameron's help-to-buy policy help ladder or inflate the market further

and make it harder to buy in the long-term. Are you hoping to get on

the housing ladder? Yes, well, it's a dream at the moment, but

eventually. Would you use the help-to-buy scheme if you did? Are

you thinking of doing that? No, I am not. No. Too expensive? Yes, at the

moment, I am just saving as much as I possibly can. So the question is

whether in effect it will make things worse because houses will get

more expensive as a result of the policy. Kirsty Williams, this is a

dough litigation policy. What do you think? I hope that it will enable

many teem to realise their dream of owning their own property. We have

to be mindful. We don't want the policy to result in another bubble

on house prices and that is why the government has given the power and

instructed the Bank of England that will review this policy on an annual

basis. It is a time-limited policy. After three years, it will require

the permission of the Bank of England to continue with it. There

are lots of young people who are England to continue with it. There

caught in a trap where they can afford the monthly repayments on a

mortgage, sometimes paying more in rent than they would in a mortgage,

but it is that deposit, it is getting over the hump of the deposit

to secure that home. If we can help them to do that, I think it's a good

thing. It also then takes some pressure off the rented sector for

people who either don't want to or are unable to - If the houses are

not coming on stream, how do you prevent it increasing house prices?

Because the coalition government has a policy of building more homes. Of

course, we need to build more homes, as our population grows, it is our

living patterns changing. We need more houses and the coalition

government is building those homes. I think it is right to help

first-time buyers. I hope you can get a chance to get on the housing

ladder because lots of people haven't been given that chance

because house prices have just riven so fast and it is been hard to get

mortgages and to get the opportunity to get on the housing ladder. I

mortgages and to get the opportunity think it's right to help first-time

buyers. Particularly would be better if the Bank of England looked at

this straightaway and looked at this this more frequently. I think that

this straightaway and looked at this would be a sensible way to make sure

that you look at these risks in terms of getting the details right

and actually the impact on the wider economy. I do think as well it won't

work unless we build more homes. But we are. Actually, you're not. It is

the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, not just in the

financial crisis, of course, everybody understands the housing

market was hit by a financial - global financial crisis, but in the

last three years since the financial crisis was over, we have had drops

last three years since the financial in the numbers of housesing built.

That is a huge problem, building up huge problems for the future, and I

think the government needs to really answer whether they're targeting

this most effectively because they You may. It doesn't have to be a

nationalisation. That might incur a very grievous loss for them if they

bought at a high market. But compulsory purchase orders already

exist. It is already possible for councils and. More borrowing, more

debt. How long do you sit by and wait if organisations are not doing

their bit? We've got to have action right across the board in order to

get more homes built otherwise you won't do anything. Who is requesting

to build the houses that the developer builds? We have all kinds

of people building homes at the moment, private sector companies,

of people building homes at the you have local councils that are

involved. There is an appetite to build, but you've got to get that

going, and the government hasn't done that.

going, and the government hasn't First-time buying has always been a

problem. I bought my first place at 25, a basement flat and it promptly

lost a third of its value because there was a housing slump.

It is very important for people to have their own place,

Your interventions will have to do for that answer. If you can refer to

the Huffington Post. We haven't had enough of Mehdi! We will be in

Cambridge next week. We have Dianant for Labour, Joe Swinson for the

Liberal Democrats. That's in Cambridge.

Go to our website or apply to: