26/11/2015 Question Time

Welcome, whether you're watching or listening, to our audience here,

Conservative Cabinet Office Minister, and former Chief of Staff

Ken Livingstone, once Mayor of London, now back on Labour's

front-line, overseeing the party's Defence Review, including Trident.

Kate Andrews of the think-tank originally founded

to support Margaret Thatcher, the Adam Smith Institute.

The comedian who worked for Labour under Tony Blair and tore up

his party card when Jeremy Corbyn was elected, Matt Forde.

And Pete Wishart, SNP MP since 2001 - one of only two MPs to

The usual prize for anyone who can name the other.

If you want to text or tweet, our hashtag is #BBCQT.

Text comments to 83981, and press the Red Button to see what

Our first question, please. Will bombing IS making us feel any safer?

Ken Livingstone? Simple fact is, everybody in the military will tell

you you can't defeat Isis by bombing, you have to have troops on

the ground. This looks like a gesture, immediately after the Prime

Minister finished today saying there were about 70,000 fighters ready to

move in and attack Isis, the Americans were putting out that it

is only half that number. Let's not get confused here. The alternative

to al-Assad is not a group of nice, young Liberal Democrats, there are

other quite fanatical groups and horrendous in much of the things

they have done as well. We have to learn from the mistakes of Iraq and

Afghanistan. I want to see Isis defeated, not just because they are

a threat to us, but what they do to the people under their control. You

have to have a strategy. Going in there and bombing, we have to get a

big coalition - it is good to see Russia and Iran are being brought in

after decades of being at loggerheads with America. It needs

to be wider than that. It is not just in the Middle East. Half of

northern Nigeria have Islamist terror groups, half of Mali, in

Libya, all our interventions have discredited us. If it is seen to be

Britain and America, and France, it will be looking like here is the

West looking after its own interest. We need to get China and India on

board, so it is the world standing up against something of pure evil.

Matthew Hancock? What is clear is that Isil are a danger to this

country and to Britain. And I don't think that the choice is whether or

not to tackle Isil, because they are already killing British citizens and

they are already attacking Britain. And attempting terrorist atrocities

here. You share that with Ken Livingstone, who just said the same

thing, except he wants it done in a different way? The real choice,

David, the real choice is not whether or not to take on Isil, the

real choice is whether we take on Isil now, in their heartlands, in

Syria, where they are plotting these attacks, or whether we wait and take

them on on the streets of Britain later. I think we must not wait.

Pete Wishart? There is no lack of nations in the air bombing Syria

right now. 12 nations are engaged in bombing that nation now and they are

bombing from planes, from drones, from warships. There are a variety

of different means which all this ordnance is being delivered. The

question that we have to look at - will they assist the situation in

Syria by getting involved in all of this? We have seen the incident this

week, where a Russian jet was downed by Turkish militia. To believe that

a further round of bombing will resolve anything, I think is very

naive and I think it is something that we have to consider very

carefully before we go down this course of action. The SNP will be

voting against this in any circumstance? We will listen to the

case, and very carefully to the Prime Minister, but we have not

heard anything that convinces us that this will be a good course of

action. What we are looking for is some sort of solution. Until we hear

there is a plan for reconstruction, that there is a means towards peace

and reconciliation in that country, I don't believe getting further

involved in military action will make any real difference. The woman

on the right? The backlash from Iraq was quite severe. What is to suggest

the backlash from Syria wouldn't be the same? Matt Forde? Ken is right,

we need to learn the lessons of Iraq. There is a real danger we are

learning the wrong lessons. There are some people that would like to

question Britain's role in the world. Whatever the rights and

wrongs of Iraq, and the problem with Iraq was intelligence and post-war

planning, things that the people at the heart of that decision have

accepted we were deeply at fault. My fear is, people say Iraq is an

excuse for Britain not to stand up and to walk by on the other side of

the road when people in Syria are being slaughtered, when people in

Iraq are being slaughtered. I don't want to be part of a country that

with the tools that we have at our disposal to allow Syria to burn

while we sit here because the left is paralysed because of Iraq. It is

a major problem for the Labour Party. Iraq has caused deep scars,

but don't use it as an excuse for Britain to retreat when we are a

responsible global actor. Yes, you, Sir? I think the seeds of

this was sown in the 1990s and now we are reaping the rewards.

Everybody from that time onwards have lived in a war-torn area...

What is your view about the bombing? The bombing? I think we should be

doing it. I'm with Ken up to a point. What I'm saying is, boots on

the ground, I'm also with that. But we have managed over about eight or

nine administrations to decimate our Armed Forces, where we can hardly

look after our own country. Maybe we should start by weeding out the

people in this country, detaining them and let's get the weeds out

before we take the head. Alright. There are a number of hands up. I

will come to you after we have heard from Kate Andrews. No, bombing is

not going to make us safer and not because the Prime Minister is

actually committed to defeating Isil. Arguing we need to send air

strikes over and then in the same speech saying but that won't be

enough, but boots on the ground probably will be necessary, it is

not a long-term strategic plan to defeat Isil and it needs to be

defeated. This is not Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat

to British citizens. Isil is. It's already killed over 30 British

citizens. It's killed your neighbours. They are killing and

slaughtering their own people in masses and torturing them in awful

ways and if Britain is serious about defeating Isil, they will work with

the countries that Ken suggests, and countries all over the world, to

form a strategic plan. The Prime Minister is not committed to that.

If he is not willing to commit to that, we cannot send those bombs

over there. That is what the United States said a few years back when

Obama said that red line, we sent some bombs over, it destabilised the

region and that helped Isil grow. Matthew Hancock? On this, the shadow

of Iraq looms large over this. I was against the Iraq War. I didn't think

that it would help with tackling terrorism. I'm in favour of action

now because that terrorism is clearly coming from and organised in

Syria. The diplomatic solution and the humanitarian solution are both

absolutely vital, and we have made progress on those. The talks in

Vienna are moving forward, as Ken said there's more people from around

the world involved. And the UN Security Council has passed a

resolution saying that all necessary force is OK to use. But this is

different from Iraq. This is about directly tackling terrorist threats

that we know can harm us here because they have tried seven times

in the past year and they have just succeeded in Paris. We have to take

that action. Here in Manchester, and in London, during the Second World

War, we were bombed night after night, in London some nights, 500

people were killed. My mum got up every morning and went to work in

the munitions factories. If you are going to defeat Isil, you have to

have tens of thousands of troops on the ground. Look what happened with

that awful mistake of the Americans bombing the hospital. How many more

fanatics did that recruit for Isil? Bombing is too indiscriminate. You

need troops there... British troops? As part of a broad coalition, yes.

And with UN backing. We can't be America's poodle again. I'm sick and

tired... I'm sick and tired... I watched Tony Blair do whatever

George Bush wanted. Our Prime Minister should be defending our

interests and that means a broad coalition. If you can't get China

and India on board, it will be seen as the West after the huge oil

industry. You want a large army of a large number of countries... Backed

by the UN. And with the British Army there? Yes. We saw last week the UN

vote unanimously in the Security Council in favour of action and this

point about oil that we sometimes get from people on the left, Syria

is the 60th largest producer of oil. It hardly has any relative to other

places. We are already taking action in Iraq to tackle terrorism. But we

can't, we have to stop at this border that Isil don't recognise. He

is saying he would have boots on the ground. Boots on the ground, in a

combat role, would complicate what is a difficult situation. But there

are troops there that are ready to do it. 250,000 people have been

killed in Syria. 11 million people are homeless. It's the biggest

refugee crisis we have seen in modern time. Do we believe that a

bombing mission is going to improve the situation for ordinary Syrians?

This is the question we have to ask. What would make the situation in

Syria better? Being the 13th nation engaged in the bombing campaign, I

suggest isn't going to make that situation any better. We need a

diplomatic solution. That is the way to do it, to bring stabt. -- t

stability. I will come to members of the audience. Are you going to get

the votes, do you think? In the House of Commons? I think there was

progress made today in the House of Commons. How many Labour voters are

going to support you? We are talking to Labour MPs, we are giving them

the security briefing... And the question is, is the House of Commons

going to support it? That was the question I asked! Yes. Like you,

nobody knows until we have the vote, but we are not going to have a vote

until we are confident that there is enough. I think it is perfectly

reasonable. Ken Livingstone, what is going to happen in the Labour Party

because tonight we hear the majority of the Shadow Cabinet are going to

vote yes to bombing and the leader of the Labour Party is saying no and

they are going to meet and talk about it. What is going to happen or

is Labour going to fall apart? I don't think Labour will fall apart.

We have to decide whether we have a line, or whether we will have a free

vote. The simple fact is, that although the Shadow Cabinet has

quite a strong support for bombing, I suspect the Parliamentary Labour

Party is much more divided on that and over this weekend, MPs will go

back to their constituents, they will be listening to what people say

and I think they will find there is a lot less support out there amongst

the public for simply bombing than there might be in Parliament. I

mean, there will be a Shadow Cabinet meeting on Monday to decide what to

do. Until then, I can't predict the future. If I was there, I'd say

bombing on its own isn't enough, we shouldn't get caught up in that

again. I remember when Tony Blair was told by the security services if

you go into Iraq, we will be a target for terrorism. He ignored

that advice and it killed 52 Londoners. We need to be clear... I

want to see on the ground the capacity to defend ourselves and in

London, we have seen thousands of police taken off the streets and

that's crucial in finding out who is at risk. Come back for a moment to

politics. If the senior members of the Shadow Cabinet, who have let it

be known today that they are in favour of bombing, are against the

line that's taken on Monday or the line pursued by the leader of the

Labour Party, you have a clear conflict. What should they do?

Resign? This isn't the Tony Blair era where everybody has to follow a

line. The good thing about Jeremy Corbyn - he is allowing an open

debate and he accepts the fact that people have different views. I mean,

we didn't benefit... Does he? Everyone had to be in line on

everything with Tony Blair. You can't force people to vote to kill

other people. Or not to vote to kill them. This must be a matter in which

people have the freedom to express their own views. So it will be a

free vote? I suspect it will be. I can't promise. You predict a free

vote? Party unity is some sort of problem. The public expect major

political parties to get behind their leader and they expect a

leader to lead. The left seem to be the only group of people that have a

problem with people having charisma or any sense of direction when they

are in a leadership role. This idea that you can absolve the people that

killed those innocent Londoners by blaming it on Tony Blair is

shameful. Blame it on the people who carried out the atrocities.

Accept the propaganda of the terrorists then? They took

Londoners' lives in protest. Excuse me, we were lied to by Tony Blair

about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

APPLAUSE I'm not defending intelligence. It's

very important to be clear. The lies of Tony Blair, whatever they may be,

will never ever absolve the terrorists. But you have just

brought those two things together and suggested... If we hadn't

invaded Iraq, those four men wouldn't have gone out and killed 52

Londoners. I think you are accepting the excuses.

ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Hold on, everybody. The argument Ken is making is that he is letting Isil

off the hook. No. These are grown men going out on to the streets, who

are killing innocent people. We should not give them excuses. I want

to come back to the question originally asked whether bombing

Isis really makes us any safer. I'll go to some members of the audience.

The woman up there at the back? Can I just say that when you first

started this, your opening statement, I think it was completely

irresponsible and fear-mongering, the way you spoke about Isil. Isil

are currently operating on the idea that fear is what will perpetuate

their power and when you are on TV in front of million, you reinvest

that fear. We know Paris was bad, we know people are upset about it, of

course it's an emotive subject but coming on telly and speaking like

that is completely irresponsible. What do you think he should have

said? Answered the question, as opposed to saying that stuff like,

we either fight it now or in the future, it's ridiculous, answer the

questions, because you are fear-mongering, it's not getting us

anywhere. The man in the front? Thank you. I think that I find

myself in a really strange position where I'm actually finding myself

agreeing with Ken. LAUGHTER

We have to realise this is never going to be sorted around the table.

Isil are not willing to negotiate with anybody. It's just not going to

happen. So you want an army like Ken does? Unfortunately, I think it's

the only solution. You, Sir? Considering what's happening to the

minority groups like the Christians and the Yazdis there which can only

be described as genocide, how does bombing help them get out of these

situations, could they not send a force to free them, bring them over

and help them rebuild their lives? So your view is that the bombing is

inadequate in effect? Yes, indiscriminate. It doesn't difficult

renovate between who we are trying to save and kill. We'll come back to

that point. That's precisely the reason the UK can improve on the

campaign that's already happening. Why should we get involved, not only

because there are terrorists threats against us that we can directly

respond to, but also because some of the equipment that we have is more

targeted than anybody else has around the world so we can have a

more targeted campaign. Crucially, there are boots on the ground, there

are Kurdish boots, there is the Free Syrian Army and they can't do it

without Air Support and we can provide that. What is Britain going

to do when the bombing stops? Exactly. If we send those bombs in

there, we are partially responsible for whatever happens to the region.

That happened in Afghanistan,s Iraq and no-one was fully committed to

what it was going to take. If that further destabilises Syria, are you

or the PM going to be committed to going in and helping those people

whatever necessary? This is precisely why we need the strategy

that's been set out, including the diplomatic solution, including the

process in Vienna and, including today the ?1 billion we have set

aside for humanitarian relief and for helping Syrian people get home

afterwards. The Prime Minister's set out a short-term strategy, there is

no long-term strategy yet. Once that's there, I think most people

around this panel are actually pretty much on board. What about the

Prime Minister's argument that if our allies are there doing this and

if the French are there and want us there, we should for that reason do

it because allies should stick together? If the allies want us

there, they'll sit down at the table and come up with the long-term

strategy. Britain shouldn't rely on their word that we'll be there

together and retract together. They have to sit down and work it out

together. The woman at the very back? I want

to come back, before Matt said about the strength of our democracy and

that being something great about the UK, I think it's sad that actually

there's been very little discussion about any political strategy or

anything wider than just bombing a nation. I just think that's really

sad. I actually don't think in terms of

what the solution is, it would be difficult to get there, most people

are of the view that we should have boots on the ground. In my view,

Britain should play a role in that because we are on the whole

responsible. Sierra Leone was a positive intervention, as was Kosovo

and most people would accept that. You need to clearly defeat Isis and

move to a position where you get rid of Assad. In terms of how much the

public are prepared to stomach, and this is incumbent on all of us in

this room and those that aren't politicians, once Britain gets

involved, to put pressure on to bring troops home is the biggest

pressure. We should be prepared to say, if we go in, we are prepared to

stay for a generation or longer, we need to think about how we rebuild

these nations in the future. Let me take a question from Stephen

Chadwick, please? Could the shooting of the Russian jet lead to World War

three? And this is something that a number of people have raised in the

backs of people's minds? Who'd like to go on that? There is a worrying

escalation and everyone was very distressed at the images we saw when

that actually happened. This goes back to the tension between what

happens between the allies and the congested areas we have over Syria

-- airs we have over Syria. I think that the way this has been escalated

and the United Nations getting involved in trying to cool the

tempers in making sure the heat is taken out of this is an appropriate

intervention today. It's supposed to demonstrate just how intemperate

this could be and take rows we could be when we get into these

situations, we face the tensions coming out. It's unacceptable for

Turkey to shoot down a plane which wasn't targeting Turkey. The

question was whether this could escalate to a World War? It won't

escalate to World War because there'll be huge pressure on the

Turkish government to stop doing such stupid things. Matthew do you

agree with Ken? Well... It won't blight your career. I haven't

actually done that very often in my life, but it's clearly a very

complex situation, I mean there is no doubt about that. But that

doesn't take away from the fact that there are atrocities that we can

help to stop by taking action with British airplanes and I'm absolutely

sure that we can manage the relationship with Russia in doing

that. I'll take a couple more points. The woman there and then you

up there? Just joining the two points together, this focus on air

strikes and us getting into World War three because we are all

conflicting with each other, would it not be easier to look at the

widespread of Isis and tackling it in the countries and then going in

together rather than all deciding what we are all going to do with the

separate air strikes and we are all going to strike each other down,

shouldn't we be looking at members of Isis who aren't in Syria because

bombing Syria isn't going to stop those people uprising?

APPLAUSE You, Sir? It seems to me that this

is not a World War III, more like a new Cold War. There is a fundamental

difference between the western ideals and the ideals of some of

these Islamist terrorists. And the only way we are going to do that is

through strong leadership with countries like America where they

seem to have the weakest President they've ever had, countries like

Britain where we don't have a Prime Minister looking for it and we have

the clowns leading the Labour Party and the only country that seems to

be taking any role is Russia and, for some reason, nobody else is

doing that and Russia is dictating the terms.

APPLAUSE Very briefly? This talk of World War III speaks to the young

woman's points about how that is real fear-mongering. We disagree

about the previous point. I think that talking about the horrors of

Isil and the immediate threat which is very important to be honest

about. Speaking about World War III is incredibly traumatic. Nobody

thinks that is going to happen, everybody thinking coming to the

negotiating table is a possibility. Turkey absolutely acted too quickly

in haste, but that goes to show how scared people are so we do need to

be walking this fine line of not fear-mongering but talking truly

about what is going on out there because things are escalating, but

not to World War III. That is why strong leadership is so important.

If you retract from the global stage, the idea that everything

carries on and is peaceful is nonsense. People like Vladimir Putin

whose priority until recently in Syria hasn't been to try to remove

Isil, it's been to try to reinforce Assad based on an outdated

patriotism of motherhood Russia, it's berserk. That is why the world

has to be vocal. All this silly talk of bombs and military action, I was

particularly surprised at that fella there talking about bombing and

military action. Which fella? That chap there, Mr Livingstone. But what

really surprising me is, the real issue is looking after this nation

here, not looking after it over there, it's safeguarding this nation

here. The terrorists that struck in France were living in France.

Legitimately. So they're living here within us, never mind wasting

millions and millions of pounds trying to bomb somebody that you are

never going to kill anyway and risk thousands of British lives, pull the

draw bridge up at Calais and look after the British people.

APPLAUSE OK.

We have had half the programme discussing that and before we go to

the next question, so you know, we are in Birmingham next week and in

Bath the week after that. The details details Of how to come to

that are on the screen and we'll repeat them at the end of the

programme. Sally Wheatman? Does the U-turn on Tax Credits mark the end

of austerity does the panel think? Does this mean all that business

about austerity was unnecessary because he's now given it all back

to us. Kate Andrews? No, it doesn't. More people define austerity as

closing the deficit and he's going to continue to do that. The

Chancellor has really lucked out. He's found an extra ?27 billion

between lower interest on the debt and other means. He's five years too

late sticking to the deficit but in this new Parliament he's managed to

stick to the projections, as well as cut back on all of the spending cuts

he's going to make. I'm very pleased to see that he's made this U-turn.

Fur going to have a welfare system, the last welfare you want to cut is

one that incentivises work and brings money into people's pockets.

-- if you are going to have a welfare system. So do you think what

he said in July is suddenly not true in November. Oh dear, the police can

have the money after all and... I'm not fully convinced a that the

office of budget responsibility has found this money, I don't think they

are lying, they tend to be honest, but he's gambling, he's assuming

he'll get more tax revenue in and he's assuming this interest will

remain low. So it could be reversed in a year's time if things go wrong?

The projections suggest it won't be fully reversed, but if things go

sour, say if there were another crash, we'd be looking at another

budget and that's an interesting and important point, that one of the big

problems with this Chancellor is like he continues to do a budget by

budget year to year analysis of where Britain's at and he also won't

plan for the long-term. This seems to be a very common theme, there is

no planning for the long-term. How do you plan for the long-term? Well,

you put real investment where it matters, you put money back into

people's pockets, ensure that growth continues to go up. I would have

preferred to see the extra money he got go to taking the low-paid out of

tax, go to removing the national insurance that the low-paid still

put into the system and I think that would have been better for the

country. He hasn't done that, he's committed to more and more spending

and a lot of it is arbitrary. Somebody is saying "mm" on my left

and I don't know who it is. It's probably you? Two things,

George Osborne didn't U-turn out of idealogy, he U-turned because the

Lord's humiliated him first and foremost. That's not fair. The

second thing here is that at a time when the Labour Party's drifting to

the left, David Cameron made the wonderful speech in the summer

claiming they were going to occupy the centre ground. That U-turn

fundamentally challenges the view that the Tories are the centre

ground to attack working class Tories who believe work should pay

more than benefits shows that at the heart of George Osborne, despite

being a fairly canny political operator are deep, deep problems

with his analysis and deep, deep problems with the sort of country

he's trying to create. Matthew Hancock, if he meant what he

says about reducing the deficit as soon as possible, and fixing the

roof and all that, and he he's offered this money that they say is

now available because of interest rates being low, and all the rest of

it, more tax coming in. Surely the sensible thing for the Chancellor to

have done would be not to reverse his decision, as he was saying, but

actually to put the money in the Kitty and say we have paid some off

some of our national debt? He says on the basis of the House of Lords

and the clear political embarrassment you were suffering. If

he was true to the beliefs that he had set out, wouldn't he have said

there we are, we have got some more more money, I will give it against

the debt? When you get more money, it is a perfectly reasonable thing

to do, it is perfectly reasonable - and you get ?27 million! I don't

know about that. The BBC pays well. It is perfectly reasonable that you

put some of it towards paying down debts. Invest some of it in

infrastructure, in the long-term, and he did some of that, as Kate was

calling for. And used some of it to ameliorate some of the more

difficult decisions. The end point is the same. We said in the

manifesto that we'd save ?12 billion off welfare. It is important that

welfare is fair to the people who pay for it, as well as the people

who need it. We said we would have a country that lives within its means,

protect the economic security of working people, and, crucially,

tackle the deficit and get rid of it so - I don't think it is fair to

leave to our children and our children's children more debts than

they could possibly afford to pay off. Alright. Ken Livingstone? I

don't often agree with the Adam Smith Institute. You say that all

the time! It is just get this budget through, have a nice budget before

the election, and when the election is out of the way we claw it back.

The tragedy is, for 35 years, we haven't had a long-term strategy. We

should have invested in modernising our manufacturing, like Germany did.

We see six million jobs lost - and this is the key. We are running the

biggest balance-of-payments deficit in our history. Why? Because half

our exports from manufacturing, which is now just a tenth of our

economy, and when I see Cameron, we must export more to China. Great.

Germany exports five times as much as we do to China because they

didn't allow their banks to run their economy, they continued to

invest in their manufacturing... They have probably been issued with

more little red books than the Conservative Party! I never bothered

to read Mao's Little Red Book... You wouldn't have quoted from it. The

woman on the right? I think it's got very little to making the deficit

smaller, it is far more to me about dismantling the welfare state. I've

got... Go on? I have a son with a learning disability. He has no

social worker, no care plan, his transport to and from school is

threatened, his college place has been withdrawn, I think the reality

on the ground for people like us living every day lives is that

austerity is devastating, certainly for my son and young people like

him, we feel as though he's been written off by Cameron's Government.

Do yesterday's announcements make any difference to you? They don't.

They are still planning ?12 billion in welfare cuts. They make no

difference at all. Our children are amongst the most vulnerable children

in the country, I would suggest. Yet Trafford Council have decided they

can make their own way to and from school. The reality of these cuts

coming down from central government to local government are devastating.

I'm not sure Westminster realises that. I will come to you. Do you

want to answer her point? Of course, if we don't have a country that can

live within its means, then we can't... You are not reducing the

deficit, are you? You have just accepted that. It is flannel. It is

not flannel to want to deal with the deficit. If we don't have a country

that can live within its means, then we can't fund those sorts of public

services that people like you rely on. So we pay our taxes but our

children can't go to school, is that what you are suggesting? Wait a

minute. Let Matthew Hancock finish his point. Listen to him. Yesterday,

we increased the education budget, so, of course, it is important that

people can go to school and there are more good school places than

before we came to office. Crucially, you mentioned the care plan. I

agree, that is an important policy. It is a new policy that was brought

in when I was in the Education Department, and the central point is

this: You can't have a strong economy if you don't take decisions

that make sure that we can deal with our debts and get them down... I

think you are missing the point about the schools. I would agree

with the lady at the back. Austerity is a policy choice. This is a

Conservative Government committed to an austerity programme. We are all

delighted the tax credits have been withdrawn. They will be clawed back

again with what they are doing to Universal Credit and housing

benefit. There will still be ?12 billion of welfare cuts down the

line. Yesterday's statement wasn't so much smoke and mirrors, and

conjuring tricks, it was a meeting of the whole Magic Circle! And we

have still got to pay for this. This is a Government that will be

determined to drive through their austerity agenda and they do not

care less who is hurt on the way as long as they can achieve their

objectives. Most people in the public, I think the general public

in general find themselves somewhere in the middle with this. We know the

deficit has to be tackled. If it isn't paid down, more of our taxes

don't go on front-line services, they go on servicing the debt. Most

people accept the deficit needs to come down. It is about where you cut

and when you cut and who you tax and when you tax. It was an awful

mistake - we all agree we have to live within our means. You will

burden poor people will debt, they will have to take out themselves to

pay their bills. We heard from the lady up there about - I would like

to hear from anybody who supports what Matthew Hancock was saying.

That's not a joke! You at the back? Well, it seems to me that somebody

saying that they can't send their children to school because of

austerity, none of your grandchildren will be able to go to

school if we don't have austerity. The amount of interest we are paying

on the debt now is nearly as high as what we are paying on the military.

In 20 years' time, it might be as high as what we are paying on the

NHS. It will become a larger and larger proportion of our expenditure

each year. If we don't tackle that now, we will always have the

consequences of that. You are right, we have to reduce our debt. But we

are still the fifth richest nation in the world. And this week, while

we are being told we can't afford this and that, Cameron's telling us

now those four nuclear submarines will cost ?40 billion. I'd rather

our kids had a better education. We have more hospital beds than four

nuclear submarines! You can't... I want schools, hospitals and a

nuclear deterrent! Maybe that is why we ran up so many debts under

Labour! Trident, in terms of the economics... This is the problem.

The reason why Britain is a rich country, part of the reason, part of

the reason why people come here to set their businesses up, including

people in the financial industry, that contributed huge amounts to

public spending from '97 to 2007. Part of the reason people are

prepared to invest global businesses here is because on the whole we are

a secure society. One of the things that keeps us secure and makes us a

safe place for business in the end is having a strong military and a

nuclear deterrent. To simply take that money from one end and say you

save it on nukes so you can spend it on hospital isn't true. Britain will

be poorer economically without a nuclear deterrent. Quite right. OK.

We will spend five minutes on this other one. Sarah Shaw? About how far

the budget will stretch. The NHS can't meet the demands and

expectations of our population. The future lies with expensive drugs and

technology. Is it inevitable the NHS will become privatised? You are a

GP? I am. Is it inevitable? It is privatisation by the back door,

increasingly more services are becoming privatised, certainly where

I work in Blackpool, there's outsourcing to private companies and

it seems that the system we have, the infrastructure we have, can't

cope with the demands of the population. Do you approve of the

idea that it becomes partly whatever privatised may mean to you, or to

the Government, or whoever? Do you approve of the idea of finding a

different way of funding the NHS? Yes, I think it can't manage as it

is. It's just not feasible that it care -- carries on in the way it is

going. Kate Andrews? I discovered that Britain has this culture of

providing healthcare to everyone free at the point of use and let me

tell you, coming in from a country that still doesn't, that was a

wonderful thing to see. I say that because now I'm going to say

something a lot tougher, which is that providing everybody with

healthcare is crucial, the NHS is wildly out-of-date and it is not

able to deal with those burdens anymore and it hasn't been for a

long time. And what Britain has seen is a serious drop in the quality of

healthcare that it is bringing to its people, it is sub-standard, not

compared to America or Singapore, any of those radical systems, but

compared to its neighbours, look at Germany, look at Switzerland,

France. Nobody would say that these are privatised systems. The NHS does

not need to become privatised. The UK and the Government can continue

to pay for healthcare and ensure that everybody can afford

healthcare, but what it needs to let go of is this idea that the

Government is the best system to be the provision of healthcare. Other

countries like Germany and France and Switzerland have looked outside

of those bureaucrats and said they might be good with the money, but

somebody else is better at running my CAT scan. You think central

government should pay for it? I think... But let somebody else spend

the money. What is the point of that? There is a huge point. In

other systems, the government is more involved in paying the

providers that give the healthcare. There are lots of different ways we

can look at this. The important thing is that everybody has access

to that healthcare but that they get to choose where they get it and if

you choose where you get it, you tend to get better service and

quality. The simple fact is, if we privatise the health system, then

the profit that the firm takes out will come by increasing what we have

to spend on it. America spends twice as much on healthcare as we do.

Nobody said America. I rolled that out. The reason we are not doing as

well as Germany and France is we aren't spending as much as Germany

and France. That is not true. Japan, Germany and France spend a greater

portion of their GDP on their public health than we do. The UK spends

less than Germany, France and Switzerland. We are not talking

anything wild like America, 2% of their GDP. But regardless of that,

the UK is the third least efficient in the OECD for spending its public

health care money. You may spend less but you are not spending that

money very well. Are you agreeing with her or with him? I'm from

Canada, which has a public private co-operative in how we deal with our

healthcare. Everyone's happy with it and it is far more efficient than my

experience of the NHS here. We have tried this. Tony Blair's Government

got the private sector to provide the building of hospitals and we

basically rent them. It is costing us four to six times more than if we

bought them and done them ourselves. Because it's being done

inefficiently. Matt Forde? It is being controlled by the private

sector. People need to remember what the NHS means. The principle of the

NHS is free at the point of use. If the state gives that money to a

private provider, that is positive privatisation and it is still a

public service. I think jus tz as -- just as much as you rail against

private profit, also you have to be equally conscious of public waste.

That is taxpayers' money. It's a criminal waste of cash.

The weakness is, it's run from Whitehall. We should devolve our

hospitals. The oversight goes to local authorities. People who know

their local area. I've watched every minister watch themselves get... The

man in the third row? What I think, I think the NHS is fantastic but

ultimately it's true that it is facing a large amount of demand. I

think currently things like PFI are just winning the NHS off. It's

creating a massive financial burden. Ultimately what I would like to see

is a low-cost NHS, in many ways. For example, if you go to a GP, why

can't you pay ?5, small contributions, not massive costs on

the individual because I think they are ultimately paying four your

health care in small amounts is not a bad thing but as much as I would

like to see it free at the point of use I don't think it's sustainable?

I care deeply that the NHS is free at the point of use to everybody

according to need and the reason I care deeply about that is because,

as a father, if my children have a problem, no matter what time of the

day or night, I can take them to the NHS and crucially, everybody else in

the country can. And here, I agree with everything that Ken said these

last two answers, firstly that PFI has been a serious problem in many

hospitals, but also that we can tackle some of these problems by

getting people who're closer to the problems on the ground to solve

them. Here we are in Manchester and we have just evolved health and

crucially social care to Manchester so they can be run locally by a

newly elected Mayor and bring the two together so that we can make

sure it's as efficient as possible given the increased amount of money

that we put in yesterday, ?19 billion more, the biggest ever

injection of cash into the NHS. OK.

We are devolved when it comes to the administration of our NHS and thank

goodness we are. In Scotland? Yes, it's completely devolved. There is

no way on earth we'd go down any privatisation route.

APPLAUSE To have the suggestion and idea that

private companies are working for the best interests of everybody and

altruism is nonsense. It's really important we get back to the basics.

Nobody thinks that... To ensure that it's free at the point of use, that

it remains a service we are immensely proud of. Are you against

particular services like scanning that she was talking about being

operated by a private company? We have a difficulty with that yes

because we believe it should be run by the public sector. It's the

public sector that should be administrating. It can't be run more

efficiently privately than the public sector? Foundation hospitals,

the last Labour Government got into this, we invite the private sector

in, and we are left with poisonous legacies which means the buildings

are built and we continue to pay for them for decade after decade. That

is a legacy of private investment into health education. Private

involvement has increased the cost of NHS in Scotland. Of course it

hasn't, that is nonsense. What we've done is invested into our Health

Service. But there is private involvement. There is in any NHS

service. So you would take it all out? Sometimes it's necessary. Would

you take it out? We want to make sure we have a publicly run operated

Health Service. Sometimes it's necessary to take... Your idealogy

leads to substandard results for patients.

APPLAUSE Because you are so desperate to say that it has to be

public, the private sector cannot be involved on principle, then you look

and see that 9,000 more people in jernlny are surviving on cancer than

should be in the UK. You see that. Diabetes is terrible, compared to

other countries, because our system is not efficient enough. Do you

agree with what Kate is saying? I do. Matt's point, he was talking

about devolving powers to people who know the Health Service the best and

Jeremy Hunt hasn't been listening to junior doctors and all the stuff on

the NHS. APPLAUSE

You know... Do you want to reply to that? Junior

doctors, the key is this, we are trying to move the NHS to one that

works every day of the week just as well. Whether it is on a Sunday or

on a Thursday night, if you go to an NHS hospital, you want to have the

very best care. We know that. Why hasn't he been able to get a deal

from the doctors? He's been asking to sit around a table with the BMA

for months now and I'm really glad finally they have done it. The woman

with the red pullover? In terms of sayings the NHS provides a

substandard service, that's because it's not funded properly. There are

a lots of very compassionate people working in the NHS and there comes a

time... APPLAUSE

I've been working in the NHS for a very long time and we provide real

compassion, real care for people when we are allowed to.

Thank you very much. We seem to have about four or five

minutes left. Benjamin Morton, please?

What are the long-term consequences of a Conservative Government without

opposition? What are the long-term consequences of a Conservative

Government without opposition? The consequences are an even longer term

Conservative Government without any opposition because the problem with

the Labour Party now, I joined the Labour Party when I was 15 and left

the day after Jeremy Corbyn became leader...

APPLAUSE Well, I don't... I appreciate the

support, but it was done with a heavy heart. I care about the Labour

Party and centre-left values and I care about making the world a more

equal place. But I just feel now that under Jeremy Corbyn's

leadershire, only I was struggling under Ed Miliband to be honest,

under Jeremy's leadership, it doesn't feel like the home of

sensible people that want the entire country to be represented. Ken

Livingstone? We have just had a Conservative Government forced to do

a huge U-turn on its attack on the welfare state.

APPLAUSE That is because Jeremy Corbyn is

opposed to what they are doing and frankly, I was campaigning all over

the country in marginal seats. On the streets people said to me, what

did the last Labour Government do to me and people like you who think

Tony Blair was the high point of human ziflisation have got to

recognise the reason Jeremy won is there is an anger there, we didn't

build homes kids can afford to rent -- civilisation. The rich got richer

and richer and everybody else struggled. It's simply not true. For

the first time in a very long time under Tony Blair's Government it was

the only time in recent history where the gap between rich and poor

narrowed. The incomes of the poorest people, there was then the minimum

wage. Ken Livingstone's now campaigning for a Blairite policy he

apparently hated ten years ago. This is preposterous and the Labour Party

sadly will not be in a position to answer people on the doorstep when

they say what did the last Labour Government do for me because there

went be one for about another 30 years. You must be enjoying this I

don't want to intrude, but there is a serious point, you know, lots of

people see the current leadership, Labour Leadership as a Jebbing, but

I see it as a threat to the economic security of Britain because,

actually, I think it's much less likely that the British people will

vote for them. I also think if the British people did, it would be such

a catastrophe for our country and for everybody in it that it's

incumbent on us to deliver. That's what you Saul said about me when I

ran for Mayor and four years later Tony Blair said please come back and

be our candidate. I thought, coming from the generation I do that the

big arguments about how you run a country to make sure it's

prosperous, I thought it was settled, but it turns out we have to

win the argument for free enterprise and for people to be able to get on

and get up, we have to win the arguments all over again. Do you

agree? What about 23% of children being in poverty due to your... That

number's fallen over the last five years and I'm very proud of it. It

hasn't. We should be worried about that. I've never seen the Labour

Party descend into unmanageable shambles as it has done. We think

every week is the worst week until we get to the next one. This is

where we are. What shambles are you describing? What started as a

hostile accommodation with the Blairites is an in your face

defiance when it comes to the leadership. You should be worried

because a Conservative Government, a callous Conservative Government

unincumbent by any serious challenge will up the whole Conservative

agenda. They'll do it without any care or concern when they know they

are not going to be challenged by a laismt What do you suggest Labour

should do? Labour has to get their act together, for goodness sake. .

Howay? -- but how? It's a little bit rich. I've left the party now. I

would describe myself as a moderate. It's rich to be preached unity by

Ken Livingstone who, when he didn't get his way, he left the Labour

Party and stood against it and defeated it, and people like Jeremy

Corbyn who rebelled it. Jeremy was right about not invading Iraq, about

the banks. I had disagreements with Tony Blair, but I worked and went

out to get him elected. You stood as Mayor against Labour's candidates.

Because the Labour Party rigged the ballot.

You said you would accept... I got 74,000 votes, Frank Dobson got

24,000, they declared him the winner. I remember it clearly, you

said you would accept the will of the NEC and when it didn't go your

way, you stood against the Labour Party. Matt Hancock and his

Conservative Government is unbothered by any opposition which

would make them even worse. I agree with Peter that I don't think the

Conservative Government is going to go mental any time soon. It's not

small, it only takes a few radicals to overthrow whatever the

Conservative Party wants to do, but with no opposition, any Government

can become complacent and the Labour Party looks like a well-funded

think-tank, they are big on idealogy, they are not talking about

policy, we need an opposition worthy of the name. Brief point from you,

Sir? I think you should be scared of the Labour Party just because they

don't want to be led, they want to be listened to. The people want to

be listened to, they don't just want to be led. You are not listening.

That's what leadership is. Are you saying Labour is or isn't listening?

They are listening, yes. They are, so it's what you want? Yes. All

right. The woman there? This is time I think I've seen genuine opposition

from the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn is offering a different narrative

from everyone else and I think that's why everyone's so scared and

getting on his back about it. Are you concerned that so many MPs in

the House of Commons appear to be against his lead,ship? For me it is

a concern because I think he's very different from what we have seen

before and I think they should embrace that and go with him. But

they were elected by the public, not a narrowband of true believers, they

are reflecting the country truer than what he is. But the voting

system is not proportional so I don't think they do represent it.

Our time is up, we have to stop, I'm afraid. Question Time next week,

Diane Abbott, Nicky Morgan, Caroline Lucas with us next week. The week

after next we are in Bath. Get in touch if you want to join us.

If you are listening on Five Live, this debate carries on on Question

Time extra time. For us, my thanks to the panel here and to all of you

who came to Manchester toe take part. From Wythenshawe in

Manchester, from Question Time, good night.