credit defaults swaps that's not investing. and i think there ought to be a requirement that there be insurable interest on at least one side in order for it to be legitimate function. it seems to me that if we don't began making credit defaults swaps we will have missed the opportunity to do something necessary to fix part of what happened in the last decade. suggested, it has not been described that we should take seriously too big to fail by deciding if you are too big to fail, you are too big. this country has on occasion, where you have a systemic risk that is unacceptable, when you have a moral imperative to do something about something like this, this country has decided we will break standard oil into 23 oils. -l the 23 parts turned out to be

much more valuable in their sum than the value of the whole. having said all that, i believe there needs to be an amendment that deals with the issue of too big to fail, very simply, saying big to fail, very simply, saying very simply saying that if there is something by the financial stability oversight council, if they develop an approach to does this is an institution that is just too big to fail, the moral hazard for a country and the systemic risk for a country is too great, for we judge it too big to fail. i believe really what ought to happen over five years is a systematic divestiture, cetaceans of the institution remains an institution that has not been too big to fail. i'm about to be something that we consider as we develop our approach to these financial reform measures. i don't think big is always bad and i think small is always

beautiful. i want us to be big enough to compete. i want us to have the resources to be able to make big investments in big projects. i understand all of that and i can point to some really terrific financial companies in this country run by first rate executives. so understand what i'm talking about are the abuses in the unbelievable cesspool of creeds that we have seen in a decade by some, but by some, from institutions that were big enough and strong enough to run this country into very serious trouble. connect us to know how key vote on moving forward at the financial regulation bill next monday at about 5:00 eastern. live coverage here on c-span 2.

>> today britain's party leaders took part in the second of three televised debates. british voters will elect a new parliament on may 6. this debate hosted by broadcaster sky news focused on foreign policy. it's an hour and a half. >> life firm dress barn this is the news debate with adam moulton. >> good evening from bristol are welcome to sky news debate. round two of the first-ever televised primary debate in the

u.k. the three men who want to run the country and committed six errors here and ready to go. please welcome david cameron, gordon brown and nick clegg. [applause] >> the first half of this debate is international affairs. each letter will make a short opening statement before taking questions from the audience. in the second half tonight, will move onto general issues. lots of it on to decide who goes first and we begin with the current prime minister and leader of the labour party, gordon brown. >> this has a feel of the tv popularity contest, but in truth this is an election about britain's future. a fight of your future and for your jobs. it's about style and pr, counting out. if it's about the big decisions, it's about judgment, it's about delivering a better future for this country. i am your man.

i had our huge challenges, delivering economic recovery and job, bringing our brave troops safely home from afghanistan, keeping our streets free of terrorism, dealing alliances in europe against nuclear weapons, because climate change come against poverty and to deal with fairbanks. not everyone has the answers, but i say get the big decisions from an britain's security and jobs are at risk. get the big decisions right and we can have a prosperous, fair, greener and better britain. likely or not i can deliver that plane in the way to do it is with the majority labour government. >> thank you, mr. brown. next, and true too. >> is clear from last weeks debate that the country won't change, but the question is, what sort of change in his best place to lead that change? if you go conservative, you will get a new team running the country from may the seventh and you won't be stuck with what you've got now.

but real change comes from your god gives and there are big differences between. i believe that we need to do more to help families. they are the absolute bedrock of a strong society. i want government to be accountable. i want less waste, less r. christy, stopping the attacks, but making sure we have good public services that you get good value for money for. as we're going to discuss tonight, i wanted to keep our defense is strong, i want to keep our borders secured and our country safe. the real change, real change comes not just from politicians, but from what we all recognize that we have responsibilities, were almost together enough about the big and strong society i believe we need in our country. >> thank you, mr. cameron. and finally the sound nick clegg. >> i'm so proud of the values that have made our country so great. democracy, human rights, the rule of law. but the sad truth is that in recent years our government under the old parties have let those values down.

we shouldn't go into battle about the right equipment. we shouldn't be facing allegations of complicity in torture. we shouldn't have invaded iraq so i want us to leave in the world here that i want us to leave in europe. not complain from the sidelines. i'm up to speed in creating a world free of nuclear weapons and i want us to lead on the biggest challenge of all, climate change. now my family knows what british values really mean. i matter was freed by britishers from prisoner of war camp and i think if we do things differently we can be proud once again of the role we can play as a force for good in the world. >> thank you, mr. clegg. now it's time for the questions from the audience. the audience here is made up mainly of local voters from the southwest, some with allegiances, others yet to be persuaded. and also be fun questions and

sky news viewers who e-mailed us. each letter has an unattractive minute to answer each question followed by a second minute to deal with what the rival subset. that's predebate time with no guaranteed time at the microphone. our first question comes with christopher niles from salford. >> hello, chris niles i work in building trade. i can't see advantage of us being in europe yet i think there is far too much interference politically and i just wonder what you intend to do to stop it. >> how are you going to tackle europe,? >> were part of europe, want to cooperate and work with our allies to get things done. what i do agree with you that we have let too many powers go from westminster to brussels. we pass too much power over and we should take some of those powers that. i want us to be in europe, but not run by europe. and you will hear big differences between me and the

other two parties. i don't want us to join the euro. i want us to keep the pound as their currency. i don't want us to give up the digit rebate. i want to get value for money for what we put in print onto custom of the bureaucracy, wills, regulations but i think trade business summit. the agenda you get from a conservative government in europe. and those who say somehow this would be isolation i say nonsense. president sarkozy of france stands up and she stands up for germany. i would do the exact same thing for britain and europe are >> thank you to nick clegg. >> i actually work for the man who sent by margaret thatcher, to and when i learned when i was there is this, the european union is not perfect, of course not and this is a club that took 15 years to define chocolate. anything that takes 15 years to define chocolate is not a deficiency. i also worked as a whole lot of things we like it or not, whatever views on europe, which

we simply can't deal on our own. we can't deal with international crime which touches on affects everything in this country on our own. we can't deal with climate change on our own. the weather doesn't stop them a but we can't regulate this much trouble in the first place, which now sprawled across countries. i don't think the european union is perfect. i want to reform. that's why want to lead in the european union. but we're stronger together and we are weaker part. >> and others 3 million reasons why we should be part of the european union and are called jobs for 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the european union good of our trade is with the european union, 750,000 businesses -- i'm sorry it's not yield business as raising a question about the building trade for 750,000 businesses trade with europe good and the idea that we should again be isolated and on the margins are not in the mainstream of europe would be a

terrible, terrible mistake. now i worked with the european leaders to the global financial crisis. i had to persuade them that we had to restructure our banks and they had to restructure their banks. i accused persuade them they had to work with america in the g20. when europe and america work together we are so much stronger, stronger to deal with climate change, which is one of my priorities, stronger to do with the economy, started to do your international with international prices and terrorism. but it's never again be an empty chair in europe. my fear is that it is policy would put us in opposition. >> thank you. david cameron >> i understand why people like him are frustrated. i think one of the reasons people are so angry is that our politicians at westminster have given away powers to brussels without asking us, the people, first aired i think people felt particularly cheated when the european constitution came forward and we were told were going to get a referendum and gordon brown and labor stop that from happening and nick clegg

and the liberal democrats didn't vote with us to get that. people felt cheated by the appeared as a result one of the things i would do if i was your prime minister is straightaway pass a law through parliament is as if ever there is a future occasion to pass power from westminster to brussels. i would be a guarantee of a referendum held in our country pretty sinister parliament to make decisions, to make love coming to discuss issues yesterday don't is there to give away powers that belong to you. there should be a referendum guarantee if ever this happens again. >> attacks about the guarantee. it was a conservative party who give a cast-iron guarantee number which it probably dropped. look, we do need to have a referendum i think next time there's a big transfer of power to the european union, but it needs to be a sentimental issue. do we stay in or do we go out? you have a right to make that choice in a referendum. i would argue we should stand, not because it's perfect as i think it's in our interest to do so.

and they give you, christopher, a concrete example. there was sometime ago an operation the european union and police authorities, which the broker pedophile ring and they released over 20 young woman from unimaginable abuse and service come in something called operation. conservative mep's comment u.k. independence party's voted against the measures that made that possible. that is putting dogma about the safety of our children. we are saved are together, we are weaker part. >> imagine the european council meeting. if david cameron was in charge to months from now. can you not to go along as we sat and say that he wanted to re-patch or if the social chapter and not to give us the holidays and i got to break up the european union and faber, 26 of your against us. i'm the only one who's standing forward. and what would happen? were trying to get an economic recovery. that depends on germany, france and other countries going as

well, take generic sports programming to get agreement on climate change because of what happened to copenhagen. again, that would be having a big argument as we did in the past with a conservative government about repatriating plans to britain. we have other problems to deal up in these include security and terrorism. these are the issues. let's look to the future. let's not have a britain only solution and let's not go back to the days when we were fighting with the rest of europe in the past. >> it's to you now. >> watcher and from the other two as frankie don't trust the people, don't ask them when you pass parser must minister to brussels. just give everything that comes out of brussels and don't stand up for your country. that to me is the same old politics. let me just ask this important point. this idea that somehow it cannot referendum is that the public wants. i don't think it's right. it's a con. when the constitution comes along us to have that -- let's be clear. what would have been a contour of a referendum on referential treaty and then would reject the

treaty, would allow christopher, the european union to carry on as before. i worked in my previous life before going to politics for a while as a negotiator on behalf of all of us, britain, the european union, negotiating trade deals with the chinese government, the russian government in others. what i notice there is the chinese and the russians only listen to what we were saying because i was representing the largest market in the world, a 475 million consumers. of course there does start things, but it seems to me we punch above our weight when we stand in europe and the world frankly we've got a a lot of superpowers bumping up against each other and were to coin a phrase, size does matter. >> david wants a referendum within a future change. nick wants a referendum on the european union. i think what people want is to solve the employment problem, the economic problem and get on with the job. in 19 to work with these other countries in europe.

residents are cozy, cancer metco. david walkway from the european party which is progressive parties in bottom of the group of right-wing extremist. i want to work with the sensible people in europe to get jobs for british economy. if we don't trade with europe, with his jobs, with his businesses, with its growth through the make sure priority is trading with europe, sorting out the problems of the european union must make sure we get a recovery that stronger than ever. >> there's a real difference between us. and the reason about this european party is i just think it's a hypocrisy that people have set up the british politician standing here at bristol thing i'm going to stand up and we shouldn't give away all these powers and we should fight for british interests and over they go to brussels summit do exactly the opposite. i want to make sure that we say the same thing with or in bristol about wanting to be in europe, but not run by europe pierpoint of a single market good for our country and a trade with europe will not go to brussels and say something else. how wondrous does it help anyone

in bristol are enormous in the country for that matter, david cameron, to join together with a bunch of anti-semites, people deny, change exists, homophobes. that doesn't help return. of course you need to change the european union, but you change clubs of which were a member by standing outside and complaining about things. >> these two guys remind me of my two young boys squabbling at that time. and they're squabbling about whether or not whether to have referendums on the european union. what we need our jobs and growth and economic recovery. we work with our partners to get that and the sooner make realized also we have to work with america and europe to get economic growth in the future, the better. i'm afraid david is on the european common nick is anti-american and both of them are out of touch with reality. >> is a question of wanting to get things in your country and

standing up for your country. one of the things the liberal democrats would want to do is actually take away preconceived on the u.n. security council, which replace it with the european ones as one of the things it actually gives us the ability to punch above our weight in the world. it gives us influence. >> there is no chance of britain given up his seat in the u.n. security council. we're stronger. we've just been chairman of the g20 as a result of the efforts were made in the economy. we're leading the negotiations on, change. >> bear scare stories to frighten you to think we can change her. of course we can change her. i am like david cameron and gordon brown. we can do it if we leave. >> question becomes from stillwater and from bristol's coming year >> thank you are given our involvement in afghanistan, if there's another multinational

operation to remove al qaeda or military as group from a failed state, would the u.k. participate? >> so, will the u.k. take part in future multinational operations against terrorists abroad? nick clegg. >> really, the principle of the reason why we went to an afghanistan and supported the mission in afghanistan to make a legal invasion in iraq is to keep us safe, not to sort of curse to democracy in afghanistan. it's because we believe that if you allow afghanistan to be a haven of extremism and terrorism, there will be more terrorist attacks here in britain. so from that principle, if we need to do that again we should. the problem of course is that we've done it in a manner where we don't pursue the strategy, don't have the right equipment for troops. coming up operant and afghanistan. we work properly with other countries in the region to do so. i think if you put soldiers into harms way, and you either do the

job properly or you don't do it at all. if we ever take that decision again, let's make sure we've got the right equipment, the right strategy so they can come back having done the job accustomed to do with their heads held high delegate on the job well. >> thank you eared gordon brown. >> i want to answer directly. make him say this. we party got al qaeda. we party got problems with al qaeda in yemen. we are having to take action with our multilateral partners to deal with these goblins and will continue to have to do so. why are we in afghanistan and why do we have to be vigilant all the time? the reason is there is a change of terror that links these groups in different parts of the world to action that could happen in the united kingdom. and every week i get a report, sometimes every day of terrorist plots, most of which arise in the afghanistan pakistan area and we have got to deal with it. so to keep the streets safe in britain, we have to take on al qaeda wherever it is.

i also have to say about afghanistan, that this is a mission that can work. and the reason is we are training the afghan soldiers and afghan police. so whenever were in a mission abroad we've got to make sure that we have the means by which in that country we can build up their own security staff so that we can bring our troops home. that is my mission and that is my age. >> david cameron >> if i was your prime minister i would want to think very carefully, what in the national interest? will make us safer here in the united kingdom. i think we need to win the division between foreign policy and security policy and home office policy. bring it all together and think about our national security. i would also say this, if you look at future operations like that, we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. we got to make sure that we plan properly. we've got to make sure we never send our troops into battle again without the proper equipment, without the proper helicopters. where do you think are not just overdoing, but is he a bear?

are we helping these people? to wear their political strategy for getting out of that country once we tried jamaica safe with our allies. i think in the case of afghanistan, far too many of those questions weren't answered anything that while i support what were doing and what i wanted to work, i still worry were not doing enough to get the political situation right in afghanistan. >> i think everybody's agreed if we were to do this again, which is a stupid question, we have to make sure we have the right equipment and resources and that's why i think it's essential after the next election, whoever went, there is a full defense review, so we are the real good like i were spending money, what we're spending it wisely or whether we're providing the troops on the front line with the resources they need. i personally think that we're not spending money on all the right things. i wouldn't carry on spending money on the euro fighter typhoon, the third tranche of that euro five product consuming billions of pounds. i don't think it's right to do what both gordon brown entry into what to do which is before

you make a decision to spend up to 100 billion pounds renewing exactly in the same old way of cold war nuclear system. if you take like that maybe you can equip our troops so they don't it's a terribly overstretched as they were in fighting two wars on two fronts in iraq and in afghanistan. >> my first thoughts will always be for troops and for a dedicated forces for professional forces. and every day of the people who have got people serving in afghanistan or have served in other parts of the world. we've got to do everything we can to support them. yes, there'll be a defense review of the next parliament as we can do our best buy forces. look what happened on christmas eve with the bomber who would have been there in detroit in bombing at that place that came from small and. that was really where he was given his orders from. so we've got to deal with al qaeda in somalia and yemen as well as in pakistan and we've got to be clear that we cannot allow terrorists to have

territory of the world that bend the use of the base or to check in the united kingdom. i will do everything in my power to protect people, but we would like him the most billion, the most dedicated, the great forces that i want to pay tribute to this evening. >> well, i completely agree with gordon brown about the bravery of our forces. i've been to afghanistan for times. every time you were just blown away by the professionalism of these people. actually, i went for from this morning for was the one who got back from afghanistan and i couldn't keep up, but he was, and was there for six months and an incredible job there. just going back to this point about how we get these things right. one of the things that strikes you when you go to afghanistan that were not getting the political situation right. the fact of the country of the taliban came from that of the passion part of the country never see the afghan national army is dominated by people from other parts of the country and there is a really good political issue tribute to make sure the whole country in afghanistan feels that part of the ashton

cover but. the future we can bring our soldiers back home, not just in the afghan carmi and police vital though that is we need a political settlement is thought to help make sure we can come home. >> i mean, i think it's to the point which is also pinpointing is if you decide, even if we as a country decide to undertake a mission like that again there's no point deciding that she want to do it unless you also know how in the most we can provide the necessary resources. i remember when i was an element visiting the troops, i talked to some mechanics who looked after the vehicles and they were telling me i'd been on a convoy just previously, which normally takes one day to get one place to the other. it took them away because every time any of the vehicles broke down in the stands there, they didn't have the necessary parts for them for them to take personal other vehicles. if we ever do this again, we cannot, cannot, cannot allow eight years to elapse until proper equipment has been provided to her very, very

courageous servicemen and servicewomen. >> look, we've had to change our tactics all the time because of what the taliban has been doing. i wish like they wanted to win a face-to-face war with us at fighting person-to-person. now they use explosive devices. and it exposes devices are designed to scare us well to name our troops. we have to change our tactics and bring an explosive access, the metal detectors, bringing the drums to survey the land. make sure we have the proper intelligence. went to pakistan to do with the making of bombs as well. all these things have to happen and we've had to change our tactics again because we want to train the afghan police and army so we are partnering with the afghan police. now i'd like to say toward troops, come back into the barracks and to be safe, but i can't say that because our strategy in afghanistan depends on the contact with the local people persuading them that they are safe with us and saved in afghanistan for the taliban. so we have to change yes but in response to the tactics of our

opponents. >> i like to take up the point about tridentine about our independent nuclear deterrent. to be completely wrong to trade off but equipping our forces today, which must be done with securing our future for the future. and i think it's one of the biggest decisions and the prime the prime minister would have to take and we've got to get this right. i profoundly believe that we are safer having an independent nuclear deterrent in an unsafe and uncertain world, a proper replacement to try to because we don't know what the world will look like in 40 years time and i think it's a real risk first to be opposed to an independent nuclear deterrent, not to say they do want one, but it's not the same and they can't tell us what it is. you can't take risk or this. it's really a right. if you don't believe me, than believe that several generals who wrote justice week in the newspapers say precisely what i've been saying all gone. why take a decision right now to commit that amount of money on replacing an old cold war nuclear missile system when that system still a several years to

run, when most military people themselves say that they are cheaper and better alternatives and of course most importantly when the world is changing. president obama said last week that the greatest threat to us is not the cold war threat of old. it's terrorists getting hold of dirty bombs. trident isn't going to help you with that. let's move with the times come and take decisions when we need to take them and at least have this review, which i talked about after the election were with and consider everything that is possible. >> i to do with these decisions every today and i say to you mate, get real, get real. because i ran your same regulatory nuclear weapon and you wouldn't take action against them, but you're saying you have to give your supplements. get real about the danger that we face if we have north korea, iran and other countries with nuclear weapons. >> it real? what is dangerous to spend a whole lot of money that we might not have on a system that almost certainly won't help when the world is changing or facing new threats, were now more and more military export -- you want to

hold a review when you want to exclude the one big issue, which should be right behalf of that review. >> i agree with gordon. you cannot put off the decision. general mike jackson said today we can't go up or not the decision. not to nick it early, you have to keep your country safe and secure. you cannot rustle up a nuclear deterrent as the liberal democrats and you think you can. >> were moving on now to the next question, which comes from nicola pana from bristol. >> in the climate changes is one of the biggest local threats we face, what if he personally done in the last six months to use more environmentally friendly and suitable forces of transport such as bikes on trains rather than cars and planes quite >> what if you don't personally? >> i'm on trains all the time. i don't think i've been on more than one plater in this election campaign. i've been around by train and i think actually are high-speed

rail will allow people to get off the roads and get off domestic air flights and i think that's incredibly important. i would say the other thing i've done i'm very pleased with man should do this in our home in north queensberry is that we buy a living on a hill with a huge amount of wind, not very good weather but it wouldn't turbine would be the answer. in fact we found that the far better, even in the area with not much sun as the solar panel and i would recommend that people if they can't to use this form of energy because it allows us to keep our water in the wake that is far more environmentally friendly. we're the first time a change act in the world. we do to reduce admissions substantially by 2030 both individually and in the community, board also got to get a world agreement. we have to work with europe to do some and with the west of the world and that's what environmentally mission down. >> david cameron. >> when i said to my party with a get real about the environment and be a party that is a blue green party, not just a blue

party. it did once get a letter from someone who didn't agree with this and that if you're so concerned about carbon emissions, why don't you just stop breathing? and i was a moment i realized i had some persuading to do. in terms of male mice come in the biggest thing we've done effexor to a proper installation in our house and actually really can cut your energy bill and make life cheaper as well as greener. but i would say in the last six months, the biggest change that i've been able to make is actually coming out very strongly against the third runway at heathrow. i think it's wrong to do that. if english at the going for high-speed rail instead. we should have a high-speed rail at heathrow to make sure those flights that people take where you could take a train is possible to do that. i think it would be a really big step forward. >> i suspect like many people of course try to change my behavior when i travel up to my constituency. i must always do that by train

unless i have so much for the kids. i'm acutely aware i don't do enough. unlike any come in many people. i wish i could and would do more. i think part of the problem because you referred specifically to airplanes and you're quite right that flights at least unable to fly and there isn't too much volcanic ash around to create a growing proportion of the total co2 emissions. i think what is the rational is that the moment you have a taxes than, which taxes passengers on airplanes. that means her plans with freight are taxed to represent -- to reflect the pollution is caused pretty about the planes that are half empty or barely got any passengers at all. i think if you change that to a plain text you'd make a dramatic difference in cutting down on unnecessary aviation pollution. >> if we're going to make it real difference we could change the energy balance in our country and we've got to remove using oil and our dependence on

oil. that's why her energy plan talks about how we can move with nuclear and renewables and oil and gas. and we want 15% renewables by 2020. where the worlds leading offshore and want to do renewables. the questions i have u.s. to other parties is this, why are you so against nuclear power because it is the means by which we can balance off her energy supply without having to dependence on oil. and david, once you have a renewables target as we do so that we can use wind power? why are you so against the onshore wind power that people are trained to develop your dues supported in principle but then every constituency where it happens you're against it. let's get real also about getting this energy balance rate. >> of course i need an energy balance of a nuclear, renewables and it's a great opportunity for a country to do these things. i think one of the biggest opportunities we've got effexor with their own homes and we have a proposal called the green deal, where we want to say to everyone in this country that

you could spend up to six and a half thousand pounds on your home too insulated and better protect it and then you can see her energy bill come down and will have companies in expenses and others who express interest to come carry out the work and you pay for them to share with you the reduction in the bill. i think i would show people that going green actually can save you money. it can actually get britain working again. he can cut carbon emissions. for all those reasons i wanted to be a really big heart of the first green speech if i'm elected as your prime minister. >> the only problem david as were doing it already. >> gordon brown asked about nuclear power. i don't have a theological opposition i just think it's extraordinarily expensive, very, very expensive indeed. there's some calculations of the b-2 energy bills increase in this country rather than decreasing it takes a long, long, long time to build these nuclear plants. all experts agree with take well

into the next decade to create new nuclear energy, which would be too late to deal with the energy problems we have now. for a fraction of the money for both david cameron and gordon brown want to stand on subsidizing the nuclear industry we could have a mass program with our schools, hospitals per member 77% of all carbon dioxide emissions go straight out your window through the roof of your house. if we only use energy more efficiently and also of course invested some of the money that would be wasted on big nuclear projects on wind energy and other renewable energy i think that is the way towards a sustainable future. >> you can't have a balanced energy policy is on most every country is finding an advanced without using nuclear power. i do see this games we've introduced -- and that some young guys yesterday and girls would and working on an energy project in wales. had been taken on as a result of our future jobs fun and there in the business of helping adulation and giving people advice about the use of energy.

so we try to do this at the moment and will do more in future years. yes it back into later houses. yes we have to carbon free holes were possible. we have to have the electric car. and yes we have to develop onshore wind power, but the energy balance has to be fair in any party excluding nuclear power, which is already a substantial part of our country is not really thinking about the need for the future where we cannot be dependent on these high oil prices forever. >> actually, it is worth what gordon brown disguise because according to the governments own figures we are potentially heading for power cuts in 2017 and actually nuclear power stations would come on stream by then. it would have a greater emergency and we do need to look at the level of data storage we have in this country, which is much lower in france or germany they have up to 100 days. we have a little over two weeks. and we also need to make sure that we have the renewables and maybe even extra gas capacity on stream faster otherwise because the life well.

that's because we thought over the last 15 years so many different strategies -- one thing that hasn't been mentioned at all, which is absolute crucial of course dealing with a global problem affecting globally. ever seen the television pictures of gordon brown face on the sidelines in copenhagen while america and china basically cut everybody else out. i think if you're going to be on this, of course you have to leave at home. there's no point in coming together as david cameron has done with people even denied existence of climate change in europe. you've got to create strength in numbers in europe so we can really beat in the world because this is a global problem, which requires a global response. >> we think you're right. there is the british on the solution and david has to face up to that. it also got to face up to the fact that the cooperation we've achieved from 100 countries have now assigned reduction plans could return to persuade china and america to do so. we need america on our side. your anti-americanism will not help us. we need to work with all the

different continent to get a karmic change agreement. >> is a bit of a con going on here as well. the lisbon treaty is worse on treaty. you don't need a reason for them to get together. you need political will, action. that's what is required. but we keep getting from the other two parties is more institutions, more regulation, more new agreements. that's not what's required. action at the european level and that as well. you don't need new treaty, but you need to at least work with people in europe in europe who believe karmic change exist. that would be a helpful start. on the point that gordon brown keep saying. i dissemble attitude towards her relationship with america. it's an immensely, immensely important special relationship but it should not be a one-way street. we shouldn't always automatically do what our american friends tell us to do. we have to make sure we act on the state in our interests, not simply at the beck and call of anybody else. >> i persuade the americans to be part of a cheap 20 that dealt

with the banking crisis and i'm still pushing the americans to take action on climate change as well. but david, i mean, your anti-europeanism becomes more and more obvious as the debate goes on. it's a big society at home, but little britain abroad. easy to read and your policies. >> or just try different view, the other two parties because they don't want actually part that stands up for assaulting her. you keep going on about these alliances. one of our main allies of the party of the polish president who tragically died in an accident who both a politician standing next to me praise to the great statesman so i think we can hear no more of that. the fact is you can cooperate and work with your european partners without signing a new treaty come without giving away powers. >> i suspect it will come up later on. let's move on now and they question for michael jean from central britain. >> good evening. the pope has accepted an invitation to make an official statement to britain in

september at the cost of millions of pounds of taxpayers. if you win the election, will you disassociate their party from the folks protection under many years of catholic priests are ultimately tried and convicted of child abuse and from the opposition to all contraception and stem cell research, treatment, and mac equality and use of when hiv is at an all-time high. >> you back to post-gazette? >> i do think it's welcome that the pope is coming to prison and if i was your prime minister who would want to support that visit and meet sure i could do everything in my power to make it a success. their millions of people in our country who will welcome mat, who share the pope's catholic faith and i think we should make it successful. do i agree with everything the pope says? no. i don't agree with it about contraception and homosexuality. i think the catholic church has got some very, very serious work

to do to honor than come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened and they need to do that. but i do think we should respect people of faith. i think faith is important in our country. i think faith-based organizations whether they're christian or jewish or muslim or hindu do amazing things in our country, whether it's working in our prisons are providing good schools are actually helping some of those kind of fuel in our country. a country where faith is welcome, guest? a good visit from the pope, yes. >> nick clegg. >> my wife. i'm not a man of faith. i wife is catholic and my children are being brought up in her face. a little bit of insight into the human feelings of anguish and the catholic community here and elsewhere. and i think many catholics themselves feel really, extremely, extremely torn apart by what happened and i think they do want to see the catholic church expressed greater

openness. you can't keep a lid on thin and of course you need to move and i do welcome the pope visit but i think by the time he does know that there is a greater recognition that there's been terrible, terrible suffering in abusive relationships without left immeasurable stars donate a process of openness and healing. you can't undo the tragedy of the past, but you can be open about them so people can start to move on. >> gordon brown. >> i've met some of the people of rightly complained about to be as subject to when they were young and it never leaves them. it is something that is with them always and no matter what you try to do to help, there is always this problem that they have to face up to every day, that they were abused, cruelly abused by people in whom they place their faith and trust. so the churches got to do with these problems and it's got to make sure that there isn't open and clean confession about what has happened and that we hope

those people have been prudent to disability by this abuse. i welcome the pope's visit to britain and i want him to come to britain for two reasons. one is the catholic church is a great part of our society and we have too two recognize it as such i hope every british citizen wants to see this visit by the pope take place. and secondly, we must break down the barriers of religion that exist in our world. the faceless time together and recognize they have common values and common interest. they all believe we should be good neighbors to each other. i'm from the press between religion but i support the visit. and what religious faith to work more closely together. >> david cameron, i would remind you that michael jean is also concerned about the attitude of the catholic church to science and also to agenda matters. david cameron >> again, i would be agreeing with you and the pope in terms of foreign and the need to make

advances in science. i don't think we showed -- obvious when a proper protections on proper rules and we debated them at great length in the house of commons, but i do want to see that go ahead. also on the issue of abortion, their love for very iphone agree, but i don't think that means you should stop someone visiting our country or condemn them. we must try and build an open and tolerant country where we respect people for their different faiths. we bring face closer together with each other and were prepared to up and open and frank discussion about these things. i think that's the only way to go and it's nice to your pretty much actually we all agree about that. >> i think on this matter we do. i don't agree. i made it publicly clear in the past that i don't agree with the formal doctrine on homosexuality at the catholic church for instance. i don't agree with it at all. it doesn't mean -- i think there should be some uprising against the pope's visit. quite the reverse.

i would like to see the pope here. i think the catholic community in britain wants to welcome him. but, you know, and create knowledge that doesn't mean one has to subscribe to the everett letter in every dotted i. had the theology in the church. >> you know about these big issues i think were proven ourselves to be tolerant and understanding nation. we introduce civil partnerships and therefore we change the laws on homosexuality and said to people if you're gay or straight to the place in british society and i think for many people that was a great liberation and i'm pleased that it does happen in britain in these last few years. i'm human embryology i disagreed with the catholic church because i believe if you can treat a disease by using embryos that are enabling us to make sure that people can be free for some of the conditions that afflict their lives, we should do so under the rifles and i'm sorry that in principle there is a decrease in it with a church on that. on the question of contraception i think we know that in africa,

we know around the world that it's important to give women access and choice so that they can make their own decisions and i regret the fact that the catholic church does not do that, but the pope should come to britain. we should have debates and we should welcome all religions because bringing religion together is the key to making sure we have a more peaceful world. >> you been the agreement were going to move on now and take some more questions. that brings to an end to international affairs part of this debate although we may well come back to it in subsequent questions. and in a moment we're going to move onto the open section here before we do that, just reminder that you can see the debate this sunday on the senior politicians from three parties represented here plus the prime minister from scotland, alexander. please join me live from attenborough at my next gig this sunday at 10:30. let's move on now to the next question here this question comes from very century for

montpelier, great britain. >> in the scandals of the lasher is hard to find a person in my neighborhood who believes in the power of their foe. how do you plan to restore faith in this municipal system? >> nick clegg. >> given the powers of the past year, had he planned to restore faith? the >> first you need to be given the power to sack any politician who has proved to be corrupt here it something i advocated in the past and from then i put forward in west minister both david cameron and gordon brown party didn't welcome that because you're the boss. the other thing of course many to do is clean up all the murky business of party funding. we've all had problems with party funding. again, there was a deal on the table. we supported it to clean a party funding. yet again the old party said no. gordon brown wants to protect his paymasters. david cameron want to protect his paymaster in belize. we all believe on the rhetoric could we all agree in the

rhetoric of cleaning up politics but we have to act. one final thing -- one of the reasons why your friends your neighbors or perhaps write and save they feel ignored is because we have this very old electorate system which allows gordon brown to be in power with only 22% of the people voted for his party last time. many people are being ignored and we need to change that as well. >> gordon brown >> a single economic difference and i've lived it can. yes, we'll give the right of recall that you don't like for being correct in parliament doesn't take reaction. we'll give you a right for the house of commons so they have to be debated if you put them in sufficient number to do so. and yes we want a referendum on the future of the house of commons and the house of lords and you people have a a photosystem for the house of commons and ending the hereditary principle and the house of lords and making it for the first elected in accountable. you know your vote matters as well because this is a big joint election.

we have to secure the recovery that's been put at risk by conservative policies through it to make sure we appeasing public services and that the arrest by conservative policies. we develop the jobs in the future and that's been at risk by the policies of both these parties here this evening. so your vote matters. it's the most important and precise selection because our future of how you vote in the next few years. >> the next thing people want to know is they're going to be voting for a cleaned up parliament. everywhere i go in this country during the election, it is simmering and bubbling below the surface that just anger about the expenses fiasco that people say i pay my taxes to have decent politics and get the money has been spent on all these appalling things may want to be absolutely sure this is never ever going to happen again. it's a strict limit from what it can be spent total transparencies to get the voters can see every penny. but i think is the absolute first thing that needs to be done. i would go on to say we need to cap the cost of politics.

the robustness countries such make economies and make the businesses were at her. why shouldn't politics be the same. on some simple changes i think would put people back in control. on to see many more people choosing the candidates for the parties. i agree we need to have a situation where you can fax your mp, please don't give up that we can thank your government and them out. let's not have permanent on parliament. >> i got a telegraph today. >> remedy for a complete nonsense true but that aside complete rubbish. mary, one of the most heartening things about questions feeling disaffected with the most heartening things and it's one of the great sort of effects of these leaders and the televised leaders is that more and more young people appear to be rushing to register to vote before it's too late. that is immensely exciting because they're lots and lots, especially young people. i hope i'm not saying this but

you look fairly one who has felt for so long to be turned off or the old party politics and are now excited that beginning the hope, they're beginning to think we can do something different this time. i think we can do something different this time, biggest i can. if you didn't know before, register, it's your country, your future, the searcher writes your to vote and shape your future and i think then we could make this election one of the most exciting reside in a a very long time. >> let me just say was ashamed by the behavior of some of the mps in the house of commons. what we did was clearly unacceptable and no punishment is too great for them if they had to go before the courts and the answer for the crimes. and i think we've got to be very clear we want nobody standing up this election who is not transparent and open about what they're doing anybody who reaches the bromides we have laid down should be thrown out

of the house of commons and indeed out of the house of lords of their member of that as well. but you know when i was talking to young people than yesterday am talking about policy, did you ask the question politics to make a difference. people probably say yes. if he then asked the question by jack may depend on decisions that are made by government, then people say i might be interested. when people say my health service may depend on how much resources government is prepared to invest in the health service people say yes politics may make a difference and then when you ask about crime that come from a policeman on the state, then it makes a difference. if you ask about schools and what the standard of the schools are now you're investing in the future that picks a difference. politics can make a difference. >> politics can make a difference, mary. i would say politicians have been treating the people as much for far too long. they're saying we can do everything. both of us are will follow your problem. just let us passing a few pass a few more laws, spend more money, passport regulations and all the trouble will be fixed and it's not really true.

it's actually quite a big lie. the truth is if you really, really want to change things and say have safer streets, better schools, the government has its role that we have our responsibilities, too. we have to make sure we work at the schools. we have to make sure we help the police. we have to have discipline in our schools. real solutions to the problem of our country come when we all say i've got responsibilities as well that go beyond pay my taxes and obey the law. if my society, my country and the election politicians want to join with them which omitted a better place. i think that's a mature honest answer for how we really get the change we need in our country. >> i take responsibility for my decisions and i have people right or a society to take responsibility, but you can't run the health or in do-it-yourself principle. you have to finance it properly. why are you wanting -- >> can i go back to mary's question which is people feeling such tougher politics. something for them with neither

the parties mature addresses this. we have a culture of jobs for life and politics. hundreds and hundreds of mps than the conservative party in the labour party scum of meal parties who basically know that all you need to do every four or five years is get the vote of the people and ignore everybody else all the rest of time. of course you then start getting trouble with expensive because if you give people jobs for life, no questions asked, then they start cutting corners. that's what we need major changes will fall the other things in the house of lords and all the other areas. >> all parties are not to take action. we have to clean up the politics for every single party and anybody who commits a fence is out, suspended, out, they should be in politics at all. public services about serving the public. it's not about serving yourself. >> was going to something that jordan brown said sanity asked people to take responsibility. one of the poems in our country today is if you do the right

thing, take responsibility, all to often but are punished rather than rewarded. if you work hard and said, actually you don't have to cover it behind you. you get punished. if you do the right thing, and the remaining couples as they were trying to get everything together before we get very, have children and they feel people who don't do the right thing to push that the letterhead of them and i think there's a sense of unfairness in our country today, which goes to the heart of some of the issues we have our policy. >> to david, the biggest unfairness of the biggest beneficiary in your manifesto is the three richest people the country get to a dozen pounds each from inheritance tax cut. if you want to be fair, you don't give people an inherent document type tax cuts for middle-class families. you don't cut the schools budget. which means you cut the whole budget. >> poor merry asked about politics and ashes getting tax credits.

absolutely need to make sure people are responsible where they have made big mistakes. it's a fact that there are number of mps in both the old parties who flicked their home for lunch the next pain from your taxpayer, from the expenses to buy properties, cellphone, buy them up and then pocket the difference in personal profit who still haven't been held to account. you can't move unless the people of done something seriously. the expenses can make people incredibly angry. people ask you about politicians and i only obey the rules. i think are now starting to anger by some politicians say my party was much better than all the others. frankly, make, will have problems with his father was politicians with phantom mortgages. don't anyone try to put themselves on a pedestal with this issue. let's sorted out and clean it up and recognize we are all of this mess. >> no one should be standing up this election if they are not

telling you everything about what they are doing with their finances. they should be having second thoughts either and not all too common in the house of commons. they should be working all time for the constituents interests and they shouldn't be in a position where they're not telling you that they will come and report to you every month and what they're doing, holding local surgeries, and if they're not doing the right and be in karachi at the right to call them. we have to clean up but it's been a terrible scandal in 19 shamed us. >> of course one is blemish free. the point is this. if you're going to try to persuade people to investors again, which was mary's question into politicians, than is just not good enough just to talk the talk and not walk the walk. you can see what to cleanup funding. >> the time is most definitely. we're now moving onto a question from graceland who is from westbury on here in great britain. >> having brought up five

children, worked most of my life, reached the age of 84, dualities think that a state pension 59 times pounds per week is a just reward? >> the answer is no, grace. i'm sorry that it happened. i hope you're getting the pension credit which is an attempt to make up for the pension from what you've had as a result of your earnings been interrupted during the course of your life. and what we now now? were going to link pensions and 20 software retention will be the two earnings and not just prices. secondly women and you are one of them who have not had the pension. were making it possible for all women in the future to have that full state pension. contact me at worst they could do with the poverty that people face as pensioners and not for the pension credit that went to fewer lives all the been introduced, the pre-television licenses over 75. all of these have been introduced over the last two years because the one thing that analyzes our society above all

else is we cannot give dignity and security 12 pensioners at the time. that's what i want to see and that's what i want to do. >> david cameron. >> fifty-nine pounds is not enough and which do better society to giving people what we all want. this was done the right things are that life, we should be giving you dignity and security in old age. now i agree we need to operate the pension in line with earnings rather than prices. the reason i feel i can give you that answer with total confidence do we really will deliver his is we've made a tough decision to go with it which is to say that from 2016 were going to ask, starting with men, to retire a year later. that means we can find the pledge because we all have an enormous deficit budget figures and any money left in the kitty and so for going to make policies like that then it's an important promise, we've got to say how we're going to pay for it. i want to make sure that when we see people going into old age that if you work hard, if you save time if you put money aside and you're not punished enough

why we say it's not right to you should have to pay for your residential care and someone who didn't have the right thing at the whole thing paid for free. >> nick clegg. >> greece, the earthling needs to be restored. in needs to be restored immediately. there's no doubt about that. it should have been broken in the first place. it needs to be restored. something which i'm sure you're familiar with, which is so many cards, which the elderly have to confront, which really do make it extremely difficult to make and meet. ..

that is what we're going to do as a result of our pension reforms but it's the case everyone who works for an employer will have occupational pension and that's another change making coming in and the parliament,. we look at the needs is true to say we need help with social care and the home and so we're introducing over the next few months so people don't have to go into old people's homes if they want to stay, they can get the help that is necessary so they can have comfort in their own homes but i doubt whether two problems with the manifestoes of the other

parties. david doesn't mention free prescriptions for the elderly or i tests and to be honest nick has a problem in his manifesto because he's cutting the budget of the lines this. i'd like them to explain to the pensioners when, in fact, they propose to do. >> i think it is disgraceful to try and frighten people in the election campaign as gordon brown has done and as the labour party are doing in this country. i'd like to take this opportunity to say clearly to a pensioner in the audience or anyone listening at home that we will keep the free television license, keep the pension credit, the winter fuel allowance, the free bus passes and those leaflets you been getting from labor are pure and simple lies. politicians shouldn't say lie and i've seen those leaflets and make me wickedly very angry. it's not right to frighten people in the election campaign.

>> firstly, before i respond to gordon brown's invitation, i'm glad you been reading our manifesto with such care there are two and a half million pensioners offering promises about fair deal to pensioners have a 2.5 million pensioners and policy. that's how bad it is. i think we need to therefore make sure that we use what little money we've got, use it wisely and we're seeing the winter until payments and eligibility is going to rise, the decision which the government has taken from 6265 and we are saying if you bring that foreign and use it to extend the payments to people who are terminally ill and disabled who at the moment don't get access to the payment i think that's fair. one final thing, we talked about social care, i really cannot stress enough one issue where every -- something such a big issue we need to agree on a common approach because that's the only way we will provide --

>> i do seem to be right, david didn't mention free eye tests. >> we will keep them right now. will you withdraw the leaflets going around saying the conservatives would take away free bus passes? you should be ashamed of doing that the. >> have not authorized anything like that. what i would ask you to say is that why isn't in their manifesto your geeky thing free prescription charges and to nick evans say if you're cutting if you allow some people will suffer this year. we said that all pensioners over 60 will get to under 50 pounds as in the winter fuel allows an 400 if you're over 80 and as an innovation we brought in and i would like to see a cut in one of the most difficult years for pensioners when you're coming out of recession but you seem to be cutting its. >> i explained before. we are extending the winter fuel

payments to people terminally ill but doing that by bringing for a decision that gordon brown's government made but can i say before this completely collapses into ping-pong there are bigger issues how we look after the elderly which are huge and financially and socially huge. one of the biggest issues of providing social care. none of us -- is also related but providing dignity to people in all age witches grace's question and i don't think we are going to serve the elderly today or those in the future very well if we highjack everything with political points when we can work out a solution for many years into the future. >> i do think it's about dignity and security in old age to say to elderly people that you should be able to if you've worked hard and save tarn able to pass your home to your children rather than to pay for your care and that's why we have this plan if you put aside 8,000 pounds when you become 65 then you have the guarantee your home will be there for your

children because you done right thing. that won't solve it all but it's a good start ending the unfairness of the thousands of people who have done the right thing and work hard with and get penalized and punished by the system. >> the first change is making sure that people can stay in their own homes and that's the urgent social these payments available to all so they can stay in their own homes without worrying about finance. the next thing is make sure if people have to go into all peoples, there's a limit on the cost to bear otherwise they will lose their home and choose between the care they needed and the home they owned so in the next parliament what we're proposing to do is put a two-year limit on payments so if you're suffering from alzheimer's and be in an old people's home for a long time can be in your own home and will suspend payments after two years for personal and medical care. >> related to that, of course, are those people who look after loved ones who are elderly and the help with cleaning, washing,

getting dressed, getting fed and i think in the past we all agree this is something we need to look at is we need to provide more respite and time off for people who care for their loved ones. we've got a proposal which would take the money which the government allocated to the floor bell and used to say to those who provide care every week here's my lisa you can spend time with yourself on holiday getting a break because any care makes a huge traffic difference in their lives. >> the point about care is a need to help them in doing what they're doing and talk to any care and they say one thing i need is a break and i don't think we do enough. with the budget in their hands and say you decide how best to get that respites and get the extra help in your home. i remember doing this with the care for our son and it's incredibly complicated, this whole agenda should be about putting power in people's hands and letting them to more because of britain's armies give up that

cost 50 billion pounds and that would lead to heart break for some money, they are heroes and heroines. >> we will move onto the next question and the next question comes from frank from witney and oxford sure. >> gentleman, given the current financial difficulties facing the country and now the possibility of a hung parliament according to the polls is a time to put aside political differences and form a government of the best talents from all the major parties? >> coalition government best way forward? >> we should try to work together and i've held tony blair debt education group parliament because it was a good bill even though labor mps for backing and that helped to go through. on the issue that would cover tonight the possibility of defeating labor a sign to do the right thing, but obviously there is a hung parliament and we must

be responsible and deliver the best government for this country but if you want my honest answer i don't think a hung parliament would be good for britain because we do need quite the size of government to take some difficult decisions for the long term and we've sent out the things to be done to get the deficit under control. i fear if we put them off we could have a situation where receive interest rates rise, confidence taken out and i think we need change to get on top of the deficit and solve the problems and get the economy moving. >> nick clegg. >> you are right on the simple assertion that when the country is facing very big issues, we talked about social care but the wonder highlighting is the black hole, it's better if policy -- it's better if politicians try and work together and that's why i proposed that in respect of the outcome of the next election why don't we set up a counsel

for financial stability and gather in that the chancellor, governor of the bank of england, head of financial services to do a simple thing which is to come clean about how this big black hole is because there is dispute about its and have agreements so that everyone is being open within which hasn't happened and how to gather get out of it so there is potential for politicians to work together. i don't think there are stories about political armageddon. >> gordon brown. >> we have what's called the business council for britain and that brings together the leading businessmen and women in our country with government ministers to look at what we can do. we have the tripartite committee which brings together the governments of the bank of england and the service authority and chancellor of exchequer and have these things but the key thing is with a guy to have agreed plan to reduce

the deficit, protect services and can't growth in the economy. we don't have agreement on what needs to be done even this year to sort the economy out. i went to see our economy grow this. unemployment come down. i want to see businesses thrive and that means we pass to keep the government support in the economy for the time being as something that conservatives don't want but i want to say we should never take the votes of people for granted. the public must decide and it's up to the politicians to do with a want them to do so as for the voters to decide, you're the boss and your decision will count. >> thank you, i think before radio on i remind this is about cooperation and coalition and people looking at where the opinion polls and on this later reduced. david cameron. >> ricin frankly it is a hung parliament we will do our best and if we win the election i will do everything to take the country with us on some of the

difficult decisions and try and take other politicians with us because there will be hard times before we get out of this and get the deficit sordid but there is a problem in that you need to have agreements. there's a fundamental disagreement between the other two parties about what we do this year. we badly need to roll up our sleeves and make savings to stop the jobs tax and national insurance tax rise coming down the road because when you got economy try to recover the worst thing is put a tax on every single job in our country. that's why over 1,100 business leaders have said don't do this, it's not cutting waste and threats. the others don't agree but i badly think we really need to stop the attacks that could kill our recovery and job. >> nick clegg. >> back to the question, is a bad thing or not if politicians talk to each other. i don't think is in many parts

of the world is completely standard -- gordon brown talked about bodies but not -- david cameron said all the time in the newspapers this week making literacy -- ludicrous claims. it will be your choice if you decide that no one here deserves an outright majority then, of course, needs to be open and talk to each other to ride had the good government, the sound governance that you deserve because you deserve a government where we put your interests first and don't allow everything constantly to be hijacked by short-term political point scoring. >> i want the parties to work together at one i became prime minister, shirley williams do things for the government, i invited businessmen and women to come in to the government and work for national economic benefits and i'll continue to ask people to give their talent

to public service and that's something that's important to do but there is this fundamental position about this year. we -- resolve this. i've had to sink the economy to the most difficult global financial crisis. we've made the right decisions to take ownership of the banks in the right decisions to get the world together to deal with the recession. every time we've said we have to support the economy when david is saying even when it's fragile he wants ideological reasons to take 6 billion pounds out of the economy and that puts thousands, teachers, policemen, thousands at risk immediately and that's why they're talking about emergency budget in june. david, you are a risk to the economy and nick is a risk which nuclear weapons. >> it's an attempt to scare people. don't take it from a, a ticket from the 1,100 business leaders.

people who dashed these great british businesses will help us out of recession and stop the jobs tax but to go back to frank's question i have a specific proposal or i think we should come together much more effectively and that is i want to see the national security council sitting as a war cabinet if i become prime minister because afghanistan is the top priority. i would advise as prime minister the leaders of the other two main parties to come to that meeting several times a year to make sure they are seen the advice from the security services, the generals, the chiefs of staff. in matters of peace and were you guys to get together better than now. >> if there's anything i would add to this discussion in response to frank is if politicians are going to talk what we need to do is be up front about preordains and what we would seek in any discussion. i've been up front dealing with

the fiscal deficits and we've been open about how we would do that but also tax reform and education reform. those are our priorities and we would fight for in whatever situation. >> the priority is making sure we have an economic recovery and making sure that we don't have higher unemployment. unemployment in america is a lot higher, i want to keep people in their jobs but takes 6 billion pounds as the economy and you lose lots of jobs and businesses at risk and saving hasn't gone to his policy today is the right thing to do have. >> what i'm saying is if you care so much about bank insure creating a new economy mileage you take the steps to reform our banking system. nothing has happened to prevent disaster in the banking system because of the parade from occurring over again. we're the only one saying split them and make sure they lend to

british businesses and that's the way to get the recovery going. >> you don't see one of the problems with hung parliament and coalition is there's bickering going on already and there's a difference about what we believe on the jobs tax. try to stop this is vital and what the liberal democrats say is we announced let's stop the jobs tax and they said it was nauseating and the manifesto said its their aspiration. it is a difference between us, we want to stop this to keep the economy going and the other two parties don't. >> have been denied a my years taking 6 billion in emergency budget and i would be very worried indeed to return to the old conservative party. on the question of banks you don't solve the problem by making your bank smaller, north and rockwell small and went under. which of guy to do is proper capital controls and may have a

-- alistair darling is in washington negotiating the global financial tax system and the government of the bank of england has said on was to split high risk casino investment banking from low-risk that you depend on you'll get this risk that will be taken with your everyday savings. is what they did in the 1930's and the depression of the united states, is what president obama is doing something similar and yet neither of the old parties want to contemplate the major reforms. i think we owe it to future generations to make sure the implosion never ever can happen again. >> we have to leave this question and move on to a question, jesse from bristol. >> i'm an immigrant and i've been in the u.k. for 13 years

and i recognize that immigration is becoming a problem in the country. what measures will introduce in order to make the system more fair? >> power to make immigration fair crack nick clegg. >> firstly you need to tighten the borders so i know who's coming in and going out. previous governments removed the exit controls so we didn't know who had to leave and i wouldn't want to see those three installed and border police force. we have every right to police our borders. i would make sure we direct people who come to this country today areas where the have a job as someone who can vouch for them but where there is space for them to live and isn't unreasonable strain in. we've got to do something of a legacy with the chaos which labor and conservative governments created and that was lots of people coming illegally to are still living years in the shadows of our economy and i'd

rather get them out of the hands of criminal gangs into the hands of the tax man if they want to play by the rules and pay their taxes and speak english, that is far to fair and effective way of dealing with immigration. >> i think that would be wrong policy. it would encourage people to come to this country thinking that as some point we would legalize their presence and that would be not a deterrent illegally, but mean more and more would come into our country. our policy is to control and manage immigration. we have a point system, no unskilled worker from outside europe can command. if you've got a skill that we will get a british person to do that, advertise and a job center if this still is available. we are gradually introducing the number of skills to come abroad and so they will not come from

abroad, they are cleaned up in berlin and gradually build go to the skills list and i sure those people who get jobs in britain are skilled in britain to do the jobs here. >> thank you. >> the first thing to say is we benefited from emigration and things to come here legally and live here we should be incredibly warm and welcoming and hospitable and build a strong and integrated country where i to rebuild a strong society. it's important to say that and i to believe that immigration in recent years has simply been too high and we need to bring the level down. that's the first bit of fairness or about and people did want this address and the other two parties are not actually really addressing this because we believe you need to have a cap on people coming from outside the european and that would help to bring it down. added to that is new european countries when they join the eu we say there should be transitional controls. there would be 13,000 coming

from poland and and the and there were hundreds of thousands of us absolutely vital and we are the only one saying let's have a cap and then it won't be a political issue. >> i want what everyone wants is immigration system which works. in -- one has any idea what's coming in or out. gordon brown talks about the honesty and the only person advocating is the conservative mayor for london and what i'm saying is you can't live in denial of the problem created by the chaos and immigration system and the party. there are people living in the shadows and i want to go after the criminal gangs exploiting the people and if there are people who live here for 10 years and speak english and want to play by the rules why do we

say you come out of the shadows, pay your taxes, do community service and now we can free up resources to go off to a criminal gangs. the right balance between fairness and making sure we have a system which works. >> i think in the last two years we've seen introduction since i became prime minister for foreign international id card so anyone who comes in will have to have identity card and we are introducing a control so everybody counted in and everybody counted out. was garden in the past and shouldn't have, we are bringing that back. biometric meters can stop people at airports before they come in if they don't have the right id so we are detaining back but the key is the point system. if you don't have the points to come in and other rights of you don't have a skill we need don't come to the country but i must say i'm worried about nick's policy because it sends a message around the world if you

come to britain there will be amnesty that will allow to come here freely without having to be thrown out. >> the truth is there is a big difference between the conservative party ripping this and the other 2i think is dancing around. the government has had 13 years and yet we've had highest levels in the last 15 years and frankly i think dick's idea would make the situation worse. they're too bad ideas. amnesty has shown that what that leads to is big increase in forced claims and immigration, and i think the idea of somehow regional immigration saying it's okay to work in bristol pitcher can live in birmingham -- it sounds like they will put up border controls on the m5, it doesn't make sense and has been thought through. we need real change, a genuine change that only the conservatives offers. >> this is a really sensitive issue and people feel strongly

about emigration and unsettled that they've had no faith in the immigration system that has run chaotically. let's have our differences but, please, don't in denial about what is going on. still live in denial about because of the chaos in the system we've got people here working for criminal gangs rather than britain. you can pretend we can wish it away and it's a problem. they are here and, of course, what i'm saying is controversial, is at least an attempt to deal with an issue which we have to deal with. i don't think we can have another 20 years and the old way, just ignoring these. recant come up with promises like caps that don't work and by the way -- >> and not interested in points had been doing the right thing. if we send out a message to people in other parts of the world you got amnesty if you come to this country than you got a problem very net migration

is coming down as a result of a point system which introduced. came down three years ago and is coming down this year. we're taking the action necessary and from the end people will be counted in and out and will be more helpful if you would support identity cards for foreign nationals in some of opposing them. >> i'm asking for a simple answer to big question which is because of the chaos we have lots of people who are here. if you ignore it will carry on living in the shadows of the economy. you have no plan to deal with it or you try -- you can't do for 900,000 people. the more they argue amongst the other it is clear the only way you'll get real change and action on this issue is from conservative government. sensitive and is to be dealt with reasonably in december and we talk about this with the country wants and deserves firm

immigration control instead of that would make a difference. the issue is getting back to every didn't have immigration questions in front asked about it on the street. nobody raised its because the public was happy with the level of immigration we could integrate and provide good health and schools for people. it's been out of control for 13 years and for all i can hear th democrats would make it much worse. >> what would the kabi? >> you set the tap every year. you're reminded me of court and last week, it's like another replay. the fact is every year you need to talk with the health authorities, housing authorities and business and set a cap to achieve a very big reduction in overall immigration levels that can be done, we've done in our past and can do it again and what's required is political

will from a party prepared. >> you are proposing a cap but you don't know what the cap would be, you are proposing to give people assurance we will count people in and out but don't know how many -- all i'm saying on the debate it's difficult. let's at least not pretend that you can put forward this ideas which have no substance and at least the kind of ideas are trying to deal with the difficult issue of which is crushed under the carpet for too long. >> net emigration is falling with these measures and the point system is the key. is done in australia and you can't come in unless you got a skill to offer from outside the european union and that meant there's no unskilled workers coming reduction in skilled workers, reduction in university students and as what we're doing now and we're counting people in and out from the end of the year. >> i don't want to bore people with figures but it's important,

up until 1997 the highest number for net migration into the u.k. with 77,000. since 1997 since labor came to power is never lower than one hunter for a thousand and sometimes it's been 2,000 -- 2 million across a decade it. it can be brought down. >> there are million people sing in countries and there are a million from the european union in our country and that's what being part of the european union is about and there are many british citizens who want the chance to stay for a time in other countries in the european union. >> we will have to leave it there and that's the end of our audience questions. it's now time to leave this to make the big pitches for your votes and with their closing statements and a reminder that each leader has 1/2 minutes for this and lots were drawn for the quarter and restart now with

court in brown. .. we have had to take ownership of our banks. it had to call call the world together in london to have a big

summit so we could make decisions that everybody will work together and we all decided we put resources into the economy. unfortunately the conservatives want to take those resources out far too early and put thousands of jobs at risk so i would say this evening that david you are a race to the economy, nick you are a risk because of what you are saying on iran and nuclear weapons tour security. nick he would leave us weekend david you would leave us isolated in europe. these are the problems these parties are going to face up to. we have a credible long-term plan are the future of britain. >> david cameron. >> i don't know about you but i thought all of that sounded slightly desperate like an attempt to frighten people. instead of doing with what i think we need to do in our country which is to take and make a clean break from the last 13 years, to have new leadership, to take the country forward, to solve the problems we have and i think the conservatives are best to offer that because of you both conservative you know you can get fresh new leadership from any team on may the seventh

rather than being stuck with what we have now. you heard in the debate today some big differences set out between us about how we believe, you have to give more priority to keep our country safe, keeping our borders secure, making sure we keep our defense is strong but also you ever have her differences on values. the family comes first to me and we need to do more to help those who actually do the right thing and want their government behind them. we do face difficult times in this country but i still think we have incredible days ahead of us. we are a great country in so many different ways. with the right leadership, we will get a clean break from the 13 years at baylor and we can achieve anything if we pull together and build the society we know we need to make our country a better place to live and. >> nick clegg arcos. >> what i've tried to do tonight is show that if we do things differently we can be a force for good in the world. we can leave. we can shape the world around us, not to complain about the world around us. we talked about a number of

things this evening. we talked about europe, afghanistan, climate change, the pope. we talked about things closer to home as well, immigration, pensions. i believe on all those things, all those issues, we can act differently. they are still some way to go before this election is decided but i hope within the next few days we will make up the mind on the ballot box and if you agree with me that something really exciting is beginning to happen, people are beginning to believe, beginning to hope we can do something different this time, of course there are people who try to block change. of course there are people who are spreading fear to stop the change that you want. i think they are wrong. i think if we do things differently, if we stand up for the values that made our country great, then we can be proud again, proud of our home and proud also of standing up for the things we believe in and the world. we don't simply need to choose

from the old choices of the past. we don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. don't let anyone tell you that this time it can't be different. it can. >> and that concludes the debate. full reaction and analysis continues of course now here live on sky news. the final debate in this general election series will take place next week in the midlands. after that of course it is that you to cast your vote on may the sixth. many thanks to you for watching and thank stuart questionnaires, our studio audience and the people of bristol and above all many take thanks two or 3 liters, the first-ever to agree to debate live on television. gordon brown, david cameron and nick clegg who are invited to step forward and shake hands with each other. [applause] >> for more about britain's parliamentary campaign and analysis of the most recent party leaders debate, here is

the bold and factor from sky news. it is an hour. [applause] >> good evening and welcome to the bolton factor live from bristol. a mixed verdict in the polls tonight following the leadership debate, characterized by the 3 liters. nick clegg came out-- at 33% with david cameron and gordon brown tied at 30% but a new poll for the time for the conservative leader as the clear winner with nick clegg second and brown third. we will have analysis on that throughout the hour. and this is where it all unfolded in the heart of

ryssdal, the three leaders have left now after their performances that could dig take the results of the election in two weeks time. the polls will close and we will be starting the counting. this is the scene where each person has been talking to the press trying to make the most of their particular leaders supporters. >> how did clegg cameron and brown really do? each leader was asked whether they would be willing to work with each other? >> we should never take the votes of people for granted or go the public must decide and then it is up to the politicians to do what the public wants them to do so it is for the voters to decide or go you are the boss and it is your decisions. >> obviously there is a hung parliament. we must he be responsible when it is time to offer the best government we can for this country but my frank honest answer is i don't think parliament would be good for

britain because i think we do need quite decisive government to take some of the difficult decisions for the long-term. david cameron said he spends his-- making this ludicrous claims about total meltdowns or go it will be your choice, if you decide that no one here deserves an outright majority, then of course we need to be open about it and talk to each other in order to provide the good government, the sound government that you deserved. >> the leaders clashed on pensions and immigration. here are some highlights. >> get real because iran might be able to have a nuclear weapon and he wouldn't take action against them but you are saying we have got to give up our trident-- and our nuclear weapon now i get real about the danger we face if we have north korea, iran and other countries with nuclear weapons and we give up our own. >> what is dangerous is to commit to spend money that we

might not have on a system which almost certainly won't help when the world is changing and facing new threats. we are now more military-- you want to hold a review when you want to exclude the one big issue which should be right at the heart of the review of. >> it is disgraceful to try and frighten people in an election campaign as gordon brown has just done and the labour party are doing up and down this country and i would like to take this opportunity to say clearly to any tension in the audience or anyone listening at home that we will keep the free television license. we will keep the pension credit. we will keep the winter fuel allowance. we will keep the free bus pass. the leaflets you have been getting from labor are pure and simple lies. a politician should not say lice but i say because i've seen those leaflets and they make me very angry. you should not be frightening people in an election campaign. >> david you are a race to the economy. nick is a risk to our security with his nuclear weapons policy.

>> it is another attempt to try and frighten people. after 13 years of failure and which we now have a budget deficit the same size as greece. that is a way to get the recovery going. >> one of the problems with a hung parliament is there is quite a lot of bickering going on and there is a difference here about what we believe. >> from the end of this year people will be counted in and counted out of the country and it would be more helpful if you would support identity cards before nationals instead of opposing them. >> i'm asking for a simple answer to a big question which is because of the chaos in the system in the past we have lots of people who are here. if you just ignore it they will carry on living in the shadows of our economy. you have no plan to deal with it and neither do you. you can't deport 900,000 people. you don't know where they live. >> on a different note gordon brown got one of the biggest laughs of the evening. >> these two guys behind me remind me of my two young boys

squabbling at bath time. they are squabbling about whether to have referendums on the european union. >> during the second debate nick clegg tried again to make direct connections with the audience. >> there are especially young people, who might be in your position, who feel, who have felt for so long to be turned off by the old party politics. >> david cameron amused the audience after getting unhelpful advice about climate change. >> when i said to my party we had to get real about the environment and we had to be a party that was a blue green party, i did once get a letter from someone who agreed with this and said mr. cameron if you are so concerned about carbon emissions what are you just stop reading. that was the moment i realized i had some more persuading to do. >> it is the reaction the debate came in from the polls, and mark

stanford has the numbers. >> last week we had an absolute clear winner. this week boy is a type. let me show you the latest information we got from the polling organizations. nick clegg may get the win but just by that one percentage point, 33 they measure his level of support, 32 for david cameron and gordon brown 23. there are differing results by a measure coming up in our next poll. we will show you the one from congress, telephone poll they did with itv. nick clegg 33, so again he gets a winning score. mr. cameron goes to 30% and gordon brown does much better than last week, also getting 30% so tied for that second place. compare and contrast those two results with our next one which is the new poll that came out within minutes of the debate finishing and this was a clear win for david cameron. 36%, that degree of excitement

about any one of these men compared to that first debate last week so 36 for david cameron, 32 for nick clegg and gordon brown is on 29, get up from his performance last week. we are expecting one more set of numbers and then we will do the aggregate score but the thing to reflect is the way the men perform tonight much more again with the way their parties are rated nationally at the moment. >> this is the reaction from some of the spinners after the debate. >> i saw someone with passion, leadership and conviction, ready to be the prime minister and reserve stronger performance than last week in the good news in the country is crying out for change. they have w got to change in david cameron. >> what your you are poll says quite frankly.

polls are-- but what i think you will see is that when he came to substance, real substance on really big issues there was only one person out there who i can imagine is the prime minister and i was gordon brown. >> i think in many ways the mob -- the only one who is prepared to do things differently, nick once again showed on so many of the issues to do the same thing that don't represent change. he wants a prime minister who wants to change britain and nick clegg is your only candidate tonight. [inaudible] what is your verdict? >> my verdict is this. i think it was equal between the three. i think a nick clegg achieved

continuity from his last performance that looked a little ragged on one or two of the policy issues particularly immigration. i thought david cameron improved from last week but didn't grab it by the throat and have the breakthrough he should've been looking for. as far as gordon brown was concerned, he really should be extra detailed and a thing from gordon's perspective he will be saying i improved my game today. it was a great policy discussion and that is good news for next week so bring on the economic debate. >> the last point david made an appointment made last week that next debate will be the one where the prime minister shines. i think gordon brown clearly came last night. the expectation and desire from labor was that brown would be able to establish his relation with the prime minister. cameron clearly improved his position from last week. i would say he one. i think clegg stood to be a bit

naïve this evening so i think we took quite a difference from last week. >> it depends on what the public thinks and indeed as i understand it three out of four polls showed nick clegg is winning but not by as much. i thought the real achievement for nick clegg this time was to demonstrate last week wasn't the one. he held us all in and it was a big achievement. clearly brown and cameron did better so his scores will not be as big. you are dividing into 103 people but he held it in a competent way. >> is this the point where he was much closer this week and therefore, either gordon brown or david cameron would have the nightmare of having a third occupant in the race in the form of nick clegg? >> on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that the format

he has one which people always say will be the most difficult for gordon brown and so far, gordon has been the greatest leap forward and has the greatest potential for the next debate. as far as i'm concerned, i think that gordon really came out tonight best because he started with his position and brought himself to a position where polls show and i felt that the three men will be good enough for david cameron to convince the public. >> i think people saw in david cameron someone had to be prime minister. i think there is a clear difference between clegg and cameron. with clegg there is a lot of-- and we haven't seen much of him speaking lately and will be kind of like what we see but it doesn't mean we see him as prime minister.

we saw with cameron particularly on issues like immigration and europe and afghanistan someone who you could see in the job, who could do the job and have reinsurance. [inaudible] >> i think from nick clegg's point of view he has been absolutely desperate not to get into a discussion about who he would support or he would attempt what he calls a balanced parliament. i think it is absolutely right not to be drawn into that question. ps told the whole campaign debate--. >> gordon brown has been talking this week about cooperation.

>> the fact is that everybody is leaving their options open and being as cautious as they feel they have to be because they have no idea-- and i think he is absolutely right, not just gordon brown to behave in that way because we have no idea. >> is there anyone that cameron could cooperate with? >> at this stage, there is one clear message they are trying to convey and that is that cameron, other than brown is most likely to be prime minister and then he made a plea tonight area directly for a majority conservative government. i think nick clegg last week talked about a new style of politics about eating honest and upfront with people. there is nothing more honest and upfront in saying who would you support in the event of a hung parliament and he has not been prepared to do that. he seems to think he can do a deal afterward but certainly he should say who he would rip--

support now. [inaudible] david cameron has made it clear future for a majority government. everyone knows, everyone knows the one outcome that might happen on may the sixth is that a majority democratic government. >> you keep saying that but it is not for you to decide. it is for the people to decide. >> we are just getting a new poll in. this is the times popular poll and david cameron is first and nick clegg 36 and gordon brown 26. that is another one putting gordon brown back at the top. let's have a look now at the reaction. >> thank you very much. clegg survived and appears to

have scored a second success in the latest debate, that on the front of the guardian. cameron fights back. the conservatives need to fight back strongly during tonight's performance. the times claims david cameron and nick clegg have emerged as joint winners of the debate. the independent reports on personal attacks made by each of the three party leaders. the daily express claims david cameron fought back for britain on the key issues. some insiders are hailing him as the comeback kid. the paper covers the debate, saying that gordon brown admits to having weaknesses but insists i am your man. >> this is the bolton factor here in the spin room after the bristol debate here on sky news and coming up the veteran american on tonight's debate. plus in the thick of it we will get a satirical look.

>> dan rather in new york. dan rather thank you for being with us and indeed subjecting yourself to 90 minutes of british politics. what did you make of that debate? >> first of all it is always a pleasure to be with you. i thought there were no major gaffes and no fireworks but i thought it was interesting and substantive, and to those who feared an hour and a half and particularly a second debate might be narcolepsy inducing, it wasn't bad at all. who won and who lost is pretty much in the eye and ear of that the holder. i wouldn't make too much of the instant polls right afterward. it does set up for the third and final debate the equivalent of a shootout. it will be interesting to see whether any of the three or how

many of the three if any throw caution to the wind and try for some punch. this is strictly from an american perspective, but in this debate today it was a case in the previous one, prime minister brown's opponents missed opportunity after opportunity to in effect say to him, listen, you talk about these problems but you have been in office and your party has been in office and what did you do about them when you have the power? i think maybe one exception, maybe two they did not strike where it struck me they could have indeed struck, that each of the candidates compared to the first debate in my humble opinion probably improve their performance some. mr. clegg perhaps so much was expected of him after what was generally considered to be a clear win in the first debate that he may have suffered somewhat because so much was expected of him. he didn't have the surprise

factor working for him this time as he had in the first debate. i do want to make this point. i'm not sure that this is conclusive but prime minister brown has the best voice timbre of any of the three candidates and if the one only listen to this debate on the radio, or if one breeds only a transcript of the debate one might have a completely different view of prime minister brown. television, which we note gives added points for style or substance, use over age, that he may suffer because he is the oldest of the three candidates on television. this happened with the kennedy nixon debates in our own country in 1960 in which many people heard the debates on radio and thought candidate nixon was clearly the winner and those who read the transcript thought he was the winner but by television just overwhelmed that. i think this next-- go ahead.

>> can i talk to you a little bit about nick clegg because obviously he has emerged very rapidly as a serious politician if you like on the british scene across the atlantic. does he look like he would like to you like a real contender? >> definitely and his first debate i was surprised how much he looks that way. like a contender. as i say you thought his hopes on television and also being articulate and sometimes as forceful as he is. i would not underestimate him but i'm not suggesting he is going to be the new prime minister. he is now a big factor unless he stumbles badly in the third debate. >> thank you very much. joining us now from bangor is how williams. thank you for being with us.

tonight the three leaders, labor conservatives and liberal democrats on the stage. what did you make of their confrontation? >> i felt cameron edged over clegg and i'm afraid brown is having a-- and he has the trappings of union office but on the whole i thought he feared well most of the time. >> do you think they answer the question that the people of wales wanted to hear answered? >> obviously not in one sense because people in england now realize it is a three horse race but in wales it is a four horse race and if i may so-- say-so i would much rather have been in bristol. >> where do you think this election is having both in wales and across the u.k.? what is your feeling?

>> the feeling that i get from both the constituency and looking at wales, obviously we are going for a hung parliament, and that gives the s&p a great opportunity to do a bit of shouting for her own countries but also perhaps bring common sense into some of the debates that we saw tonight. >> is there any chance in those circumstances that you and the s&p could somehow help david cameron conservatives to power? >> we are not going in to go into the formal coalition with the london parties, but we are quite prepared to look at whatever is an offer and to come to agreement to specific points. if this works to some extent, we have a coalition government but i think there are things to be

fighting about in a hung parliament so i thought they-- from bristol were working out to be some dreadful fact that democracy. i think you would put power in the hands of the people. >> it has been a pleasure talking to you. let's look now at the latest picture of david cameron in the pub with his voters after the debate. and some rather raucous scenes. bristol well-known for its lively nightlife i think. >> thank you very much indeed. there were some good questions asked.

>> what was the wild card of the night? [inaudible] >> it was interesting-- [inaudible] >> as these polls come in and reaction to the debate, martin sanford has been going through them and up dating our own poll analysis. >> adam analogies around

tonight, if this were a match i think we are heading for a draw. let me show you why. here is the information they got from the populace times poll. this is the position they find themselves in. they scored as a cameron win but again by a small margin. that is the story of the night. 37% for mr. cameron is the winner, 36% for mr. clegg and mr. brown doesn't do well in this particular poll. he is down at 26. let's compare two-- this is the angus reid poll. they have given nick clegg the wind but again look at the margins here. 33 and 32, so david cameron is in second place in the hole and mr. brown once again in third on 23%. another poll which came out this evening, let's move onto that one which is the third of the bunch. this is a telephone poll. once again marking mr. clegg as the winner, 33%, a 3.gap in

mr. cameron and mr. brown so a score coming second in that instance and then they were first out with this internet-based course of research. 36% and cameron was the clear winner. nick clegg comes in second place some four points adrift and a further three points down we have mr. brown. ..

lastly because that was thursday think everyone was nervous. >> i think clegg, although he clearly wanted everyone from that aspect was nervous and he put in a more assured on this time around. cameron was the best, cord was a bit better and they were a little bit close. i do think that because brown is going to be always on the right of the screen throughout this debate, and all the way through to rethinking who does he remind me of is this grumpy guy in the corner. as father jack. by the end of the series is the most popular character, so who knows what might happen. what i thought was interesting is that a level of expectation from chairman this week had to be absolutely, truly amazing to

clawback. i thought he was, but i fuddy-duddy little bit there. i think where he had hoped was he said before he was going to be insulting. he decided to be more like nick clegg this week. i noticed one point where he tried to use not just to nick clegg down to the camera, but also to catch himself from the others and make the other two look like a korean, squabbling capital. the use line while these two bicker. >> but you picked out a bit actually of clegg giving brown a hard time. >> i'm not really interested here in the point screen. adventures in doing the right thing. if we send a message to other people in parts of the world you can amnestied you come to this

country then you got a real problem. net migration is coming down as a result of the points system that we introduced its come down three years ago, two years ago and is coming down this year. we are taking the action that is necessary. and from the inability of people will be counted and counted out and it would be more helpful if you would support identity cards before nationals set of opposing. >> so he's certainly coming back much stronger there than he did last week here at >> yeah, i think so. i think getting through and finding out what the debate is going to be -- i think also the reassurance that he had nothing to lose actually made him feel a little bit later really your >> but nick clegg is still sort of out there. >> i think so. i'm also people were saying that the problem for him is going to be stuck in the middle and in fact as the debate went on, she

actually quite privily used that mental as not to take anything away from you, but be a monitoring game for the other two. turning to the other one commencing what are you going to do? i think that was what mark because he knew that there was a danger that what might happen to him might happen -- what happened to cameron last week, schlitz like he was slightly dashed >> it will be interesting to see who gets elected next week or as i understand what is going to be a negotiation between cameron -- which you fight over it? >> the question i wonder is i still don't know how much impact this is happening on the decision people are going to make. >> it will certainly make a big difference in opinion. >> difference to clegg as a liberal democrat. cameron has been sitting around for the last two years. >> i just do, what do you think about the pope questions?

>> well, i love the pope. i thought it was great because -- and we did need it in the selection in the debate. it gave them a chance to show whether it was none of them were expecting. he did get a minute of each of them. the look in their eyes when you're thinking what on earth should i say. it's interesting that clegg said i'm not a man of faith, which is i think a first for a politician. >> his wife is. >> we were pleased with it because when it came than we thought they're going to have trouble with that one. he wasn't expecting it. here is cordoned brown also celebrating with some supporters tonight.

[applause] it is very bright in the middle of the night air. everyone got the impression that the labor were much more pleased and they felt that they had managed to get their message across. and it was perhaps a bit or natural than it was before. [applause] >> it's great to be here this evening to be about to relax. [laughter] anti-thank you for all you're doing. i do say that as these debates go on, people are starting to realize what the real arguments are. and people are now saying that the competitors have a lot to compact ways. >> so relax cordoned brown after the debate. as a matter of fact, very much indeed. coming up, we'll examine what they say, but how did the leaders behave? and what the pages are saying about tonight.

>> gordon brown delivered his opening statement stressing what mattered tonight was certainly not style and presentation. joining me now is someone who might dispute that. it just taken a seat there, behavioral expert dr. peter coley. dr. coley, what did you think? >> well, i thought he did pretty well actually. but remember the case of the other two it was no match. and interestingly what happened, one of your rather prominent presenters came through, touched on the shoulder and said had he read it. i said i'm afraid to david cameron. he's given it to brown and i said the body language doesn't tell that story. >> just that body language, david cameron, why did he think he was -- [inaudible] >> he was in a way. the fact that he was so dismal a large time around. he didn't need to do very much in order to come across.

he was extremely confident. now, on the first question, what happened was the look the question in the eye, started to address it and then he just shifted it ties into the camera and he remained and used the same procedure time and time again. and that's what was particularly would do. >> in on the other hand, nick clegg seemed to be the model. after last week -- [inaudible] >> he might've been a model to the others, but he was able to model himself because in fact he was better last time round. so when it comes to the thing about what you attempt, previously he religiously used to luck out. he was straight and, feeling may be the variety in this performance. i didn't think it was successful . >> that's right. maybe that's what happens when you're in this position.

when you're trying to please everybody. >> the camera as opposed to the audience. remember what he was doing the live audience, he was speaking out in this fashion. and that way, reinforcing what was a rather super city is individual, a little bit snooty. this time had down in a changing angle of about 10 degrees, completely alters people perception of them. >> talking about body language of gordon brown. as you say, somebody said he didn't move out. >> they didn't like like a winner, but he was pretty good. dessert material to work on and he has been very well trained. i think he should be quite feasible in the performance. but particularly this evening. >> what about the squabbling?

there was more of an edge tonight. >> in fact, [inaudible] >> how on earth does it help anyone in bristol or anyone else in the country for that matter, david cameron, to gather in the european union with a bunch of anti-semites, people jeni, change exists, homophobes. of course we need to change the european union, but you change clubs of which are remembered by getting stuck and i'm not standing on the sideline and complaining about things. >> what have the democrats actually done -- >> these two guys remind me of two young boys squabbling that bathtime. [laughter] and their squabbling about whether they have referendums of the european union. >> that must've sounded good in reversal, but actually that

remark about founder mike bathtime, it worked as well. [inaudible] >> it was clegg who is making those points. he was traded to establish himself from the other two. and what happened tonight is brown brought exactly that particular point. all right then, you've been with us the first two legs. i've got one like to go and at this stage, how would you rate the three of them? >> well, i'll just give it to cameron. to my mind, either the polls do not -- >> and then after that cameron? [inaudible] >> second place, clegg. >> are placed? >> brown. exactly. >> we're going to get another example of the debate tonight. what does that show? >> yeah, we've got one from icm.

bush is give you the scores they've got and this is another one for nick clegg tonight. this is the fifth poll that has been taken to a debate finish. here are the numbers. 33% for nick clegg, or head of the number two and for second place, 29 and 29. we put them into our computer for the poll of polls in a couple of hours after this particular debate and this is the sort of headline that it is a score draw for clegg and cameron. perhaps a probability takes a bit of it because mr. brown has come up in the polls from his poor showing last week. he got a 29%. the other two men in our instant polls scored 33% apiece. >> thank you, martin. well, on her website, you can

follow team as they bring you the latest reaction and analysis in this debate. incoming appear, how tomorrow's papers are already reporting tonight's debate. stay with us. >> well, let's have a look at how tomorrow's papers are reacting to tonight's sky leaders debate. clegg survives the storm and scored a second success in the leaders tv debate. that is on the front of the guardian we just heard their poll. the daily mirrored says he trails and debate. cameron fights back. they came back stronger during tonight's performance. the daily express claims that david cameron clawback for britain on the key issues in this as someone stir for hailing him as the comeback kid. the times report said david cameron and nick clegg or joint winners of the debate.

and it reports on personal attacks made by each of the three party leaders. and it i'm not the front of the financial times but does cover the debates and the court in brown at the two having weaknesses, but insists on your man. while joining me now to discuss that our sam coates of the times, steve richard the independent and teen who was once -- [inaudible] welcome to you all. the newspapers, one fit in the day. >> i'm actually -- they say david cameron came out third. we can't say which hold that was then. [inaudible] i thought that david cameron and nick clegg were mac and mac and gordon was significantly further than the other two.

[inaudible] >> i think that's the key to actually tonight. in a way, cameron and brown both needed to get -- [inaudible] all the polls are granted he still much higher up than he was coming in though, a week ago. i think that's the most significant thing that has come out of it. when we were watching the view of those incidental -- i was joking. there was not a moment i think we both thought we been living for a slightly mad fantasy for the last week good we're back to the more familiar politics. [inaudible] and so the fact that he has a faith that survived the story

means that we're in for another extraordinary week. and i mean that frontpage is the times mackinac cameron and clegg, which does seem to be -- [inaudible] >> well, yeah, the polls have votes than on 33 and gordon brown on 30 and i think frankly, you know, gordon brown is very pleased about it. he said in his opening statement, which by common consent is to sit a lot better, quite a lot better than last week. he was saying to tv personals, not your man. if you want someone with experience judgment, that was his pitch and i think it was a bit fascist. [inaudible] >> he absolutely didn't mess it up. we were asking people what they needed to see from clegg to give them their vote. and they said we want to see how

nick clegg deals with the pressure. it's whether or not under the huge spotlight that he is now went, she would deal with it fairly calmly and kind of an even temper to you. >> i think it's fair to say that very few people, you know, call what happened to this election campaign so far strictly accurately. where do you think it's heading now? >> well, one of the glories of this campaign as it is really impossible to predict what's going to happen next. what seems to have sort of happened over the last 48 hours is that the conservative vote has settled down a bit after falling fairly dramatically in the aftermath. it's much lower than they would've to to incentivize debates. but it seems to have settled down, where the labor vote is sort of vomiting. i mean, most are in third place.

now let's see what happens over the next few days. i think the final date -- [inaudible] and perhaps brown will be a different task and non-popular wars and the economy is what he feels most comfortable. so maybe he will perform better. >> i know you are to have some reservations in exchange about the debate. i mean come and you still think -- [inaudible] >> no, i think i was wrong on the hole and you were right. you really want from me over there and i think you're right. with one proviso, the one thing that worries me after last week's debate was that what actually happened and what was after slightly different and it's taken over everything ever

since. you know, we've all just been with the debate somehow looked at policy very much at all. i think we should worry about that. apart from that you're here to stay. they've appeared natural and have engaged people and i thought they would be dull, boring and i was wrong. >> in the first week of the campaign before we have any debates, nobody in the public was listening. so you talk about need for debate on policy, but when you have the docile that she got -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> it is worrying that really you are never going to have a mainstream physical party or perhaps any party choosing a politician that can't get a polish tv performance and that begs the question.

[inaudible] there is a more serious side to that which is not all politics necessary. >> the independent -- [inaudible] we began to see some trading tonight, nick clegg, it takes cameron, said that homophobes in these two guys remind me of my boys at that time. what you're hearing from the other two is do not trust the people. >> i think it was very interesting and what this frontpage conveys is the event of times to start here. they have to sort of days the other two had to raise their game. and as a result starcher became more personal. i actually thought the amount of time they reacted to each other was longer. but it fell that it was sort of

engaging, especially more cameron and brown. [inaudible] >> i think nick clegg was on his game. he basically couldn't follow his own ensemble. >> i think he did slightly worse. in the daily telegraph it says that the substance was unimpressive. everyone's got an agenda, but i really like to see is a streak of an ordinary guy and i saw the most telling criticism really a fight against the clegg in the paper says he could be the new british tim hanlon, you know, he could just have a slow function here. [inaudible] >> okay, he thinks -- >> he can't win.

there is one certainty for all the excitement of this election he's not going to win. [inaudible conversations] >> there is a coalition out there. >> there's clearly something fascinating going on. if you had told us two weeks ago that they would've marched into the debate, sharing at the fact that they drawn levels with nick clegg he would've said get out of here. the debates have been fantastic to and they were kind of really bring it home. >> let's talk about gordon brown a bit weird national times got this on the front. [inaudible] i'm your man. gordon brown was much more comfortable with themselves.

>> yeah, absolutely. yet some good lines today he had get real, cameron mimicking his lines a few minute later. he was very assured himself. >> you know what, you never see the gordon brown i know on tv. he can't do it. he's not a tv personality. he's really not. he's not comfortable. he's a really funny, relaxed human guy in private and not just is never come across the tv. >> they did have a disastrous moment. gordon brown asked him about labeling the claim. and he abrogated responsibility over it. and that was just what i don't think the public. >> i do want to show you this. with gordon brown as sticky

hollered. did i lie about the dodgy leaflets? gap that no but yeah -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> is quite clear what they're saying. in the debate cameron said it was a lie in the link and now they're trying to say perhaps he was lying about it. it seems mse, messy -- [inaudible] [inaudible] i think that the fte thing about brian you might not like me, but i'm your man. he showed them away expand on that. he's got to address the fact

that there are still reasons why people should back him. the couple sentences weren't enough. >> welcome is the economy. this is no way the territory if you'd like. i imagine it would be him. >> i think that dynamic is set now. i think it would be clegg and cameron. i have no idea. >> adherents of face transplant transplant -- [inaudible] >> thank you area much indeed. from bristol, please join us at the same time a sunday. before that though on sunday morning, i'll be in edinburgh at 10:30, hosting the scotland debate with representatives of the four main parties in scotland, including scotland's first minister, alexander of the snp. please join me for that.

>> next on c-span to a senate hearing on nasa's annual budget.

>> now today's senate hearing on nasa's annual budget. the president has asked for $19 billion for fiscal 2011. his plan eliminates the ares rocket program and instead relies on private contract or to take astronauts to the international space station. carolyn senator, barbara mikulski chairs the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing. it's just under two hours. >> they are interested including our good senator hatch, born in damascus -- the national space agency fiscal year 2011 budget.

i would like to make my opening remarks, turned to my colleague and then senator hatch to you. is that agreeable, sander? >> of course it is. >> i know judiciary hearing meeting. well, we're going to be welcoming administrator boulton. of course our colleague senator hatch and mr. john frost, a member of the nasa aerospace advisory panel who will be speaking to the committee to ensure that the matter what we decide, we assure the safety of the astronauts. the 2011 nasa budget is $19 billion, $276 million more than 20 times. the top highlighted new budget includes major investments in science. $5 billion in 2011. this is a special of the heart

and plus up in earth science. will be talking about that in a minute. the other that we think is quite heartening is extending the life of the international space station to continue its operation through 2020 and possibly beyond, getting better value for dollar and better value for astronauts efforts. we spent a lot of time building the space station. now we have do spend the time using the space station. it's time to retire the space shuttle and the president provides for that at the end of allender 2010 in which three more fights to go with 30 years of exceptional and honorable service. the presidents budget also increases funding for aeronautics research. $72 million about 2010, and must do to keep america competitive. there are extremely dramatic changes to the constellation

program. that will be a subject i know will be a great deal of focus. and in the area of the constellation program, we want to be sure and codify, if the president talking about canceling the constellation program or restructuring the constellation program? it will be a major source of aid deep earth probe from this committee. i just want to come back to the science budget, which i think what we're going to focus a lot on constellation, we must focus on the other aspects of nasa. there is a strong emphasis on earth science and the budget includes 1.5 billion for planetary science, research and asteroids, mars, saturn, beyond. all we would need to do in order to get ready to go there.

there's also within the astrophysics budget request $688 million for cosmic origins. we would know for a committee to remember the astrophysics appropriation also support the hubble space telescope celebrating its 20th anniversary in space and also the building of the james webb telescope. we look at the field of physics and how the sun solar flares affect our lives, including the solar probe for a lunch. we know how important that is because solar flares could take down our power grid and all that we need to know about early warnings and information is there. as i said, the president retires the shuttle and we want to work with a committee and with all in florida be connected to the shuttle for honorable retirement.

let's go directly to the area of human spaceflight, the area of the controversy is huge. massive requests 2.4 billion for exploration. it is below the 2010 level by $1.4 billion. that's big. the budget canceled the constellation program. the president in going to florida collaborated in some sake fire fight. we were not canceling -- he's not recommending the cancellation of constellation but restructuring. this is very, very, very keen interest to this committee. constellation was to be our way to the move and to mars. it will be made of ares, the rocket, orion the crew test capsule, the cargo vehicle made up of ares number five and also the crewmen land her. now let me just say what my position is.

i need to know more and that's the purpose of this hearing. and if we need to have more, we're going to do it. congress needs to know more. we allude to the american people. we elected the taxpayers and we go to the astronauts to be very clear about what we're going to do and how are we going to do it. i need to know more details. i want to know that this is the program at the congress and the american people are going to support from one administration to the next. we cannot reinvent nasa every four years. every new president can have a new nasa's agenda. that's the purpose of today's hearing. we're here to get the facts. it's not about finger-pointing. i have been in contact from the space field including the colleague, senator shelby as well as bill nelson, our commerce committee authorizer's.

i outlined a basic set of principles that will guide me in this hearing and they will guide me as i do the appropriation eared first of all, no matter what we do my number one priority is astronaut safety. we must have a reliable transportation system to protect our astronaut to relaunch mission execution and reentry. and i want to be sure that we are applying the same safety standards for deep space exploration as we will for low orbit work. we want to be sure the astronauts, when they suit up, know that we've cared for them and want to protect them. second, we need a destination. nasa has been a mission driven agency since its creation. having a clear direction and a clear destination tends to keep us focused on what we need to do in the budget in which we need to adhere to and the involvement of our international partners. i would hope that whatever we

do, the focus on the fact that we do need a balanced space program that includes human exploration, a reliable and safe transportation system for both low orbit and deep space, robust science to save our science and explore our universe and aeronautics research to keep our country competitive. the key purpose of the space exploration must always include science and not only be dairy do missions. we also need a plan for whatever we decide for workforce transition. the retirement of the space shuttle should -- is anticipated to proceed as planned. this causes job dislocation anyway. we would want to be dismissive of that. we've got the mind for that. this is really a big transition. then, if we're going to cancel

or restructure constellation, it causes major dislocation in a variety of state, all of whom i know will articulate their concerns. in protecting the astronauts, we also need to protect the taxpayer. this new plan has significant issues with contract termination so that we need to be sure we're not paying for closing down one or paying down one set of contracts to close the amount and then paying to start start new contracts. it is very complex and i'm puzzled, quite frankly, about how record to do it. we also need to be sure that no matter what the cancellation or transition as, though we do not -- we do not lose our technology and we did not lose our investigative space. we look forward to hearing where we're going to go, how were going to get there, how were going to protect the astronauts,

how we're going to protect the taxpayer. we have a lot of questions as we launch this hearing. i'd like to now turn to my colleague, senator shelby. >> thank you, not an chairman for having this critical hearing to examine the administration's continually changing plans for the future of human spaceflight. the president's new plan like his old one shows that nasa's leadership team still does not understand the issues at stake him out while the administration may have realized its initial budget request was a failure, it still ends this country's human spaceflight program. mr. administrator, your plan does nothing more than continue the abdication of the chairman's leadership in space. it highlighted what we all believe that our human spaceflight program must be worthy of the great nation. i've read nasa's budget and i find it to be anything but

great. the president's plan only answer is that for decorate to come the united states will be both subservient to and reliant on other countries for access to space. for two generations will learn how the chinese, the russians and even the indians took the reins of human space exploration away from the united states. this request i believe abandoned carnations only chance to remain the leader in space and instead chooses to set up a welfare program for the commercial space industry. it's a plan i believe for taxpayer subsidies subsidizes billionaires to build rockets that nasa hopes one day will allow billionaires and their own astronauts to travel to space. the administration's claim -- claims that if we build up the so-called commercial rocket industry, the private sector market will magically materialize to produce more expendable launchers at a lower cost, earlier than the schedule

of constellation. what nasa and this administration has failed to disclose to the u.s. taxpayer is that nasa has no verifiable data to support their claim. the head of the office of science and technology policy, dr. bolden, as well as you mr. administrator that nasa didn't conduct market research to show that this private launch market even exist. let me repeat that. the white house advisor on scientific knowledge of policy testified that there was no real research or verification done on the viability of the administration's approach for the commercial market to sustain the future. instead, this administration is relying on information provided by the very people who stand to receive billions in tax or subsidies to promote their unproven products. the primary source the administration can cite is the 2002 future on study that is

overly optimistic. the study was based on a survey of affluent individuals that predicted 33 commercial passengers would've flown between 2002 in 2010. to date, eight space tourists have gone beyond suborbital space. former editor chief executive thomas has testified before congress that the air force in the 90's tried to commercialize their space program and beer for sinus nasa is proposing now seated top-level management of the national security space program to industry under a contracting approach called total system performance responsibility. tsp are required air force project managers to stand back and let industry have total responsibility of the space system they created for the u.s. government. mr. young stated and i quote that the results were devastating and the adverse impact is still with us today. those are his words.

this misguided program ended up costing the taxpayers billions to correct. also in the 90's commercial companies made significant investments in an expenditure launch vehicles based on a commercial market that never materialized to support their vehicles. in the end, the government had to keep its domestic commercial launch provider allies with william the taxpayer's dollars. we made these mistakes before, mr. administrator. albert einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i believe that's the case here. with this past experience in mind, where the recent, truly independent market analysis of the looming commercial sector for delivering people to lower earth orbit and back. we should make those public and let there be a real debate about whether taxpayer should shoulder the cost of building space rights for millionaires.

the truth has been tumbles mount and a commercial rocket market again fails to materialize, the taxpayers i believe will he called upon to build these companies and their investors a recurring theme with this administration. other than the augustine's confessions cursory examination safety, there's no evidence the nasa has been an in-depth analysis related to the safety concerns of putting humans on a commercial rocket. i remain steadfast in insisting on safety as a first priority for the space program, nothing less is acceptable. and contrary to gnashes safety, aerospace safety advisory panel, whose sole focus is to ensure lives -- ensure that let's are not needlessly lost in our space program stated in 2009 report that no commercial manufacturer is currently human reading requirements qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the

country. this is after the 2008 report, written in part by you, mr. administrator, declaring commercial vehicles that i coach you are not proven to be appropriate to transport nasa personnel. i will ask some questions about how you could in 2008 states this industry was incapable of safely transporting astronauts and yet today say just the opposite. madam chairwoman, i say this about changes in opinion to be highly suspect. nasa safety experts agree that current commercial vehicles are untested and unworthy of carrying our most valuable assets, our nation's astronauts. as a resounding rebuke of august and options and their overly optimistic view that newcomers to commercial space, and the aerospace safety advisory panel reaffirmed what has been known for some time and i quote to abandon aries woman as a baseline vehicle for an

alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority or even equivalent is unwise and probably not cost effective. the ability of any current design to close the gap are even provided an equivalent degree of safety is speculative. switching from a demonstrated well-designed safety optimize system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice. before any changes made to another architecture, the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record. a year ago i had some very strong criticism the program are just as valid today as they were in the end. this request is nothing more than a commercially led faith-based state program preached to the commercial providers that nasa has contract did with cannot even carry the trash back in the space station, much less carry humans to the

space safely. these providers have yet to live up to the promises that the authority made in taxpayer. not a single rocket rounds of cargo has been lost since we met last year. instead of requiring accountability from these companies, the presidents budget supposes those commercial providers with an additional bailout. the presidents retreat from his initial proposal last week was rolled out in the shadows of the rocket that is the basis of a new commercial vision of the future of human spaceflight. get this visionary company first rocketry, the falcon one was four years to late in launching a successful rocket. after three failures and a cost exploration of 50%, it finally got his rocket off the ground. but fell to nine, very vehicle to present touted a week ago is two years behind schedule and counting. yet the presidents budget

reports the commercial space industry with an additional 312 million bailout dollars to deliver on already signed contracts in the hope that they will actually be able to deliver something someday. this equals a 60% cost overrun for an unproven commodity. given the current record of repeated so to deliver on their agreements, the continued schedule delays another cost overruns i believe that they canceled the rocket program. mr. administrator, this plan? vision, is unrealistic in its human space exploration program. i missed him by the enthusiasm which nasa leadership has aligned a year of hard work i your own engineers. congress has a responsibility, i believe, to those whom your plan will put it something your leadership team dismisses as mere collateral damage. however, we do not see that that way. two west there are people who already have been devoting and

maintaining the leadership with 50 years of spaceflight. the jobs that are promised to be created will hardly materialize before the pink slips begin to revise. once those highly skilled workers leave, they will never -- likely never come back. given the way they've been treated so far your country and is here, you can hardly blame them. i have to the current laws it relates to -- will only ensure that members cannot trust you. mr. administrator, you are creating an atmosphere where you and your leadership team have become a major impediment, i believe, to moving forward. under the administration's plan for nasa as we know it will never be the same. today nasa is immediately associated with success in spite of the instrument while odds. there's a deeply ingrained respect for what nasa can do because of what nasa has said and is doing today. if this proposal is the best we

can do as a nation, then we do not deserve i believe the rich heritage of human spaceflight, which previous generations sacrifice to make the country's space program what it is. the proposed nasa budget votes of constellation and unproven commercial option that will devastate any gold the united states has been exploring beyond lower orbit. the president's announcement of his new plans last week merely replaced one visionless plan with another. it's clear that the administration and more specifically you, mr. administrator, do not believe that american leadership in human spaceflight is a priority with fighting for. no matter how minisummit, press releases or parades you conduct, hope is not a strategy. this plan would destroy decades of us-based supremacy by pinning our hopes for success on unproven commercial company. this budget is not a proposal force is exploration worthy of

this great nation. thank you. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, madam chairman. senator shelby and senator cochran, then it, i want to mention hutchison. it's a pleasure for me to be with you. i would ask madam chairman that my full statement be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i'm puzzled by the administration's request. the proposal calls for the determination of project cost association rocket system. >> senator hatch, we really want to hear every word. is the microphone on, sarah? >> yeah, it's fun. senator feinstein always has quit mumbling. i've got to speak aloud a letter i'm afraid. well, this calls for the associated rocket systems. as a result is ratified by

congress, our nation could capitulate our position is to world leaders based exploration as well as forgo the technological harvest which is historically accompanied such endeavors. let me be clear. project constellation is clear. our nation will not in the future be up to travel beyond low earth orbit. this is ironic to bring the presence and mass administration in boulder's recent statement that the ottoman objective of our space program is mars. to be fair, the president has spoken at choosing a heavy lift systems by 2015. get in a time is greatly diminished financial resources, we cannot afford to throw with a $10 billion our nation has invested in project constellation in the area system and then spend billions more to research and develop new heavy lift technologies. this point is especially germane since the other half he lift technologies contemplated may or may not match the capabilities of solid rocket motors.

i believe neil armstrong, the first, the first amendment, james lovell, the commander of apollo 13 and eugene chernin, the commander of apollo 13 said it best. if we followed the administration's plan, we will have lost the many years required to re-create the equivalent of what will be discarded. this conclusion was echoed by the independent aerospace safety advisory panel which in 2009 stated to abandon areas one of the baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated his ability or proven superiority or even equivalence is unwise and probably not yet, unquote. in other words, an alternative to project constellation will take years of additional time and cost billions of dollars more. some opponents argue project constellation is a troubled endeavor. the truth is quite to the contrary. just saw the world witnessed the want of one ex-rocket from kennedy space center in a stunning and successful test.

in addition the heavy lifters five is designed to leverage the engineering and technologies used in areas one. therefore, one can surmise in the end there'll be overall savings using this comprehensive approach versus the piecemeal approach proposed by the administration. together the area system of rockets provides a nation and our astronauts with the most reliable, most affordable and safest means of reaching low earth orbit and beyond. let me emphasize that point. aries is a safer system. nothing else comes close. the 2005 nasa exploration systems architecture study of which administrator goldin was a member of the studies independent he obtained included the area system is 10 times safer than the current space shuttle. now this was reaffirmed by aerospace safety advisory panel which stated the ability of any current constantine to close the gap would provide an equivalent degree of safety is speculative.

the panel also concluded, switching from a demonstrated well-designed safety system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice unquote. this only underscores the administration's proposal, relies on utilizing unproven business -- private businesses is the means to transport our astronauts to the international space station. it also should be noted many of the companies which were expected to bid for these contracts are startups. these new startups do not have any experience in carrying humans or human cargo into space. in addition, even under these corporations most optimistic near term proposals, their systems will not feel to travel beyond low earth orbit. some of argued in this difficult fiscal environment, project constellation is simply too expensive and should fall victim to the budget ax. again this is not the case. the administration's proposed plan actually increases nasa's budget by more than $6 billion

over the next five fiscal years. in addition, camping area system and the plans associated with it will cost the taxpayer an additional 2.5 billion because of contractual obligations aired on top of these costs, since private businesses have never previously developed a low earth orbit system to transport to the international space station, where heavy system to explore deeper into the cosmos, one can naturally hypothesize lengthy delays in expensive cost overruns for this noble venture. it is also not hard to imagine with the inevitable delays and cost overruns occur, these private enterprises will turn to the government with request for additional funds. project constellation should also be seen as an investment in our nation competitiveness. in fact studies have shown for every dollar invested in space exploration, $7 has been returned to our economy through the development of new tech homologies and industries. congress should also consider

the nexus between the area system and the ability for a nation to maintain future strategic deterrent programs. but the areas and are intercontinental ballistic missile force used solid rocket motors, our nation will surely complete the modernization of our icbm fleet. now since the early 1990's, nasa has served as the back of the solid rocket motor industry providing stability to offset the often inconsistent by the military and commercial are. therefore the termination of various with triple solid rocket motor industrial base and could push it in future generations. to me just say again, madam chair and all the other administers the most illustrious committee. thank you for affording me the privilege. as much by my original statement, but i just want to get some of these ideas across my what to thank you or image

for affording me the privilege to appear before your very important committee. >> thank you very much, senator hatch. your support of science is well-known within the institution. we've worked well together on it today. we were happy to have you. i know also i'm devoted to the fact that senator jake aren't, and other man at utah, once chaired the subcommittee. he was a good friend and a mentor to me when i got started. i've conveyed to senator garn and i'm going to say to the two senators from utah, senator garn would also like to submit a testimony or someone i would be enthusiastic about welcoming and look forward to welcome. yes, and i would welcome mat and i would welcome any conversation as well. >> well, you've been great. i appreciate everyone of you on this panel. thank you so much.

>> now, i'm going to call up administrator bolden to present the administration's testimony. administrator bolden, it's really also general bolden who served in the marine corps with a great deal of distinction, graduate of the naval academy by john mccain, a marine helicopter pilot who went on to be an astronaut in the astronaut hall of fame. so we look forward to his testimony. i remind members that we've a two-tier hearing, after administrator goldin and questions from our colleague, we'll also then hear from john frost at the aerospace advisory committee and i know that this committee's deep commitment to senator bennett you have a time challenge. i'd like for administrator bolden to cement his testimony and then words work out how we can accommodate everyone's with the greatest courtesy and robust

questioning. >> administrator bolden. >> chair, and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the president's 2010 budget for nasa. i'm incredibly grateful for the support and guidance of the subcommittee and i look forward to working with you on consideration of the presidents bolder direction for the agency. all of a sudden now so were honored to host the president one week ago at the kennedy space center where he said and i quote, and 1% committed to the mission of nasa and its future because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways we can scarcely imagine. because exploration will once more inspire wonder and a new generation, sparking passions, launching careers. and because ultimately if we fail to press forward in the dispute discovery. since the inch reduction of the budget, many have asked, what is the destination for human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit under the presidents plan?

as the president made very clear last thursday, nasa's deep space exploration efforts will include crude test flight early next escape for human exploration beyond low earth orbit, a human mission to an asteroid by 2025 and a human mission to the orbit of mars and returned safely to earth. we must identify the missing capabilities needed for such a mission for such a suite of missions and use them to help define many of the goals of our emerging technology development. the right investments in technology will allow us to map out a realistic path to this destination that will continue to have generations of schoolchildren just as an inspired me many years ago, growing up in columbia, south carolina and walking a or scope to mars with ease from my seat and the carolina theatre. the president's fiscal year 2011 budgeq