there are two programs out there that help the states in their roles so when voters go in the ballot box and cast their vote there is not confusion over whether they should be there or not. those are important bipartisan improvements that can be made. >> working a shift to a second part, were not going to have a break but were in a shift to a second part of this session. we have neil eggleston who will be with us.

were not going to break but will have a quick shift of seats where he will talk to us for a few minutes and have a few questions. he is a white house counsel he was assistant councilman to the clinton administration formally a partner at kirkland and ellis. we are very pleased to have him with us. the president appointed this commission and we are happy to have you here. >> thank you very much bob and ben into the policy center for this. i always say whenever i see bob it's clear that i wouldn't be white house counsel without bob's support and there are many

days i thank him for that and some days i curse him for that. it's great to be here next to bob. thank you very much for that kind introduction. it's great to be here today. this is a matter an issue of importance to me and it is a matter of significant importance to the president and everyone in this room. first i want to take this moment to thank the partisan committee for taking the initiative to support the presidents initiative to advance the commissions and recommendations. i read this report when it first came out and i read it again in connection with today's discussion. i was asking people to serve and

said we want this done quickly it is of enormous importance and we wanted to be practical recommendations that can be implement it. as i was reading your report in preparation for today i was struck by how much this committee actually accomplished. it was done quickly with a lot of input and the kinds of recommendations that can be implemented to make improvements that are storm porton and i am very thankful for your work on that. in america there are more opportunities to devote that in any other country in the world. more and more americans are making decisions not to show up to the pole in presidential and non- presidential election years.

it had reached its lowest point since world war ii. i find that astonishing and we should simply not tolerate it. in the 2012 presidential election 5 million voters waited in line for more than an hour and many waited in line for more than six hours to cast their ballot. 750,000 people did not vote because the line was too long and it would take too long. as americans we should set the gold standard for election standards. we are not there yet but with these recommendations we can get much closer to the gold standards. in the 2013 state state of the union address the president established a commission on voting administration and tax passed it with finding a non- partisan way to improve election

and ministration. to shorten the lines and promote the efficiency and provide better access to the polls for all voters. there was a necessity to have pole access for americans with disabilities who obviously need as much access to vote as anyone else. i would like to congratulate the commissioners and the many who contributed to the report and to celebrate what you have already accomplished. after six months of public hearings and briefings academic experts and other representatives from various organizations, many are who are here today. they have developed many recommendations to implement at the polling place.

these must be viewed not as a partisan exercise but as good public administration. in doing so you focused on various aspects of voting from registration to ballot design to polling places and many others and you worked collectively to improve each voters experience. that seems to be the focus, what is the experience of the voter. recognizing the goals to improving the experience the same way private companies work to improve their customers experiences. i heard you went to disney world i'm not sure if that's true but they are always improving their line system. we can learn from private industry which focuses so much on customer experience.

your ability to bring about real change, the committee came up with recommendations and provided locations with a toolkit. with your help you provided open source voter registration for states to create their own online registration system. you provided administrators with tools to reduce wait times and determine whether or not you needed more staff to manage the wait time. these tools are specific and make a substantial difference in the locations ability to tailor their needs to each community. you showed that election administration is good and bipartisan community center are

bringing improvements to freshen to communities working hand-in-hand to bring about change. i can't help but be impressed by all the things you've done to use technology to improve private public administration. there is great work underway in response to one of the recommendations of online voter registration. the commission's report called for this method as a way to reduce errors and provide the voter with immediate feedback on registration data. since last year five states have passed let legislation to adopt this reform and more will do so in the coming year. there still needs to be a lot of work done in the years to come

as we continue to study the administration of election around the country to see how we can better serve the needs of the community communities. they studied line length and ways to streamline processes. while states and local officials must continue to confront the issues raised to support and evaluate their own needs the federal government must do its part to ensure that election administrators are given the tools they need to run smooth and efficient elections. last year the president nominated three new commissioners kristy kristi mccormick, tom hick and matthew masterson who may or may not be here today.

i heard you were all here today and i should've googled what you looked like so i could've pointed you out so my apologies for not doing that. last month the eac was able to meet with the committee and immediately took action to address the recommendations in the report including important updates to testing systems used throughout the country. thank you for your immediate immediate action so quickly after being elected. earlier this month the president visited thousands of america in selma to mark the anniversary of the march that led to voting rights of 1965. fifty years later the members came together from across the country from different parties and political persuasions to

make voting easier for every american recognizing that participation is at the core of our democracy i'm honored to be here with cochairs bob and ben and to kick off this great conversation. i very much thank you for your attention and for inviting me today. be back thank you. >> we have a time for a few questions. >> i do think i appreciate you putting the stress on the question on the effort of the

commissions part to come up with recommendations and i think the commission would hope also that we would have the continued support of the administration. how do you see the various ways that this administration can tie into that effort and there may be other issues or controversies but how will they continue to support that? >> bob knows this as well as i do that the president is quite committed to this. at selma he talked about issues with regard to americans voting and he cares a lot about this and you will hear him continue

to speak about it in a nonpartisan sense. there is a real need to make the voter experience such that they will go to the pole. we can't read more reward them for going to the polls but we can make it not so hard for them he will be a pretty big megaphone on those issues. i really meant what i said as i reread the report i was struck really buy the recommendations that you came up with, many of them are not terribly expensive they have to be thought about and dealt with, the use of technology and are things that are implementable and can have an enormous impact on the voter experience. whatever you are republican or

democratic we really need to make sure americans are part of the process. it will make our government better and our democracy better so i think all of you for your work. >> other questions from commissioners question mark. >> one of the sleeper issues that is reported in many ways is communities needing adequate facilities for voting. as we looked at this the best common solution is really public schools. there are safety issues if you have lots of people coming in from the outside when children are there, so the recommendation is to have election day be an

in-service day. it is a locality by locality agreement but i wonder if the president supports schools as a terrific polling place would have a qualitative effect on this as an option. >> i can't actually speak for him but i completely agree with your notion that we need places where people feel safe and comfortable and people are typically comfortable at their schools. many of you probably live in montgomery county and i voted at the community center in an early voting situation but i was comfortable.

when i lived in new york i voted in a lobby of an apartment building nearby which surprised me that you could vote in a private location like that. i think that part of the voter experience is to have them in a place that they feel comfortable many people have kids or have had kids and are familiar with the schools. you're right of course, that if were going to do this it should be an in-service day because you don't want people going in and out of the location where were worried about safety of the voters as well as the kids. i think that's a very important idea. >> are there other questions from the stable? >> i have one but it's a more of

a comment of something i heard. first the president had the interest in lines but there were many other issues in the voting process and he laid that out in executive order. to one of the things the commission did was respected leaders and their party and had the experience of election administrators. they define the agenda both parties were representative and i wanna complement you and wondered if you had some thoughts on whether or not that

is a good model for other efforts. >> it seemed to be an excellent model. it there are many times it seems not cooperative. i think the extent of this is because they found the issue to be solved as a practical issue of improving the voter experience. there are a lot of other issues that divide the parties and nothing would've happened and it would have been unsuccessful in her prize i suspect.

but looking at something where everybody agrees regardless of the party then the problem was defined in a way that they could come up with solutions. i think the decision to not have just i have a academics but to have people who were voting administrators who are actually out there and using voting machines and how to solve problems when the machines break and now someone didn't show up or i have a line that i'm dealing with so to get those kinds of issues exposed which you couldn't do with only academics you could expose a number of issues that allow you to deepen your knowledge about

what happens in the field. and come up with meaningful solutions so i thought this allowed for real recommendations to real problems to be made with the right people and it was a traffic model. >> also i'll just chime in very quickly. part of what was successful about this was that we didn't get together and say we were going to start from scratch and said we served as a conduit for what was are ready being done around the country. there were multiple jurisdictions that have implemented things and implemented well and were willing to share it with the rest of us. every one of our recommendations are scalable so it might be a

very large muumuu i know what a visual right, but large and small jurisdictions both appreciate having this information available to them. a year ago i talked to people who were hearing it, seeing it feeling it and the truth is an election ministration we heard from fabulous administrators and there are many more who don't have the resources to go to conferences so being able to

have this committee was very very helpful and that's why it's critical that we have the eac and we rely on them. i think that's been really satisfying that people are using this as a tool to measure lines and come up with ways to see if there are lines and how they can address those. it's very exciting. >> the other thing i wanted to say about this is it so terrific that you're having this conference because it proves the other advantage to what's happened here is that implementable recommendations and you're not suffering from

the problem of no follow-up which can happen naturally with reports. you continue to work on the implementation and you continue to study the issues and have a conference like this so you can ensure there's follow-up and implementation. it's great to have a report but for something like this you need administrators and actual locations to read it and access the resources. it's excellent that you're doing the follow-up to make sure that these ideas you had are being put to use so i think you all for inviting me and i hope you keep having these because it's a great topic to address here. thank you all very much.

more on federal elections this week on newsmakers. newsmakers. this sunday on q and a the new book deadweight it gets complicated when the question arises as to what ultimately happened and why were they allowed to enter without export and detailed warning.

this has led to some very interesting speculation. where they set up for attack by someone? it's interesting i found a no smoking memo and there was nothing from churchill. nothing like that exists. sunday at 80 strength and pacific.

with the u.k. general election more than a month away british prime minister and department leader have a large live question-and-answer session after they declined a head to head debate. it's an hour and 15 minutes. welcome. good evening tonight is the first big election test for two men who is the only people forming the new election tonight we'll see what they're made of. in the next 90 minutes both men

will face each other head-to-head and will be interviewed by jeremy and will join me for questions. the prime minister and leader of the conservative party. thank you cameron. i don't have the exact figures but i know they have gone up and they provide an important service. there were six when you came to paros and there are now hundred

and 21. 900,000 people had free food parcels last year. it is more broken now than it was. there are one point 89 million more people working now. there has been an increase in food banking because the difficulty we faced as a country and we change the rules. the previous rules didn't allow job centers :

that shouldn't happen. jobs have been created have been

low-paying. i think there are 700,000 people could you live on one? this is the greatest country where more people have the opportunity to work but they won't. the question is if someone chooses, if you're a student for instance the contract can work for you. >> know i couldn't live on one of those a colleague of mine spoke to a man in the northeast. he walked for hours to and from work. when he gets there he works for a few hours and then has to walk

home again. he works eight to 12 hours a week on average. i want more people to have full-time work not part-time work. >> it has been difficult. we've had a very difficult few years following a long recession. but we created 1.89 million new jobs and the majority of those have been full-time jobs and have been relatively well-paid occupations. some people choose part-time contracts but they have the dignity and security of work. we've seen the minimum wage increase above inflation for the first time in many years and i want to see that minimum wage go

up. in terms of what the cover meant does we've cut taxes so you can earn over 10000 pounds without paying income tax at all. >> one of the things people find problematic is that you would choose for example a man that you would prove to appoint a man to government a rich television presenter what do you have in common with all of these? >> i think that's completely unjustified.

he had been appointed to run his business and i point to him as a trade administer as someone who had run a bank. nobody criticized that opponent. i didn't ask him that specific question. we went through all the normal procedures that you would including revenue and tax affairs and if you want to raise the issue of jeremy clarkson i just simply answered the question explaining that he's a friend of mine and you shouldn't treat the people you work with badly.

what you're trying to cast is completely ridiculous. the government has got the economy growing and has got people back to work. we've achieved everything we set out to do for the country. >> the country was overwhelmed and debt. how much money have you borrowed >> the key thing is the amount of money you have borrowed is. >> it's a near 500 billion pounds.

>> the annual overdraft the deficit has come down by one half as a share of our national income. we are working to a plan to finish the job. we are turning the economy around providing services we can afford and creating jobs for our people. if you're saying we haven't gone fast enough i would agree we need to keep moving. the others keep saying we should spend more we should tax more. >> you promised at the lack so election that you would limit

immigration. >> we cut immigration from outside europe. we close down about 800 bogus factories. immigration has we've actually created more jobs in britain the rest of the european union together and people have come here to work. what we need to do now is keep the economy working and fix the broken elements. you can't claim unemployment benefits if you don't have a job for six months. you have to work here for years before you get benefits.

those changes taken together will reduce immigration. >> that's not what you said last time. you said we make a promise to the british people to reduce immigration in the early 1990s. you haven't done it. >> we need to make well for changes in order for it to work. >> so you admit you haven't done it. >> i fully accept that. there's a whole credibility problem here and you repeated it again this week. you said exactly the same thing at the last election. we have no plans to raise bat.

that is a crucial difference. we were able to look very carefully at the books : >> what you said one thing and did another.

>> what we said the most important task for the government was to get the economy growing and the deficit down. we have had an appalling inheritance. britain's budget deficit was forecast to be bigger than greases. we had to defend all of those decisions, difficult ones and hard to take but the right thing for the country. there is a connection between the difficult decisions. we created 2 million private sector jobs 750000 new businesses, and the economy is working. what i want in an economy is not to just look good on the page but to feel that they can get a job have a livelihood, home. >> that is what this plan is all about.

>> transparency can you tell us what was 12 billion pounds and welfare. >> let me explain. the 30 billion-pound adjustment that needed to be made. they have voted for this. that breaks down into 13 billion that needs to be saved in government department, 12 billion welfare command 5 billion from cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. freezing and work benefits for two years to raise some of that money but the 12 billion. >> that which you have yet to accept. >> right. 20 billion in the last parliament. >> do you know where these cuts go for?

>> do you know and are not telling us. >> has to go through every part of the welfare budget. just as we save 20 billion we will be able to fix the welfare savings. no family she hit more than 26,000 pounds a year when it comes to young people when they leave school they should be either on it or learning, looking at an apprenticeship. changing welfare is not about saving.

>> to help people. trying to. >> transparency. you don't know what you are going to do. let me ask you a a very simple question. we will be out of time shortly. if it is foreign-policy result. >> did you find it? >> i would argue some good things are done. getting out of the euro stream. those are successes. >> do you regret going to libya? you regret saying that?

>> i don't regret saying that. first of all, it was right. he was going to butcher his own people and benghazi. if we had not stepped in we would have seen a massive catastrophe and benghazi of people butchered. it was the right thing to do >> we left the libyan people after that. we could -- it just is not been possible today to get the different parties. >> beheaded on the beaches. he different parties. >> beheaded on the beaches. >> the different living in parts of government together to get the warlords to put down their weapons, but weapons, but we're still trying now with people out there, trying to bring it out and accept a very difficult situation. >> and ask you one quick question about your? what would it take for you to vote no in a referendum on continued participation in the european union? i did not think it was an

britain's interest the situation is what we need is a reform. watching at home. they have the choice. 2017. >> it's horrible. >> what i think is we need to improve. this organization we get the trade important cooperation. but the us is not working. >> that is why we need the renegotiation. i think we would be giving the british people a false choice. stay in or leave but it will be the british people's choice. there's only one way to get a referendum. promising referendum.

>> you have said you we will i stand for it. that means that a vote for cameron is successful as leader of the party for two three, four years afterwards george osborne. >> i we will serve everyday. in r spencer thomas question people need to know that sort of thing. are are you one of those leaders who thinks you can go on and on and on them our tomorrow do you think i am passionate about what i am doing. after that ten years two terms, i think politicians do have a date by which they need to say i think it's time for someone else to take over. indispensable.

it is important to remember. >> coming next questions from our studio audience. book tv -- ♪ >> welcome back. the prime minister has been interviewed command now it is the turn of our studio audience to put their questions to him. let's start with matthew. let's have your question. >> what do you think? [laughter] >> that is a tricky want to start with. i think all of us who put ourselves forward believe in serving the public.

sometimes passionately we will believe in public service in trying to do the right thing for our country. one thing i admire him and we had to take difficult decisions about sending british forces in into help with others to try and defeat iso- the murder is death cult and a rock we step forward and say, yes this is the right thing to do. >> despicable. >> we do sometimes. perhaps a bit over the top. i remember the same day economy dodgy and something else. i took my children yesterday nine and 11. dad, if we behave like that at school it would not be so good. there is a.to it.

it is the time of the week on the prime minister is that to demonstrate that you are across all the issues. make the government accountable to parliament. things will change quickly. you don't always behave as well as you should. >> i think bridget. >> hi, bridget, bridget. >> prime minister, in two months time i we will be 79. i am a retired professional. i remain proactive in the committee. i am passionate about the provision of care for the elderly. and i. and i feel that we should be treated with dignity and respect. would you prime minister, consider it appropriate to appoint a cabinet minister for all the people one who would show empathy with all the people?

>> bridges thank you for your advocacy for these causes because they do matter. making sure we treat retired people with dignity and security in their old age is one of the most important things we can do as a country which is why i have been so clear they will continue for everybody. it should everybody. it should be your right command we need to make that clear. i asked i asked this question the other day about having at better representative in the cabinet. i we will think about it but i am worried. i don't want i don't want older people's concerns to be restrictive to one person in the cabinet. i want everyone of my ministers to be thinking how we treat senior citizens properly. my health minister to be thinking how do we treat people in our hospitals in our care. i want to make sure that our

education minister is thinking about life education, something i want to my want to make sure our defense minister is thinking carefully about veterans and their needs as they grow older. i would be worried about having one person and saying they would be the only person who thought about the people. as i i said if we are not doing right by all the people they will blame me. if i leave the government i think it will be done right. i have key about upgrading pensions. so there have been protected >> thank you. >> what is your question? >> we have not seen anything yet. how intense will it be?

>> we have had to make difficult decisions. i became prime minister we had to make important decisions to get the deficit down. higher taxes high mortgage rates an economy in chaos. all we need to do in the next two years is basically similar to what we have done so far. 1 pound out of every hundred that the government spends and save it rather than putting up people's taxes. if you think about the spending changes, similar to what we have had to do in previous years and similarly for welfare, it is achievable. i would not stand here and say that if i did not think it were achievable. you don't taxiway to growth

or jobs. we want to keep a strong economy, make savings, and make sure we put aside money for a rainy day. questions do come from time to time. we don't get pushed over the edge which would be irresponsible. we have to make sure we're not just doing right for this generation but our children and grandchildren. we don't want to load that on there head. we are suggesting is manageable, doable kemal we will require inefficiencies, but we inefficiencies, but we can make important commitments by saying that the nhs is special. >> a specific example. >> yes. >> a good example the bene a good example, the benefit unemployment benefits should be frozen for two years. that is not an easy decision to make, but it is important and people can see people

are better off and work and we try to keep on creating jobs as we have done. this parliament something like 20 billion pounds by being a bi@this parliament, something like 20 billion pounds by being a bit smarter. we still we still don't have one company that owns all the government buildings. things like that. businesses have to do this every year. how can we save money, provide a better service without spending so much money. one example -- >> almost -- a police officer for 22 years, having you. >> i have, thank you.

go back to the place service which is now more than ever overburdened. first of all thank you for your service. you put your lives on the line every day to put a safe, a safe command i have a huge respect for the police do for us. but what a great example over the past five years. we did have to make reductions on spending. some 20%. 20 percent. at the same time the police have done such a good job that crime has come down by almost 20%. we managed 20 percent. we managed to get officers out from best jobs onto the street, but more civilians in the some of those roles, make sure they combined forces. i i think there is still more efficiency that we can get out of that. and the end we have to back

the british police to do a great job and therefore they have my support. >> chief constable. on constable. on the verge of collapse. he said that last december. >> i do not accept that. i understand i understand -- >> is he wrong? >> in that county as county as well crime has come down. the police are doing a great job. using modern technology to make sure that crime continues to fall. if we do that then we should be saving money as well. >> let's bring in -- thank you, prime minister. >> no comment. >> okay. now where are you? >> twenty years this year's is the passing with disabilities, nation act. your still twice as likely to be unemployed. harder your near.

hardening in hardening. 11 million disabled people. >> we should do everything we can to help disabled people faces few disadvantages as possible and to get genuine equality in our country. a visit -- disability discrimination act was brought forward by my good friend and colleague 20 years ago and has led to some really good changes but you're right the job is not done. focus on getting disabled people and to work. this year has been a good year. but the gap between the disabled and the unemployment rate for the country is still too big. i want i want to see it cut in half, and i think that we can do that, but we need a culture change. there are some at absolutely

brilliant to go out there and want to recruit disabled people because they know if they don't they miss out on some of the bright and best talent in our country, but not all employers are that good and will be established i reestablished trying to encourage all employers to take this approach. in the end it comes back to the bigger picture of a strong and growing economy. >> let's stay away -- the specific question. >> partially happy but there is more that needs to be done social care is vital the independent living fund was close. >> that was important try

and bring health and social care together more. >> our you convince the british public cannot opt out of the eu? >> the best way -- and thank you for the question. i think britain is at its best when we are out there trading and cooperating in working with others in the world. we we are part of all of the important networks but the problem with the european union at the moment is it has so many good aspects.

it is it is trying to become a state rather than an organization. what we need we want to be in europe for trading cooperation but we don't want to be part of an ever closer union we will keep the pound as our currency as long as i am prime minister. if i can get a good deal for europe if i can get that better deal i think we have a prospect of a prospect of saying to the british people, you choose. you can stay in which will be good for britain or if you want you can leave. but the british public is got to be given another choice. we have not had

wants is 1935 commanded his time there we did. >> questions that are quite short. two more. >> hello. would you like to see more nhs services provided by private companies? >> i am happy if there are chances. they can provide a great service free. good health care that is what matters to me. they have done amazing things my family. i we will not forget taking my desperately ill young son to the hospital, getting in to be getting amazing treatments for everything they gave him. i want to make sure that is always there for families our country. i would always be predominantly a national health service provided by national health service providers, the private sector, independent sector.

i think it has gone from 5 percent to 6 percent with a tiny increase. if there are organizations like cancer care who provide brilliant care for loved ones, hospices great organizations like that helping our loved ones. and the nhs and our taxes are helping to pay for them that is okay by me. >> in the blue dress. >> wait for the microphone if you would. there would. there you go. >> thank you. >> what would you like to say. >> i am a little bit confused. five years ago you made some very serious changes. the top-down reorganization, clearly the reality is very very different. the forest closer it's about the manifesto.

we have to take you and your government to court. so i feel very let down with policy and i'm just wondering if you don't do what you say the promises he made last time have been broken. how can we trust you next line tonight. >> the biggest promise we made at a time when we were going to have to make difficult cuts in public spending, we said we will not cut the nhs command we have not. we have increased spending by over 12.7 billion pounds of the last five years. and this is a really important point, quickly. what we did in terms of changing the nhs was got rid of 20,000 bureaucrats and put that money into 9000 more doctors and 7000 more nurses. as a result we are treating more patients something like cancer, we

are seeing 460,000 more people and looking than we were five years ago. the biggest promise we made more money safeguarding that money. and let me as your prime minister that is the key. investing. >> okay. we have time for one more. j here. she is supposed to be here tonight so that she could ask you a question in person >> if you could read you one thing, what would it be? >> if you can redo one thing what would it be? well the thing as i said i promised a better thing which did not work out. but i think the most important thing i have had to try and do is turn the economy around, get people

into jobs, get the deficit down be as we were on the brink. i wish this of the things we have done like the help to buy scheme i wish we had done some of those things quicker, sooner because in the end you have to make this use choice. all all i'm saying, what i have learned over the last five years is nothing you want to do will work. the things we the things we want for our children those things need a strong economy >> that was a long time ago. >> would you like to show your appreciation? [applause] >> thank you, prime you, prime minister. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> taking more questions.

thank you very much. >> and welcome back. debbie cameron. it's a major leader. ready to meet our audience. [applause] [applause] paul, you are retired. >> good evening. my question is this. you sound gloomy most of the time. [applause]

>> are things really so bad? >> no, but they could be better which is the big argument. between those in we can do a lot better than this. good enough the 700,000 people. we we can do something about it. the prime minister said he could not live on a zero outcome but let's do something about it. if you work month after month, year after year, it you don't end up with the zero hour contract. that contract. that is just one of the changes i would make. [applause] >> paula pierson is next. your question. >> i am proud of my working-class background and am now a high rate taxpayer. often feeling demonized.

how how can i vote for you when you make me feel like this? [applause] >> let me see if i can change your mind. the thing that is happening at the moment, the top 1 percent over hundred and 50,000 pounds a year who are doing sort of okay and lots and lots of people are finding it really tough. the question is how we do something about it. i hope the different message , let me give you an example. some people can decide. they say help middle-class families. to write i want to help middle-class families. lots lots of families are saying it is my son or daughter leaving the university with 30 or $40,000 of debt. i want a i want to where you

feel you're not struggling. >> does that mean -- >> it is not our party prosper. the distance from the uk. i think the way we succeed is not simply those of the top doing well, but all working people succeeding. if working if working people succeeds than britain succeeds. it is a reality of the way a country gets formed. it is hard work. >> seven-figure bonuses. >> regular hours and you have some security to going out to work in doing the right thing for the country. that is better. we all benefit from that. >> let's bring in luke next. you are from --

>> yes. what will the budget deficit be in pounds? how will you achieve it? >> 75 billion we will inherit. by the end of the parliament we want to cut the deficit every year by doing three things. fair taxes reverse that change that david cameron made. secondly,. secondly, they will have to be spending reductions in areas outside some priorities like health and education. we need to get the deficit down, and i make no bones about it that it will require difficult decisions. but the other important thing we have got to do conservatives promised to -- >> let's talk about it. i'm sure your audience will remember. [applause]

>> i understand that, what i want to draw a lesson because the reason why it has not happened is because living standards have fallen, so fallen so tax revenues have fallen, so the key to getting rid of the deficit is that 3rd element. that key 3rd element of raising living standards. if you raise living standards we will get the tax revenues and in the deficit down. >> let's bring in veronica next. what is your question? >> why is labor prepared to deny the people the people the freedom to choose whether they wish to see the country become a fully fledged member of the eu? >> it is not my priority to have a referendum. i let me explain why. when i look at our country i no of my priority would be if prime minister tackle

the cost of living crisis rescue nhs, build the future for young people. and the trade we get strategically for britain tackling terrorism, climate change, all, all range of issues, an hour looking country. this is unlikely to happen, but happen, but as a transfer of power, further transfer of power it's not likely to happen and is what leadership is about. while what i call a referendum employs the country into two years of debate about something i don't want to see happen. >> just to clarify, you would not call a referendum. >> unlikely to happened and have said this a lot of the british people. no, it is not. i am making no bones about it. likely at the moment. >> that is a politicians answer, though, isn't it? [applause]

>> do you not think your brother would have done a better job? [applause] >> he was better qualified and bread -- better positioned. >> okay. well, no. [laughter] and let me explain why legalizing. i thought that was the time that is necessary for the country and our party. i had i had strong views about how we needed to change the country. the country is to unequal and relaxed about inequality and made mistakes about foreign-policy and immigration, to. i was the best person to move the party on and said

because that is what i felt i felt is the right thing for the country. i think it's been in thinking now. >> what regrets you have are creating such division. >> it's hard. it is hard. i make no butts about it. it was bruising from me bruising for david. just being completely frank with you about that. >> it all out. >> we had a very short -- >> we literally did not talk strained not surprisingly. i care deeply about this country. i believe i am the right person to be prime minister and thought it when i stood in 2010. i would not have gone through all of that if i did not have strong convictions about how we need to change the system. >> your poor mom. >> she is a pretty hardy soul.

>> let's bring in land. what is your question? just in the middle they're. socialism remains an important advocate. if so why and how? >> democratic socialism yes is the answer. i think -- i believe in a fair and equal society. each generation of labor politicians puts it into practice in their own generation. it goes back to the question what i see in britain something all around the world countries grapple with. with. will we be countries that work for the richest and most powerful that just work or get a fair shot and play by the same rules. if you do the right thing go out to work build a life

for you and your family. people are balancing that. too gloomy. that is why it might sound that way the us people are asking this country is supposed to work for me. i am doing everything that i should do. that is what democratic socialism means a fair and more democratic society. >> what do you think? >> i think it needs to be revisited. it needs to be reassumed. >> you have your hand up there just here in the 2nd row. a quick follow-up question. wait for the microphone. >> how are you going to be different from the clay can? are you going to sit here and sugarcoat things so that we vote for you or give us some security that you will follow through on your promises? >> you are going to have to make a judgment. a very specific example.

in 2,011 i said i want to the tuition fee. trust in politics is so important. the 1st politician to underpromise and overdeliver i we will come back in five years and you can tell me if i achieved that are not. >> interesting to think what politicians no that each other. what do you think david cameron's best qualities are given the a year previously

called him a chicken and bully? >> i we will say two things about what he has achieved is prime minister. the 1st is his commitment to equal marriage the right thing to do for the country. and secondly this commitment on overseas development. he took a risk in the conservative party by saying this is the right thing to do and is to that end is right that he did. >> would you have a.with them? >> look, it is hard share a bacon sandwich with them. it is hard in politics. shouting at each other. it is not very edifying. as he said earlier hard to

avoid the back-and-forth. >> just here. >> my question to you made it quite difficult for your supporters and people that are undecided. >> that is a great start. >> well, a few recently and do not really seem to be fighting for the values your party stands for. you know, that question as it regards to museum closures. >> first of all, austerity the positions. the distance. they will cut three. and let me go to the other.

i am not going to win a contest a contest with who works best. i think that we can all agree about that. >> not. >> not happy with your answer, shaking heads and also to things. >> very quickly. >> what i stand for his ideas to change the country principles powerful opponents with the energy company with the bank. effective decency, reaching out to people who are the most vulnerable. >> we want to come back with >> everyone in this country numbers 13 years in the labor government. you talk about austerity the reason there is austerity is because all the money was spent, thrown away in all they hear is you say it was a global economy in crisis. what i want to know if

people are going to vote labor can you promise us that you have learned from the mistakes that led to the mess we are now in? [applause]

interested in the future of the country. and let's see what they decide. >> well, that's already. [applause] >> coming next head-to-head with jeremy paxton. stay tuned. ♪

>> with me now is that labor leader. you think the is a fool because of immigration? >> yes. >> very high levels of migration. we do need different levels of migration. >> yeah.need different levels of migration. >> yeah. but one very important thing. david cameron did. >> with immigration. >> you have got it wrong. >> they are wrong. >> very important. you asked me a question. let me answer it. i think you benefit from diversity.

made. made a big contribution to our country, but we need proper control. >> a labor government a labor government was a of people come here and can't give benefits they will do something else. >> you are talking about immigration. >> i am talking about numbers. >> right. a figure 70 million the population in this country. >> i'm not going to get into your hypotheticals. i am not going to -- [inaudible conversations] >> i am not saying that. >> let me say what i am going to do because that is what matters rather than speculating about figures. migration and the controls you are talking about but on the undercutting of wages, wages, people being brought into the country to undermine the minimum wage and various other things. they will help.

what you're saying to me is a will be better for our country to withdraw from the european union. you are making up the question to yourself. appmack. >> i am not. >> you are. >> there is a big choice in this election. i i believe that we can be in control of migration but i'm not going to make false promises. >> speculation. >> you know natural left. >> of course. >> keeping them to yourself. >> look at the decisions you take. i have explained some of them. >> as it seems to you now there is no figure that your willing to show the public. >> am not going to pluck to figure out of the year.

>> you have thought about it. >> completely wrong. you were. you are predicting figures between five and 13,000. 2004 2,004 and actually something like 400,000 people. that is the entire population. what else did that government do when you are last in power? >> i i think there are two things that i would mention in addition to that. i am proud of many of the things that we did. but 1st of all inequality the gap that figure and lots of people fell behind. >> did you borrow too much? >> i think there was global financial crisis joe

borrowing up. the figure was too high. the figure was too high. >> i think they were spending programs that were not as good as they could have been. >> a clue. come on. [inaudible conversations] >> to have some details. my question was if you borrow too much and you think you did not. the questions you have been asked their inefficiencies

in government. the future. during this present government. you have seen a lot. forecasting of euros. >> wages have fallen.euros. >> wages have fallen. living stances in the 1920s. david cameron -- [inaudible conversations]

>> he said i've forecasted their wages would fall. >> and i was right. >> they did fall. >> unemployment, ways levels. >> not important. the budget responsibility forecast. that turned out to be wrong. such a big picture. this election david cameron was on earlier. i think things are fine. i think that we are too much faith and low wages. to insecure. young people are burned down and that will -- that is what will change but the country. >> what will you touch? >> let me explain. outside areas keep protected areas. we set out some of those cuts like pension.

we have talked about the ways in which will money from efficiencies local government. child benefit. >> 1 percent. >> the reverse. >> what does that come to? >> at least hundreds of millions, more than a hundred million pounds. ..

>> picked let's take energy policy. he is to believe that this is a great way of raising the cost of the environment. now you believe that you have a better deal for the environment. i will never forget that it was a way to facilitate climate

change. >> let me explain. i always said that they will put awkward pressures on it as a need to agree to this. but i have also said that we need to make sure that the energy market is fair. that is what is happening with another toys of this election. who is going to stand up and say that we are going to freeze this and we are going to give the ability to cut prices and i'm sure that there are these in the long run, but it makes it all the more important to make it fair. >> can you help us with another one of your policies? >> according to your leader in scotland [inaudible] about is what he said.

>> no, it is an. >> it was a way way of taking money and spending it in scotland. so i said please. >> we have a mansion tax for those homes about 2 million pounds. it's also true that there are consequences about spending and that is the way the united kingdom works. it is the way that money gets distributed. but let me make this point that is really important, this is part of being in the united kingdom. if there are young people who are unemployed and we help those young people in need. if there are poor kids in london, we help them. that is part of being in the united kingdom.

this is absolutely a principal of a country that looks after each other. >> what about the other bloodmoney that he would like to exert from england? >> what about for example, moving it out of scotland. would you go along with that? >> no. >> i am on the front in scotland

>> but it is the british people the you can get this overall web. and in that event you would the leader of our country. >> you know what people say about you and you can't be immune to it. a bloke said to me last week and they're all over the floor in pieces. smack i don't think he uses is very much. >> let me tell you that in the summer of 2013 this government

proposed action in syria and they were called into a room with president obama on the phone, the leader of the free world. and i listen to what they said and i made up my mind and they said no. and i think standing up to the leader of the free world shows a certain toughness. i'm not proud, but it's a failure of international community but what i'm not going to do is repeat this which is a rush without knowing what the situation is and yes come i am tough enough. heck yes i am tough enough. >> how is it that you are less

popular than your party and we are a liability. how has that happened? >> i don't comment on these things. do you read about yourself to . >> not if i can avoid it. you know, i have six weeks to go until the general election, the people there in that home will make up their mind about me and what kind of country that they want but frankly when they say that when i go and stand on the doorstep and have a liability, you are unaware of that. >> the only thing that i can do let me tell you is to be yourself. and there are people that have to decide. when they stood up not just to

president obama but the energy companies and the banks which is what i believe in. and i know that this country can be so much better and that is what i want to fight for. they can say what they like. because i don't care what happens to them. >> two. >> who carried who does. it was mentioned earlier by a member of the audience, a lot of people when they look at your candidacy for the most powerful job in the land, they think well, what a shame it is going to be.

>> you know you need a toughness. people have thrown a lot of mean over the last four and a half years and i would under estimate at every turn. people said i wouldn't become a leader, but i did. and i think i can. let people underestimate me. but what i care about is what happens with british people and their lives and i think that i can change it and i know that i'm the right man for the job and that's why i'm the best choice to be prime minister. >> thank you. >> you are right. [applause] ♪ ♪

>> i thought so. facing the first big test of the campaign. telling the audience that politicians don't always behave as well as they should. he admits that his relationship with his brother is still healing. >> the prime minister told me that he could never exist on a zero contract but the previous labor government got it wrong on immigration. >> there are three more big leaders in the run-up. the first is those including both the men that are here, that is next thursday at 8:00 o'clock. two weeks later it is the bbc election and you can watch at

8:00 o'clock on thursday the 16th. there's more in with nic as well on thursday, the 30th of april. >> thank you to all of you for taking part in this event. thank you for watching and thank you to our studio. >> goodnight. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ >> you can hear more from david

cameron and ed miller band each week during question time at the british house of commons. wednesdays at 7:00 a.m. on c-span2 and be airing on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow night on c-span, a group of young adult discussing the issues that motivate their generation. the event was hosted by the new america foundation and include barbara bush, the daughter of george w. bush. >> what is the one issue they think that you think will be the most important for young people in 2016? >> my goodness. so many. well, i think that this gets back to the millennial. and i think that we all have issues that are important to our community is an important where we live, not saying that there's one issue that is important

because every issue is connected. figuring out how to have this as we think about solving the issue. my last thing is that i never really understand why older people are like i don't understand millennialist. you can ask people what they are interested in. you can ask them how they want to communicate and how they want to partner with you. i'm instead of categorizing them as a limited group we have the power to make relationships with people. >> the discussion with barbara bush and other young adults at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events and every weekend is booktv, for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. created by the cable tv industry

and rocky was a public service by your local cable service provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> recent supreme court oral argument on a case on free speech. then another supreme court case on epa regulations. later ways to improve federal election for voters. >> the supreme court heard oral argument on whether officials in texas much issue a license plate that depicts the federal flag. many have their request for a license plate with this license plate tonight. after the board decided that it was offensive. sons of confederate veterans say that it is the violation of their first amendment right to

free speech. >> case 14144 john walker versus the sons o confederate veterans. sir? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, may it please the court. messages on texas license plates are government speech. the state of texas etches its name onto each license plate and texas law gives the state's sole control and final authority over everything that appears on a license plate. texas is not any traditional free-speech right, motorist remain free to speak and always including on a bumper sticker. but the first amendment does not mean that a motorist can compel any government to place its information with the confederate flag on the license plate. >> one of the problems with this theme is it can be regarded as

offensive. >> the government is allowed to choose the messages that it showed, it is accepting and generating the revenue to propagate those messages and does not defeat the fact that it is government speech. on the library of congress takes sponsorship for the national book festival, that is still government speech when i put it on the website. >> supposedly elected 500 electronic billboards around this statement on those billboards they have posted some government messages and then at the bottom people could put a message of their choice.

would that be government speech? >> i think that the portion that the government had final approval authority that would be government speech i feel that -- >> the government has the same kind of authority that it has here. it will allow people to say in a sense of things but if they say something like that that would be government speech. >> even if that were not the case at. >> i'm sorry, but i don't understand. almost anything the government does it has final authority to veto. whether it is a school or government website. it always retains the authority to say no. the issue is one can say no constitutionally.

the government is actually creating the words that were being advertised. the government is not creating these words. >> the court indicated this. >> it is a private organization and the government did create a program to espouse this and even then as they recognize the secretary of outer culture it was not as if the government had control, they had control but it was just not at every step of the way. and this is how it must be, but it had final approval to return to the hypothetical and what the test should be the test can

include other elements and it's just a two-part test. for all sorts of reasons this is government speech, texas has its name on every license plate and there is a formal process of noticing comment. >> because it's government speech, they can engage in viewpoint discrimination. >> that is right. the court has recognized this. >> does that have any limits? suppose they said yes that's fine and then enacts cemented a license plate to texas that said both democratic and texas said no, we're not going to improve that. >> i don't think that our position would necessarily allow that. >> why would it not?

>> the establishment clause, other independent constitutional situations can apply. >> i'm curious as to what constitutional constraints do think that there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical that i just gave you. >> partisan speech, as justice stevens concurrence recognizes there can be other constitutional bars such as equal protection. >> all you have to say is whatever prevents texas itself and other activities nevermind the license plates from saying but republican. >> what stops texas from saying at all. >> vote republican. i think something prevents that. >> that is correct, which is why

that issue is a government speech in general, but they have recognized that the speech doctrine does not allow this. >> what about when they talk about their own speech? >> yes, this would be the best example. >> is this a case where the state in the government and has aided in creating a new kind of public form? people don't go to parks anymore and if they put this around the park, that's government property, but they cannot talk about this. why is this a new public form. >> the court has never recognized a public forum for

private speech when the government places its name on a message or controls this message and receiving comments from the public. >> the whole question is whether you can control this message. >> i think that the court has looked at whether or not there is a public forum for private speech and for all of the reasons that we are pointing out that this is government speech, it is the flipside of why this hasn't been created. since i'm not quite sure why it is part of this since there is no clear identifiable policy and it's arguable that the state is articulating this. >> mr. chief justice, i don't think that this can be part of any test or government because that the structures in central

park or all government speech and yet there's a wider way of messages. >> you can have conflicting messages, what is the government policy between allowing the university of texas playing for the university of oklahoma. >> what is the policy between permitting mighty fine burger and pretty good burger. >> mr. chief justice, this is a texas establishment, they could promote that message and even if they want an establishment. >> it is endorsing speech, it is the government speech. and it is a logo as well.

that is still the speech. >> at the athlete does not advertise this. >> the idea that this is their speech, and the only thing that unifies it is that they get money on it. >> a state of texas does not put its name on everything. it follows a formal process. >> he said that its name was etched. >> every name yes that is the state's message. >> how many of them are there? >> as of the beginning of the month, 488 specialty plates, many that were available for the general public use. >> how many disapproved other than this one? >> we have addressed that in pages nine to 11 texas agencies have denied about a dozen.

>> which other ones have you disapproved? >> the tuberous foundation played and it also denied about a dozen other plates. >> on the ground of offense? >> the information is not clear as to what the grounds for denial work. the legislature is also repealing this. >> of you go down to texas and you stare at license plates, are most of them the standard license plate and then you see these very rarely or do most people actually have one of these specialty plates? >> well, there's a wide range that are the standard. >> but there is a substantial percentage that are not?

it's not unusual to see this? >> it would not be unusual. bye-bye entering its name on it, making keep control on what appears on my since plates and still the message. >> what is the argument. that is what concerns me. your answer was disturbing, but suppose people still go to parks and the state had an official soapbox at the park and every once in a while if it official would say much of the to the announcement. but other times more than people are talking about this. >> i think they were starting to cross over into a situation with

subterfuge that would be were government speech is crowding out. >> why isn't this becoming traditional but you have a lot of? >> i don't think it has become traditional because texas has always maintained control and it's always exercising editorial control, so i might what has been held license plate on a regular. >> absolutely. >> be traditional public forums to has to be one that is open.

>> it seems as though you have the link wish control over this for whatever private speech people would like to say. >> i think it would be odd to say that it is private speech when they are taking a public vote one of the governmental function upon the government wants to act. when the government is placing this name on the license plate it is accepting and signifying that this is the government message. >> every time there is a request is there a procedure? >> the legislature would do it

but under the existing law it would be required for every specialty plate approved by the agency which is all better people if that is not approved by the legislature. >> a good analogue would be the posted stab program. they are placing this name directly on the medium thousands of stamps have been issued and yet there's private input that is allowed as to what those are going to look like. just as they can respond and that doesn't mean that someone is allowed responsive speech with what appears on this. >> they also have specialty plates insofar as the letters or numbers of the plates are concerned, can you get a license

plate that says hot stuff or something like that. >> we do have personalized plates in texas. >> can use a dirty word on those? >> the speech is controlled completely by the state of texas. >> if this is not allowed we cannot allow that either. >> i believe that this would directly affect personalized rate i'm not sure the analogy really works because none of us can imagine the postal service having this on its stamps and you're not going to see that on a postal stamp. >> it may be true that the u.s. postal service has not chosen to

engage in that type of expression. but i don't think that that defeats the fact that this is all of what they have recommended. we have that here. we have their name etched onto the license plate. also untenable consequences following from an opinion recognizing the texas has to offer responsive speech, texas should not have to allow speech about al qaeda or the not too party server because it offers a license plate propagating this message. >> there is an easy answer which is they do not have to get in the business of selling space on license plates to begin with. if you don't want to have this don't get into the business of allowing them the space to put on whatever they want. >> i believe that that would be an answer to all the government speech cases and i assume that if you don't w