potential for the future. to all those who are idle in the cities and industries of america let us provide new hope for the dignity of useful work. democrats have always believed that a basic civil right of all americans is their right to earn their own way. the party of the people must always be the party of full employment. [applause] .

[applause] to all those who work hard for a living wage let us provide new hope that the price of their employment shall not be an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age. to all those who inhabit our land from california to the new york island, from the redwood forest to the gulfstream waters, let us provide new hope that prosperity shall not be purchased by poisoning the air, the rivers and the natural resources that are the greatest gift of this continent.

[applause] we must insist that our children and our grandchildren shall inherit a land which they can truly call america the beautiful. [applause] to all those who see the worth of their work and their savings taken by inflation, let us offer new hope for a stable economy. we must meet the pressures of the present by invoking the full power of government to master increasing prices. in candor, we must say that the federal budget can be balanced only by policies that bring us to a balanced prosperity of full employment and price restraint. [applause]

and to all those overburdened by an unfair tax structure, let us provide new hope for real tax reform. instead of shutting down classrooms, let us shut off tax shelters. [applause] instead of cutting out school lunches, let us cut off tax subsidies for expensive business lunches that are nothing more than food stamps for the rich. [applause] the tax cut of our republican opponents takes the name of tax reform in vain. it is a wonderfully republican idea that would redistribute income in the wrong direction. it is good news for any of you

with incomes over $200,000 a year. for the few of you, it offers a pot of gold worth $14,000. but the republican tax cut is bad news for the middle income families. for the many of you, they plan a pittance of $200 a year, and that is not what the democratic party means when we say tax reform. [applause] the vast majority of americans cannot afford this panacea from a republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of karl marx. i am afraid he has confused karl marx with theodore roosevelt --

[applause] that obscure republican president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay. theodore roosevelt was not karl marx, and the republican tax scheme is not tax reform. [applause] finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. so i will continue to stand for a national health insurance. [applause] we must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation

that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. let us insist on real control over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth. [applause] the president, the vice president, the members of congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. we do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of congress asked for a bill from the federal

government? [applause] i say again, as i have before, if health insurance is good enough for the president, the vice president and the congress of the united states, then it is good enough for you and every family in america. [applause] there were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the

heritage of the democratic party has been a history of democracy. we fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. we did not flee this struggle. we welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent. [applause] democrats can be proud that we chose a different course and a different platform. we can be proud that our party stands for investment in safe energy instead of a nuclear future that may threaten the future itself. we must not permit the

neighborhoods of america to be permanently shadowed by the fear of another three mile island. [applause] we can be proud that our party stands for a fair housing law to unlock the doors of discrimination once and for all. the american house will be divided against itself so long as there is prejudice against any american buying or renting a home. [applause] and we can be proud that our party stands plainly and publicly and persistently for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. [applause] women hold their rightful place

at our convention, and women must have their rightful place in the constitution of the united states. on this issue we will not yield, we will not equivocate, we will not rationalize, explain or excuse. we will stand for e.r.a. and for the recognition at long last that our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers. [applause] a fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. there are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future, but of

this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all our history -- together a president and the people can make a difference. i have found that faith still alive wherever i have traveled across this land. so let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves. there will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead but i am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us. [applause] let this be our commitment -- whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared

fairly. and let this be our confidence -- at the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all. [applause] in closing, let me say a few words to all those that i have met and to all those who have supported me, at this convention and across the country. there were hard hours on our journey, and often we sailed against the wind. but always we kept our rudder true, and there were so many of you who stayed the course and shared our hope. you gave your help, but even more, you gave your hearts. because of you, this has been a happy campaign. you welcomed joan, me and our family into your homes and neighborhoods, your churches,

your campuses, your union halls. when i think back of all the miles and all the months and all the memories, i think of you. i recall the poet's words, and i say -- what golden friends i have. among you, my golden friends across this land, i have listened and learned. i have listened to kenny dubois, a glassblower in charleston, west virginia, who has ten children to support but has lost his job after 35 years, just three years short of qualifying for his pension. i have listened to the trachta family who farm in iowa and who wonder whether they can pass the good life and the good earth on to their children. i have listened to the grandmother in east oakland who no longer has a phone to call her grandchildren because she gave it up to pay the rent on her small apartment.

i have listened to young workers out of work, to students without the tuition for college, and to families without the chance to own a home. i have seen the closed factories and the stalled assembly lines of anderson, indiana and south gate, california, and i have seen too many, far too many idle men and women desperate to work. i have seen too many, far too many working families desperate to protect the value of their wages from the ravages of inflation. yet i have also sensed a yearning for new hope among the people in every state where i have been. and i have felt it in their handshakes, i saw it in their faces, and i shall never forget the mothers who carried children to our rallies. i shall always remember the elderly who have lived in an america of high purpose and who believe that it can all happen again. tonight, in their name, i have come here to speak for them. and for their sake, i ask you to stand with them.

on their behalf i ask you to restate and reaffirm the timeless truth of our party. i congratulate president carter on his victory here. [applause] i am confident that the democratic party will reunite on the basis of democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a democratic victory in 1980. [applause] and someday, long after this

convention, long after the signs come down, and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. may it be said of our party in 1980 that we found our faith again. and may it be said of us, both in dark passages and inl bright days, in the words of tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now -- "i am a part of all that i have met. tho much is taken, much abides. that which we are, we are -- one equal temper of heroic hearts, strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." for me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. for all those whose cares have

been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die. [applause] >> this saturday, book tv has a team of "boston globe reporters" who put together a biography of senator ted kennedy. you can watch at 8:00 a.m., eastern time, on c-span 2.

caller \ c-span[captions copyright natl cable satellite corp. 2009] later, live coverage of the fcc commission on the wireless communications industry. on c-span this morning, the federal communications commission will hold a meeting on the wireless communications industry. they are looking specifically at issues of competition and increasing broadbent excess. we will bring it to you live, starting at 10:00 a.m., eastern. later, from the heritage foundation, a look at the recent presidential election in afghanistan and what it means for the fight against the telephone and u.s. efforts to create security there.

live coverage begins at noon, eastern time coming here on c- span. >> go inside the supreme court to see the public places and those rarely seen spaces, hear directly from the justices as they provide their insight about the court and the building. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, the first sunday in october, on c- span. >> british conservative party leader david cameron pleasure that the budget for the national health service would be increased under a conservative government's and outlined areas for reform of the nhs speech in bolton, in blood. the nhs was established in 1948 and is the world's largest publicly funded health service. this is 40 minutes. [applause]

5ñ>> great to be here. i want to talk today about the national health service. in america today, there's a real debate going on about health care but here in britain, the recent political exchanges over the in a chess have been meager real nor a debate. not real because they focus on a question that is not settled and that is the conservative party's commitment to the nhs and not really a debate because the back-and-forth of the past week or so seems to have been more about political point-scoring instead of a serious discussion of an extremely serious subject. how, in a world of rapidly

rising health care cost and demand, should we deliver the rising standards of health care that people expect in the 21st century within a taxpayer- funded system which treatment is provided to all on the basis of need, not the basis of the ability to pay. that is the question i will try to answer today but first, i want to say a word about the values of the nhs and the conservative party's belief in them. i know perfectly well that some of the changes we have made in this party over the last few years have not been easy for the party to accept. there is one change we have made where, frankly, it has been felt like pushing on a completely open door and that has been making crystal clear our wholehearted commitment to the national health service. conservatives relied on the nhs,

work in the nhs, volunteer to help the nhs and this party wants to improve the national health service for everybody. why? it doesn't have to do with ideology or philosophy or any abstract political theory. it is the simple, practical, common sense human understanding of a fantastic and precious fact of british life. at the moment you are injured, when you fall ill, the moment something happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are, wherever you are from, what ever is wrong, however much you have in the back, there's a place you can go where people will look after you and to their best to make you better. that is why we are committed to the na chest and to the principle of a health care system that is free of use and based on need and not on the ability to pay. that is just the starting point. the real debate, the real debate

which should be having in this country is how do we improve the nhs, given the enormous pressures that we're going to face. the debt crisis means we need a new approach to public spending to make sure we get more for less. in the nhs, i don't believe that will do. the pressures on health-care spending from an aging population, from medical advances, and from rising expectations are simply too great. the biggest pressure is, of course, our aging population. the fastest growing age group in britain today is those over 80 years old and older. for the first time ever, there are more pensioners in this country and children under 16. as people live longer, they're more likely to live for more of that life with at least one long term condition, such as o's disease, or alzheimer's disease. it is estimated that by 2025,

over 6 million older people will be suffering from a debilitating, long term illness. the number of people with dementia would have increased two revs 1 million. with osteoporosis, and other things, these are up from 50% from today. paradoxically, while we're living longer, we're becoming less help the many ways. obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual health problems are all on the rise, putting massive pressure on nhs resources. alcohol abuse is costing us 2.7 billion pounds per year and obesity estimated to cost 4 billion pounds per year. there are still big infectious diseases to fight and not just the sporadic scarce like the current one with swine flu. tuberculosis is an ever growing pressure on our health service.

we to think of this as a disease of the 19th century, not a threat to the 21st century. the number of cases has increased by 25% since the turn of the millennium. hiv is the fastest growing serious health problem in the u.k. with an estimated 80,000 people living with it. perhaps the most shocking rise in modern disease has been hepatitis-c. since 1997, the number of cases reported each year has almost tripled. the latest official figures show that 60,000 people in england had been infected but the department help us to miss the real figure is more like 200,000. the hepatitis-c cases nearly double that number with 400,000. while the number of patients is rising, also is the number of treatment. the medical advances today, driven by the high-tech revolution, are increasing at an exponential rate. genetics, robotics, all of these

things are being integrated into the work of the nhs. those at risk of inherited disease may now be referred for genetic diagnostics by their cheapie at a cost of 5,000 pounds a shot. patients undergoing operations may have students or tubes like internal medical scaffolding put into their airways or blood vessels with a handmade stent for the aorta costing 60,000 pounds alone. these are the technologies we already have an operation. right now, scientists are working on artificial limbs that are controlled by thought alone, breathalyzer is that can diagnose disease with just a puff, microscopic robots that will be injected into your base to perform better procedures from the inside. time intervenes with effective drugs and technologies have the potential to deliver cost savings.

overall, the cost implications of this growth in the supply of and demand for health care is clear. spending on the nhs cannot stand still. because spending still would mean taking a step backwards. that is why we made the decision to pledged real terms increases in nhs spending. that is a pledge that labour has not made. that is a fact which takes the wind out of their point-scoring sales three we are the only party to make that pledge. even so, we have to recognize something -- given the huge pressures faced by the nhs over the next decades that spending will not be enough. the gap between what we need to do and can afford to do, present an urgent need for reform. we need reform on both sides of

the help equation. we have to make the supply of health care more efficient. we must also do something about the increasing demand for health care, as well. the first set of reforms, dealing with the supply, that is all about choice and competition and i believe a focus and out comes rather than targets. the second set of things, dealing with the demand for health care, is about the public health agenda. i believe in this party that we have shown and have the credentials to achieve both the stakes. i know that reform in nhs has become something of a dirty word. that is a shame because it as an education effort number of wasted years, the labor government has started moving in some of the right direction. it would be quite wrong for me to pledge that would undo everything that labor has done

and start fresh. when labor is going in the right direction, i want us to go further and go faster. where they have got things wrong, we will call a halt and try to undo those mistakes. let me make clear what our reforms will not look like. we will not persist with these endless top-down restructurings and reorganizations that have dominated the last decade of the nhs, the endless sets of initial changes that are restructured and reform. these things have caused terrible destruction, demoralization, and waste and the people who work in nhs have had enough. we believe we can make a big improvement in nhs performance in terms of quality and efficiency within the structures that already exist. first, by extending the competition and patient choice that labor has started, by equipping patients with the commission they need to inform

their choice and exercise more control over their own health care and second, by focusing on real health outcomes. will live longer? will i feel better rather than the political process targets? the argument for competition in the nhs seems to have been won a long time ago. the implementation of competition within the nhs has been damaging unclear and very inconsistent. nhs and independent hospitals never seem to compete on equal terms. when extra capacity was needed, private providers were waved in and then pushed out, later on. such an unpredictable approach is never going to build a long- term variety of provision or bring forward a long-term investment that we really need. only a stable, transparent, and

pro-competitive framework will attract the independent sector to invest in and expand the capacity of the nhs. that means you need clear payment and commission structures which has been lacking. the proposals we have said that will give the nhs the clear legislative for more it needs to create that stable environment. by reducing political ness, it will open up the provider to supply patients accepting commercial risk that nhs prices or less and at the right quality standards. that means contract to be given to quality as well as value for money. it means a proper partnership with the independent and the voluntary sector, not a pushover like the government spirits were blocked contracts were awarded to independent treatment centers at greater expense than the equivalent cost in the nhs.

the charity which is kids is a good example of how can worker they collaborated to identify local children and young people who are on the list waiting for wheelchair's. the primary care trust offered them a base and within two years, every child that needed one, had a wheelchair. the shows that bringing in different organizations is not just about competition, it can spark collaboration and partnership, too. greater competition is vital to make it reality of what i see as the next crucial step in nhs reform and that is more choice. labor has moved down this road, right leg. their speeches show that they understand the public's demand for greater control and choice of a health care that the receipt. their actions still reveal a party that finds it hard to let go of the levers of state control. with patient in the nhsm after

12 years of a later government, experiencing too much of the old fashioned. we, in the conservative party, are clear that giving people greater control over their own lives is a good thing. we want to give people more power to choose their child's school, to hold politicians to account, to start your own business, to generate their own energy, more power over every aspect of their life. it flows through every single one of our policy documents. that should apply in health care, too. we are not expecting people to choose complicated operations from some sort of medical menu. we can create a more user- friendly nhs patients have a choice over the doctor they see and the hospital they are treated in. they should be able to check their own health records on line in the same with a check for bank accounts and decide which doctor should see those records. in all these choices, they should be guided by a general

practitioner that they have a real relationship with. why? it should be a general practitioner they choose rather than one they are stuck with. labor undermined the general practitioner relationship with their negotiation of the general practitioner contract which took responsibility for organizing care away from the general practitioners. we will restore like that was lost by giving general practitioners the responsibility to manage the entire relationship that a patient has with the nhs. either they will provide the care or they have to commission from another provider or decide on a combination of the two, with the patient general practitioners will be able to control the budgets for the care of each of their patients. instead of far of bureaucracy soaking up the funding, local doctors can ensure that money follows the patient and is bent on frontline care. that will mean the pattern apostles and delivery will depend as is the general

practitioners and patients will make. all those arguments we have that try to protect and defend the action emergency unit and the small eternity unit from the top down dreadful decisionmaking we have had, those decisions will be driven by general practitioners and patience and -- in a much better way. the human benefits are clear. the family of servers benefit ensures that during the course of your treatment, you may see many specialists but there's always one person in charge who you know by name and we trust completely. with their help, people will be empowered and formed to make the right choices about their treatment and i think that will make a big difference to the way people feel about the health care that they get. the thing that actually matters to people most when the become injured or ill is what will happen to them, whether their pay will be relieved, whether they will be able to live a normal life after the operation is over. in some cases, whether they will live or die. out comes, that is what patients

are actually focus on. that is what n ishs focus on as well. it is obvious but it is something the government seems to have lost sight of. the imposition of all those political process targets has skewed the focus of the nhs away from what matters and on to the minutia of its procedures. the consequence of this approach ranges from the harmless to the elkridge as an to the downright appalling. 3/4 of nurses say patients are readily admitted to the wrong words to meet a target. the health care commission has linked the pressure to meet targets with a rise in hospital infections. they are the key regulatory body saying that targets have led to a confections. ambulances in hospital car parks are regularly used as waiting rooms of putting them out of action. patients don't enter the ward

within four hours. a 16-year-old cancer patient died after winning over one hour for an ambulance to transfer him. three ambulances could have -- but there were tied up, waiting to hand over patients to a &e. health targets have made people more and will instead of making them better. their impact on the morale of people who work in the nhs has been significant. but try to specify how the nhs should respond, the government has a salt of the professional responsibility and the vital sense of vocation of everyone who works in our nhs. how could that be good for quality, efficiency, and patient care? the third component of our perform in the area where we will build the changes that labor has made, we want to go in the opposite direction to replace laborers process targets with actual health outcome measures.

conservatives understand that there is no one size fits all model. this is true in health as in other areas. the white whole plan would benefit the patient, causing trouble on the ward, or a pensioner when the company rather than medicine for a child covered strange bruises. the target cannot help you with those sorts of things. the millions of human dramas come to the doors of the nhs need different responses and professional initiative judgment and discretion. replacing targets without good measures does not mean caving in to the professionals and removing accountability, as some of our opponents have argued. we do not have a naive view that you can put taxpayers' money into the health service and hope for the best. our reform plan will improve accountability, not to mention it. we will replace the bureaucratic accountability of process targets with the democratic

accountability of outcome targets. instead of being obsessed with processes, we will be obsessed with the results, the health outcomes that matter to people. what are my chances of living independently if i had a stroke? how will my father survive if he gets cancer? what chances do i have a surviving from heart disease? that is what patient's care about. the care about the outcome. that is what the nhs should focus on. the end of the top down targets and the introduction of transparency, the collection of publication of help out and information, will give people the power to hold the professionals into account. the competition, the opening of public nhs to new providers will bring innovation and investment. the power of choice, the ability for people to control service they get, will lead to better quality care. these reforms will create a more user friendly and efficient nhs that meets patient

expectations and restores professional responsibility. these reforms, more competition, more choice, and a focus on health outcomes, are all about making the supply of our health care, the working of the nhs, better and more efficient. we also have look at the other side of the cost equation. we need to do what we can to reduce the events on the nhs, the demand for health care and that means a much more effective approach to public health. almost every public health indicator, britain has gone backwards in recent years. this is the sort of on told and deeply depressing story about health in britain. obesity is up. alcohol abuse is up. drug abuse is up. sexually transmitted infections is up. none of this is inevitable. they are not the necessary prices of becoming a more prosperous country. other countries do not have all of our health problems.

we are the most obese nation in europe. are teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in western europe. it is more than double the western european average. there is nothing inevitable about that. there are plans to reduce interference in the day-to-day running of the nhs and that will enable to do -- to change the part of help and to the department of public health with separate public health funding, protected to focus on preventing illness rather than just during them. that way, money for the long- term change will not be siphoned off by the short-term crisis and a short-term demand. it will be used wherever there is a need for spending on public health across government departments at national or local levels. that might mean working with the department for children on getting more kids into after- school sport. it might mean giving a local authority help in dealing with damp housing that is leading directly to battle. with a budget to treat because

of health, we can start to defy the depressing trajectory of illnesses that the government seems resigned to. i don't think that this will be enough. i think an important explanation for labor's disastrous record on public health is their philosophical attachment to top down state control. when it comes to public health today, you cannot reach for the letters of legislation and regulation. it might of work for the clean air act of 1956, a good conservative piece of legislation, but we cannot wait a magic wand and bring in the elimination of alcohol abuse act, 2009 or 2010. bureaucratic methods are increasingly ineffective today. why? because the public health problems of today are increasingly the consequence of perfectly legal decisions made by people in their own private it people choose to binge on

junk food and said on the internet rather than going for a run. i stuck my neck about this issue before in a speech in glasgow, which i expect will be always known as the "back speech." i said we have to recognize there is a choice of personal responsibility which cannot be sure. i have also spoken about how difficult it can be to make responsible choices with the make highly seductive commercial environment. what i said about chocolate are just will also go with me to the grave, but i don't regret it. many big businesses are making huge profits on the back of people's very poor health choices. the party that can make sense of this is not the party that instinctively reaches for the bureaucratic solution but the party that understands and is

utterly committed to promoting both personal responsibility and also corporate responsibility. the party that understands that its social responsibility with everyone playing their part is not state control. in britain today, it is the conservative party that is that party. i don't want to be unfair in my criticisms of labor. they do have some of the best intentions about the enhs, but the reforms have come to be in the blood. our health services crying out for the next stage of i believe we have shown that we are the next ones to bring about those changes and have earned the right to call ourselves the party of the nhs today. we believe in nhs and we believe -- unless understand the pressures they face and we have a plan to make the changes they need.

we not only that the values of the nhs, but we have a vision for the future. we're the ones were committed to the resources that the nhs needs and the only party with a plan. this is the real debate we should be having in this country. i believe the conservative commitment to the nhs, combined with conservative reform, can give us the best of both worlds, the fairness of the national health service which is unique to our country combined with equality and personal services that people are used to in other countries. that is what the conservative government will dedicate itself to delivering. thank you. [applause] thank you. we have some time for questions

and the shadow secretary of health who has a huge expertise of their nhs and has worked with all those who usethe nhs, is here today and has a microphone. if the question gets technical, he will help end to get off. >> thank you. >> mr. cameron, thank you for your speech. for nearly seven years now, we have been without any kind of children's unit in southport. we might well get a what did you did by the end of this year but under a lot of pressure. do you think a seaside resort, when services are transferred to another hospital, is the right thing to do? also, services are being transferred to other hospitals

without any consultation with the public. >> thank you. good to see you. i remember campaigning with you on this issue. i think the biggest change we can make is what i referred to in the speech -- at the moment, people feel that decisions about the provision of health services are handed down like tablets of stone from on high. i remember the debate about maternity units and emergency units. people felt that ministerial groups were making decisions. that is completely the wrong way for us to deliver our health service. the pattern of health delivery should depend on the decisions that we make and the general practitioners make with us about where we want to be treated. the way to save the community hospital that i deeply believe and are good for us. the way to save them is to have general practitioners and us to make decisions to use those units so they are successful. that is how the provision of

care like children's services should be determined rather than top-down decisions from whitehall. those of the big changes we want to make. lady here at the front. >> there is a people's couple difference between the conservatives attitude to the nhs and the labor attitude. can you sincerely believe in the nhs? >> my party has helped to build the national health service. it has been in service since after world war two. conservative governments have built hospitals, have built the nhs over many years. there's only one party that has ever cut the nhs and that was labor party in 1977. they did that because they left the country in a dreadful

financial stake are the real question for labor is this -- we have made it very clear commitment that we will increase the budget of the nhs in real terms every year by more than inflation. why cannot the labor party make the same pledge? if they think they are the party of the nhs, it is a simple question. will mr. brown pledged to real terms increases in the nhs. i have done it, will he follow the lead? >> the believe everybody in the party is behind it? >> of course. the conservative party -- who has run the campaigns? to stand up for the maternity unit, to campaign for the children services? there has been conservative candidates. we have been the ones running this and defending the nhs, xd while labor politicians have shut down community services.

let boil it down to one simple question -- as they say in jerry mcguire, show me the money, right? we have shown you of money and made an exception of the nhs. everybody knows that public spending cuts will be made it to the next election. gordon brown will not say clearly. he showed. everyone knows that will happen. even his own figures demonstrate that. we have made an exception for the nhs. we think it is special. will he do the same? it is a very simple question. >> what about a six-year mistake by one of your ministers? >> this guy is a member of the european parliament with very eccentric views. gordon brown still has people who would like to nationalize british business. he has people to mourn the death of communism and are still members of cnd. the relevant question is, show

me the money. gordon brown, follow our lead. madam -- here comes the microphone. >> i completely agree with what to say about people should take more personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. what would you propose to do as a government to encourage people to do that? >> there is no restoration of personal responsibility bill you confessed to parliament. what you have to do is in every capital of life and every decision you can make, ask yourself a simple question -- does this to encourage responsibility or does it discourage responsibility? when it comes to a -- helping families is the tax benefit helping families and helping them stay together or discourage them? welcome to repression responsibility, are we giving power to professionals to do the right thing or covering them in red tape?

it is in every single thing we do. it goes across whether we're talking about how we relate to families or relate to crime or relate to the professions. part of it is actually using what they call the bully pulpit, as they say in america. you praise responsible behavior. when you see irresponsible people marn inappropriate ways, whether it is the socialization of children or unhealthy food, you feel free to say that, too. it has landed me in hot water before i. i don't regret it for one moment. we are all parents. we are subject to these pressures. anyone who has -- when you go to

buy a newspaper, you have to run the chocolate gauntlet. everyone recognizes this point. by the time you get there, but 3-year-old and a 5-year-old have actually pulled her trousers off to get the things that you should not be buying. we should have a realistic debate, not regulated or banned any thing cannot pass a law that says you can't sell something. we're all in this together. if people make that choice, your taxes will go up. i want to cut your taxes. i want to make this most enterprise-from the country there is. i can occur after taxes if we keep on with the social breakdown and on help the choices we are making. we are all in this together. shows and corporate responsibility as we should show

personal responsibility and we will have a healthier nation which will cost less. we will have less social breakdown and can be a low-tax break -- low-tax country. that is the debate which should be having. right in the back, gentleman in the talks. tie. >> if we are going to make the health service more efficient, how will we assist in improving morale so that we do not have the horrendous figures of 14% of people taking sick leave in one year as was released yesterday? >> it is partly a morale issue because of the pressures of the nhs but it is also a management issue. the figures that can that are not acceptable. -- that came out are not acceptable people are taking a lot of time off and that is not acceptable. it is poorly morale and we will help in terms of morale by restoring a sense of

professional responsibility, getting off people's backs the peace process targets, and letting them show their vocation. we also need good management in the nhs and efficiency and the competition in choice i have been talking about will drive that up. that is an important point. one last question, the gentleman here. >> mr. cameron, i am a general practitioner and the founder of the general practitioner cooperatives. i like your statement returning responsibility to general practitioners. why understand that you would tend to return the responsibility to the collaborative medical services, administered by the local general practitioners so that our patients are always in by a general practitioner rather than somebody commercially airlifted from somewhere purely for convenience? >> it seems to me that the

gatekeeper in the and a chest -- the nhsd should be the general practitioner. let the general practitioner and patient work together to make the choices about the part you choose for the and a chess. we're not well enough informed consumers to understand that we know which treatment we need. you would have to be incredibly expert to do that are working with your general practitioner, you can ask about what choices are available and you make that choice. the money should follow the decision that you take and the general practitioner hold the budget on your behalf. it seems to be the way to cut out the bureaucracy, the middle man, and make that happen very to those who say choice and responsibility and personal choices are not working in the nhs, consider this -- when almost anyone gets ill, was the first thing we do? we plugged in swine flu or

epilepsy or dementia or what ever to find out about it. by the time we go to the doctor, we are also armed with questions and information ourselves. that is a good thing. we should encourage that. we should encourage people to be informed and empowered and to act with advice. let me bring in andrew. >> out of our general practice is literally that. is an extension of general practice. the 2004 contract went fundamentally wrong is to treat 6:30 p.m. at night to 8:30 a.m. in the morning is not the general practitioners response billy. we cannot go back to a world where each general practitioner should be available all night to their patients. general practitioners collectively should be in a position to commission that care. it will make real opportunities for greater efficiency.

they will be able to look at extended hours opening. they can have walk-in centers and the contract with the ambulance service and be able to look at those things together rather than seeing them as separate contract. they are all part of how you deal with urgent need for care that is not pay 999 emergency in the evening and weekend. >> i thank everyone for coming and to all those who organized the event today and this great debate about the nhs continue. for our part, andrew and i are off for a hospital visit. thank you very much, indeed. thank you all. [applause] calle>> british voters are exped to vote next spring. most recent polls show the conservatives leading the labor party by about 15%.

in 1959, in the heat of the cold war, soviet premier nikita khrushchev took an unprecedented two-week tour of the u.s. peter carlson recounts that trip with me to keep a khrushchev's son. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> on cspan today," she turned journal" next. later, the heritage foundation post a discussion about the future of a afghanistan. and in 30 minutes, a look at medicare part b with the former head of the health care finance administration. we will look