term now will come out, and nine out of 10 of them will be a send. they are producing more -- will reoffend. air producing more crime than they are preventing. those that have to face their victims, apologize for what they have done, cleaning up parks and streets -- it has a dramatic affect on their behavior. i want to change behavior before they become criminals of tomorrow. >> when i was young, my father ran a club for young people, and the more people who do voluntary service and give up time in the community to getting young people off the street, the better. whether it is sports or music or other activities to get people off the streets, but the one thing i'm absolutely sure -- we have got to maintain the number of police we have in this country. we have built of the police force to a time when they have

more pleased than ever before, and i want to make sure that continues with neighborhood policing accountable to you with you able to direct what happens in your own local police force, and if a police force is not performing well, let it be taken over by another police force so the job is done properly by you. i would not support those, and i am afraid the conservatives are not prepared to guarantee, but we will continue to fund the police, and spending on police will continue to rise so we have enough police on the beat for you. >> with the make of what you have heard from the other gentleman? -- what do you make of what you have heard from the other gentleman famines >> it did -- the other gentleman? >> it is all well to say, but we have about 4000 people going into our prisons on short-term sentences. they sit around. they earn an -- learn extra tricks of the trade, and they go out, and nine not a fan of these young men on short-term prison

sentences just commit more crime reaching nine out of 10 of these young men on short-term prison sentences to commit more crime. i met a man in london whose flat had been burglar -- for gold -- burglarized five times, and one was when he was at his father's funeral. unless we do something different to stop the youngsters of today from getting in trouble and becoming hardened criminals of tomorrow, this can make a difference. >> we have been working at this institution, and where people are in these institutions, they have been trained for jobs they can get if they do not reoffend, and if they do a good job. we can get three offending -- re dashoffending break down, but i come back to the central --

reoffending rates down. there is no newspaper editor who has done as much for me, because my face is smiling. i am very grateful for funding that. >> let me take on directly the question of public spending, because i think that is going to be a common feature of how we fund the services we need? i think it is important we start focusing on what we get out of the money we put in, because if we think the future is just spending more money, we are profoundly wrong. >> the future is not spending more money. the issue is, will you continue to fund the police? the answer is no from your manifesto. 5 it is insert time. >> what matters is what comes out.

-- >> it is in answer time. >> what matters is what comes out. they have five police cars, and there is money that can be saved to get the police on the front line. the metropolitan police has 400 uniformed officers in their human resources department, but our police officer should be crime fighters. >> i am slightly surprised there is any discussion going on about what money goes into public service. i read your manifestoes, and in neither of them are you coming clean. we set out very clearly not only what we will do but how we will pay for it. let me take the factor his manifesto very good my mother was a magistrate for 30 years. she sat on the bench, and she did use those short prison sentences you are talking about. when someone smashes of bus

stop, when someone repeatedly breaks the law, you have got to have that power for a short prison sentence when you have tried all other remedies >> that is why -- drive other recipes -- remedies. >> that is why you have to ask the question. we will continue to match the funding of police now. you are saying you are going to cut its. be honest, because you cannot air brush your policies even if you can air brush your posters. >> gordon brown is trying to make you believe he can protect health spending and police fending. he cannot do any of those things, because he has given this country the biggest budget deficit of any developed country in the world. >> i am going to stop it there, because i want to get more spending their, -- get more questions in. we are going to take another question, and let me remind you,

we will be able to see if the scottish and welsh the vague next thursday at 9:00. -- was debated next thursday at 9:00. our next question is from helen, who runs up of with her husband. >> i own a touch of, and people like to chat over a drink. given the recent scandals involving your parties, how are you defending to raise the credibility in the eyes of the electorate? >> i do not think any politician deserves your trust end any credibility until everybody has come clean about what has gone wrong. there have been changes to the rules, but there are still people who have not taken full responsibility for some of the

biggest abuses of the system. there are mps who have bought properties paid for by the taxpayers, and they would pocket the difference in personal profit. they got away scot-free. some got away without paying capital gains tax. actually, it is the people who made these big abuses, some of them profiting hundreds of thousands of pounds. not a single liberal democrat that i know of, but they have still not been dealt with. they have to be honest about what went wrong in the first place. >> i was sickened by what i saw. i was brought up to believe that you act honestly and fairly and responsibly, and just as the bankers were irresponsible, so, too, where members of parliament, and nobody should be standing for election who was guilty of -- guilty of the

offenses we have seen. i want to do three things to change the system. first, i want to give the right to constituents. if your mp is misbehaving, you should be have the right to recall that mp. the second is we should give the right so your issues can be raised in parliament, and that is what we propose to do, and thirdly, we have got to reform the house of commons and the house of lords. we need a new house of commons and the new house of lords. we will have a referendum to have a house of lords elected rather than hereditary or unaccountable. >> i am not surprised you talked about your love, because it was a horrendous episode -- talking about that, because it was are

redness of the serv. i know how angry i was when i heard -- because it was unacceptable. i know how angry i was, and i was determined to do my bit to clean it up, to get them to pay back the money, all of which they did before the official refused started. you know one thing they need to do? to say to the british people, we are going to cut the cost of politics. we are going to cut the cost of -- to cut the pay. we are going to cut the size of whitehall by 1/3. we're going to make better value for the money. i think that is part of the apology we need to make. >> i have to say what bothers me is when i hear the words, they sound great, but it is not just what you say. it is what you do. why is it when liberal democrats before the law that would have given all of you the right to

sackbu the mp when they are corrupt, they did not even bother to vote? why is it when we propose a deal to clean up murky politics, you blocked it and you block it? the trade union paymasters, you wanted to protect lord ashcroft in his offshore payments. when you have an opportunity to change it, you block it. i think you deserve the right to set your mps -- if sack your mps when they are corrupt. >> i agree that there has to be ia way to affect them. we needed to be properly accountable with the referendum

we will push for next year. just to cut the number of mp's -- all of us represent communities. all of us represent neighborhoods and localities which deserve neighborhood representation. i would cut the number of the house of lords by 50%. a smaller house of lords directly accountable, and please, no more hereditary. >> i want to see reform house of lords. i think they should be elected. we have had 13 years to sort out the house of lords. if you're not happy with the house of lords, why haven't you done something about it? you have had all this time, and to some in talk about the electoral reforms, changing the voting system, which you started doing weeks before the election, i think people will see that as a bit of deploy it -- of a ploy? let me talk about cutting the size of the house of commons.

who has not actually had to try and get more for less? who has not had to trim their budget, to work a bit harder? why should parliament be any different? we could quite as well get by without -- with 10% fewer. we could cut the cost for the tax payer. >> we will cut the cost by having the house of lords and make it a smaller chamber, making it accountable and a democratic. let's be honest. you voted against taking action. you do not want that to happen. you have blocked it in the last week. the key issue is will we take responsibility for a better form of politics. >> let me make one point after all nick said, because i thought there was a slight sense of holier than thou. we have all had mps with

dreadful problems. there are still three labor mps in court. when it comes to funding, yes, the conservative party has been too reliant for too long on rich individuals, and yes, the liberal democrats took 24 5 million pounds from somebody who is still a criminal on the run, and the money has not been paid back. >> before we vendee about these things, let's be clear. we were completely exonerated for that. that was years ago. i am talking about what is going on now. >> none of that is going to make any difference if we allow this rotten system to carry on where mps have jobs for life, were they only need to get 20% of votes with no questions asked. there's a direct correlation between the hundreds of labor and conservative who have these

jobs for life and the level of the views. neither of you want to clean up the system. >> i think we should raise the standard of debate. there has been awful things that have happened. we have had to take action against those who have betrayed the public trust. we have got to take action that makes a real difference in the future. i think -- >> can you clarify that? >> there is nothing to support. what i support is something i have supported all my adult political life, which is a complete picture -- complete clean-up of politics. >> the truth is nick does

support fundamental reform. we will put into a referendum next year and let the people decide -- when politics break down, we have got to have a referendum next year for a new house of commons and a new house of lords. that is the way forward. i am sorry the conservatives reject these reforms. >> let me try to find something we all agree on. i think it is time when end mp breaks the rules the constituents to be about to throw the member of parliament out of parliament without having to wait for a general election. we should be allowed to put that in place straight away. >> let me clarify. the claim is we are all agreed upon that point. >> i am all for more fundamental reform. i want an mp to be elected with more than 50% of the vote, and i

want the house of lords that is not hereditary. >> this is something i've put forward in the house of commons. people could have already had the right to sack corrupt -- corrupt for mp -- corrupt mps. you have also got to do the right thing. >> thank you so much. let me correct something i said earlier on. the scottish and welsh leaders the base -- debates are on tuesday and not others say. our next question is on education, and area where there are devolve powers in scotland, wales, and northern ireland. this is a secondary school student from north london. >> i found the system -- often

education for its own sake is sacrificed. we're over examined and under taught. what will party leaders do to improve education? >> i want to see education improve as it has done of the last few years. we need teachers with better qualifications. we need young people with the aspirations to succeed, and we need to give people the chance to start education early. that is why they have been able to go to 18. education will be part-time or full-time until the age of 18. as far as grades are concerned, i believe in the highest standards. i believe we do not -- if we do not search for the highest standards, we do not get the best pupils. we have to look of the different types of exams, but i think it is important to realize we're in a new world where we are competing with asia and america and europe, and our young people

have to have the qualifications to be able to meet the best of the world. that is what i want to achieve, and i hope we can do so. >> education is important. as well as getting good grades, we are opening young people's minds to the best things that have been written and said spher, and i think there's a dar our education system has become bureaucratic we spend 300 million pounds on education. we are not getting enough to the front line, actually following the child to the school. as someone with two children, one at the state school in london and another child to come, i am as passionate -- passionate about getting as much money into the school as possible rather than wasting it at whitehall. we have got to have good external marketing don properly at high standards.

i think that is key. let's set the schools free so we trust in the vocation of the teachers to do what they want. they are there because they have a vocation they care about. >> i think everyone will recognize what you are talking about, the feeling you have to jump through hoops. i think our national curriculum is 600 pages. the curriculum in sweden, which has a good education system, is 16 pages. i just read that head teachers by e-mail over the last year have received 4000 pages of instructions from on high from whitehall. this is crazy. we have got to let head teachers teach. we after we instill a sense of enthusiasm and creativity into the way you are -- we have to instill a sense of enthusiasm and creativity into the way we are taught. we have to start and education act that literally bands government from micromanaging

with every single test in the country. that is what i want to see, and i think it will make a big difference. >> every school has to be a good school. we have to insist on higher standards for every school. 1600 underperforming secondary schools in 1997, down to 250, next year down to zero, as a result of the taxes we are allowing to -- allowing the academies to take over. that is the way forward, to insist on the higher standards, to make sure an underperforming school is taken over, to make sure we invest enough to make sure our children are properly taught, and what i am worried about is in the difficult times, we have to cut our budget at this point in time. i think that would put our children at risk for the future, and it is important we continue to invest in education of every child in the country. >> this comes to what i care

about most for my own children. i want what every parent in this country wants. it starts with something that does not necessarily cost money, and that is discipline in our schools. in a typical year, you get 17,000 teachers attacked by students. we have a real problem. there was a case in manchester when a child produced a knife, got excluded, and they put the child back into school. imagine what that does for the head teacher who is trying to keep order. we think head teacher should be able to exclude people and not be overruled. we have to change the rules so teachers can keep order and power. we seem to be treating the teachers like children and children like adults. we have it topsy-turvy, and we really need to change that. if we have proper order, people can learn. >> i think creativity is the

goal. i am not allowed to ask you questions. i think freedom for head teachers for a good one thing i think would really help all of those things -- discipline, freedom for teachers, is quite simply old-fashioned smaller classrooms. we have 8000 infants in the country between the ages of 5 end 7, who are in classes so big they are illegal. if you are a teacher, they cannot keep an eye on the troublemakers, and that is why we have a plan to provide schools with an additional resources so they can bring down the average class sizes and the average class size in the secondary school down to 16. >> we must not confuse what goes in in terms of money does not come out, and i spoke about the

fact that we spend 300 million pounds on education quangos. a lot of teachers college the department of furnishing because it is so well done up. they are actually putting in a contemplation sweet and the massage parlor. i want every penny to go with the child into the schools of the teacher can actually provide great education for our children. we have a lot of waste fed needs to be cut. >> we cannot evade this question. if we are going to have the best education, we need the teachers and teaching assistant. if you cut money out of the education budget now, you will be cutting the number of teachers and teaching assistants that we say is so important that while we but -- cut the deficit, we will maintain the money per

pupil. i think we need an answer this evening. it is the risk in our health service. now it is the risk in education. >> what gordon brown is not telling you is that he is putting up national insurance contributions on every single job since 2011. the biggest cost schools have is teachers, so he is going to be taking money out of every single school in the country. we say, stop the waste in government now so we can stop the lion's share of that national security increase next year. that is the best way to make sure we keep money going into schools. >> you are going to take 1 billion at least out of the schools this year. you have to take 6 billion out of the system other than health and defense. where does that come from? it can only end up with the loss of thousands of jobs, including

teachers. why would you support us on education spending? >> i think people can hear that is a complete invention of a figure plucked out of the air. we are saying the government could save 1 pound of every 100 spent. what small business, what family has not had to do that during this difficult recession? >> mr. clegg? >> the more they attack each other, the more they sound exactly the same. let's go back to the question. joel is asking why are we being tested so much, and how can all people feel they are getting the best education? i come back to the need to combine more freedom for head teachers. -- secondly, smaller class sizes saturday morning classes,

evening classes, so you can help those children in particular who perhaps are not being supported at home as much as everyone else. i know from my son's to go to a state-funded school in my area, if the whole class comes together, that enriches all children. i think what goes wrong is when classes get so big they actually fall apart. >> we have got to be clear about this. i, too, run freedom for schools, and that is why when schools fail, they will be taken over by an academy, usually a local. i want the best discipline as well, anion tough about what had teachers have to do to insure the discipline, but we have to face up to the fact of spending. >> gordon brown mentioned spending. i only think we are going to get those class sizes -- unless we

find money from savings elsewhere, we can provide 2.5 billion pounds to our schools. >> i am going to stop you right there, because i know what the questions are, and you do not, and the next question continues that debate. your answers matter, but i think you may find the next question will continue that discussion. it is the senior manager of health-care. >> how certain can you be that your party's policies will deal with the budget deficit since without damaging economic growth emma -- economic growth? >> this is a vital question. we have got to get this economy growing, and what we say is, save 6 billion pounds in the current year in order to stop the jobs tax, which we think

will derail the recovery. if you put a tax on jobs, i think it is a recovery killer and an economy killer. 100 of the leading business people, people who run companies, have all said that the threat to recovery is not having that waste, but the threat to recovery is the proposal for a jobs tax, so i think we have to remove this dark cloud of a deficit over our economy, and it makes sense. make a start this year to avoid the tax next year, and then we can go forward with further plans to remove our deficit and debt. it is going to hold our country back if we are not careful. >> i think we need to be open, and we have specified -- the only party in politics now --

looked at the manifesto. here are the figures. this is the way we will find cuts in savings of 16 billion pounds. how will we do that? remove tax credits for the top 20% of recipients of tax credits. i would love to give everybody 250 pounds, but i do not think we can afford it right now. putting a cap of 400 pounds on any pay increases in the public sector for the next two years. also, am i the only leader saying very clearly, i do not think we can justify the replacement of the cold war nuclear missile system over the next 25 years. it will cost 100 billion pounds. we cannot afford it. .

>> let me take on, robert, this argument directly, the idea that if you cut waste this year, you endanger the recovery. just this week, we've seen two i think pretty hideous waste stories. the first is that civil servants have been given credit cards funded by the tax-payer to go out and spend that on food, wine and other things, and that's cost 1 billion pounds.

the second story was that managers in the national health service, many of whom are paid over 250,000 pounds, have had a 7% pay rise. are we honestly saying that if you didn't have that sort of waste, that sort of excess, that our economy would collapse? i think it's nonsense. it's like saying that giving up smoking is somehow going to be bad for your health. giving up waste would be good for our economy, and it would mean that we could stop this tax rise that's coming down the track, that britain's biggest business leaders all say will cost jobs. cut the waste, stop the tax. that's the right answer. >> these two constantly argue about waste as if we can create --or we can fill the black hole in public finances by saving money on paper clips and pot plants in whitehall. of course we can get rid of a bit of waste. but that isn't the big -- that doesn't really address the big questions we need to ask ourselves. i think we need to be clear with you, open with you, straight with you. we've tried to do that. we've set out 15 billion pounds

worth of savings. i've listed some of them. we have one specific tax that we want to introduce to help fill the black hole. we would impose a 10% tax on the profits of the banks, these banks who have got us into the trouble in the first place. i think they should pay you back because you, the taxpayer, have bailed them out, and use that money to deal with the black hole in the finances. let's not get obsessed about mythical savings and waste, which is the oldest trick in the book, to pretend that you can square a circle like that. or get obsessed about when you deliver these cuts. the crucial thing is, are we going to be open with people, with you, about how we're going to save money in the long-term? >> just think how difficult it is to save 50,000, 100,000, 200,000, a million, and then think of 6,000 million to be saved in the next nine months before the end of the financial year. i fear for our economy if that happens. the only way we've kept our economy moving forward is not because there's been private investment or bank lending, it's because the government has had to step in to make sure there is sufficient growth.

we've prevented unemployment going to the levels of america and europe. i say you've got to keep that support now. every other european country, america, agrees with that. only the conservative party is against keeping that support in the economy now. now, of course we've got to deal with waste, but if you take the waste out, you put more money into the economy to make sure the economy can continue to grow. it's the only way we can save jobs and businesses in this country now. i say to the whole audience here and to the nation -- it is important at this moment to take no risk with the recovery. once again, the conservatives are showing they are a risk to the recovery in this country. >> nick clegg. >> we all know we've got this great black hole in our public finances. that's obvious. we all know we're going to have to save money; we all know we're going to have to make cuts. the question at this election is who is trying to be straight with you about the scale of those cuts, how long they'll take? as it happens, this is one area where i would like for once to

see politicians put people before politics. what i'm suggesting -- i don't know whether gordon brown and david cameron will take up this invitation -- is that regardless of the outcome of the general election, that we get the chancellor and the shadow chancellors together, the governor of the bank of england, the head of the financial services authority, to come clean with you about how big this structural deficit is. it's estimated to be somewhere around 70 billion pounds. and straight with you, finally, about how long it is going to take to fill that. >> david cameron. >> there's no doubt the country's going to have to come together to deal with this really big problem of the deficit. for every four pounds that we spend right now, the government is borrowing one of those pounds. nick keeps saying he's being very straight with you. in his manifesto is a promise for a 17 billion pound tax cut. it is a great idea. i'd love to do it but we don't have 17 billion pounds for a tax cut. gordon is saying -- >> nick clegg on that specific point. >> we've spelt out exactly where that money would come from. we would, for instance, stop this grotesque spectacle of this unfair tax system which has been built up under a succession

of labour and conservative governments, where right now, a greedy banker in the city of london pays a lower rate of tax on their capital gains than their cleaner does on their wages. we have a tax system -- >> gordon brown. gordon brown. >> back to the question robert put, that the pct, the health authority, was finding it very difficult because of the situation at the moment. take thousands of millions out of the economy now, take 6 billion pounds out of the economy now, and think of the risk to jobs and businesses. i say to the conservatives, of course we want efficiency savings and of course we want to deal with waste, but we cannot afford to see private investment so small and then public investment cut at this time and lots of jobs put at risk. >> david cameron. >> please tell us you won't do that. >> 6 billion pounds is one out of every 100 pounds the government spends. what small business in this recession, what big business hasn't had to make that sort of decision? many people are making a much bigger decision. turn it round the other way and think about it like this. gordon is effectively saying, "i want to go on wasting money

now so i put up your taxes later." why should we pay our taxes for government waste? >> we've got a responsibility for the overall growth rate of the economy. we've got to get this economy moving forward. you can't do it with private investment alone. the government has got to play its role. now, next year, we'll make these bigger savings and of course we're going to pay for health and for education, and for policing by what we do on national insurance. but this year, don't pull the money out of the economy, don't put good people's jobs and their businesses at risk now. >> but why do you think it is, i would say, that a hundred of the leading business people in this country, people who run some of the biggest businesses like corus, like logica, like mothercare, why do they say, and they couldn't be more clear, the risk to the economy isn't cutting waste, the risk to the economy is labour's proposal of a jobs tax. >> gordon brown on that specific point. >> the risk to the economy is this year, and every country -- america, the rest of europe, including britain -- is saying,

we've got to make sure we invest in the economy this year so that we can have the growth we need. now, pull out the money, and you've proposed it at every point during this recession, pull out the money and you'll have less growth, you'll have less jobs, and you'll have less businesses. that's the fear. we've got to take an overall responsibility for the whole economy. >> all i would say is this argument i think just doesn't address the fundamental issue. there are going to be big things over the next few years, and neither will come clean on this with you, that we simply can't afford to do. trident, i don't think we can afford it. a tax on banks i think is now unavoidable. tax credits. we need to look at public sector pensions. these are big decisions we need to take. >> david cameron? >> i would like us for once to get politicians together -- >> yeah. i've got the agenda, mr. clegg. mr. cameron's response. >> i just want to make this -- i think people at home watching will find it extraordinary that gordon brown is really saying, you've got to go on wasting money to keep the economy going. why not cut the waste and stop the tax rise? it can't be in -- how is a 7% pay rise for nhs

managers essential for economic growth? >> i'm going to have to park it there -- >> we made 35 billion of -- >> no, i'm going to stop you because we had some of this in the previous question and i've still got more questions that i really want to take. a lot of information there for people to reflect on. i do want to move it on. our next questioner comes from an army family and himself has served in the territorial army. nick brimson, your question. >> good evening, guys. british troops seem to be dying unnecessarily and far too frequently. in my opinion, they are under- equipped and massively underpaid. what assurances can you give the armed forces that things will improve? >> mr. clegg? >> you're right, nick. they are under-equipped and they are underpaid. i think there's something seriously wrong when you've got 8,000 bureaucrats in the ministry of defense who work on communications. when we have too many top brass in some of the services -- there are, i think, two admirals for every warship.

we have 17 brigadiers for every brigade. and we also, of course, have this consensus from the conservative and labour parties that we should spend 100 million pounds renewing the cold war nuclear trident missile system. i say if we change our priorities, we can provide our brave servicemen and servicewomen, who do the most astonishing job in the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances, we can give them proper pay. i think it's a scandal that someone who starts in the army on a junior rank now gets paid 6,000 pounds less than someone starting as a firefighter or in the police service. i want them to have the same pay, and i also want them to have proper body amour, proper helicopters, proper vehicles. you can only do that if you cut out spending elsewhere which isn't being well spent. >> let me say, first of all, my pride and my admiration for the armed forces, and our questioner who was in the territorial army, all those who serve our nation, and particularly at this time when we're at war in afghanistan, we've got to remember and we've

got to do our best not just by the armed forces but by their families. and let us remember all those who lost their lives in afghanistan. the important thing is that we're doing the right thing by our troops. and that's why we've increased the spending on equipment dramatically over these last few years. a thousand new vehicles, new helicopters brought into afghanistan. we used to spend 600 million pounds on afghanistan three or four years ago. it is now 5,000 million this year. now, this -- every time, you know, i've got to write to a family where someone's died, i've got to consider all these issues. i would not send our troops into battle unless i was absolutely sure that they were properly equipped for what they're doing. >> sorry, i couldn't see nick in the audience. can you put your hand up? oh, sorry, you're behind the -- same problem, behind the camera. first of all, can i thank you for what you do, and i join with gordon in paying tribute to our forces.

i've been to afghanistan in each of the last four years, and just the bravery and the incredible courage and determination of what those men and women do just humbles you every time you see it. they're not just brave fighters, they are brilliant diplomats in dealing with difficult situations, they're incredible athletes, they are brilliant, brilliant people. but i don't think we do do enough for them. i know that steps are being taken to try and improve the situation. but, frankly, we shouldn't be in the situation we are. in the last few months, we had to fight a battle in parliament to stop the government cutting the training for the territorial army. i think it's madness when you've got soldiers deployed overseas actually not to invest in your territorial army, because they're a very, very important part of our armed services. >> i think it's also what kind of equipment we provide. i was in a factory in my own city where i'm an mp in sheffield just a few weeks ago. there was a great british company there, a manufacturing company, that produces great metal braces with these huge

rollers, which apparently are sold to the american army. they attach them onto their vehicles, and when the rollers move over mines, the mines blow up, but of course, they destroy the rollers and not the soldiers. the american army says that those rollers, designed, manufactured by a great british business in sheffield, have saved 140 lives. why is it they're not being used by the british army? apparently they don't somehow fit on to the vehicles that our soldiers use. so i think it's not only that we've got to make sure that we don't waste money on bureaucrats in the ministry of defense and all the rest of it, and instead spend that on equipment for our brave servicemen and servicewomen, we should also use the knowhow and the manufacturing brilliance expertise in this country to provide our brave soldiers with the equipment which saves lives on the front line. >> every urgent operational requirement that our armed forces have asked us for has been met. i've got two big questions i've got to answer to the british people for -- why are we in

afghanistan? we're in afghanistan because there is a terror threat and a chain of terror that comes from the afghan-pakistan border to our country, and three-quarters of the terrorist plots that we identify start not in britain, start not in europe, but start in that border area. the second question i've got to answer is how we can get our troops home. because that is what we all want to see at the end of the day. we've got to build up the afghan army, build up the police force in afghanistan. our brave troops are helping to train the afghan army and police at the moment, and that's how we will gradually see the numbers of afghan forces rise and our troops come down in number so that our troops can come home. as we do that, we've got to ensure that pay continues to rise for our troops, and those people who leave the forces have got to get proper protection -- homes, health service and of course, the chance of jobs. >> we all want to see those things happen, and i think it's an absolutely vital year we're having in afghanistan. and you can see, i hope,

progress being made but difficult, difficult times lie ahead. there is something more fundamental we need to do in order to answer your question properly. that is we've got to have a fundamental defense review of all that we spend and all that we do and all the equipment that we have. because if you think about it, over the last decade, since we last did this, we have had 9/11, we have had 7/7 in our own country, we have had the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and yet we fundamentally haven't asked again, what should be the shape of our army, our navy, our air force? how can we best defend our country? how can we best protect our servicemen and women? we need urgently to do that. we make sure if we get involved in these conflicts in the future, we don't have the situation where we have had troops on the ground without enough helicopters. we all know that happened after 2006 and it really wasn't good enough. >> no, what happened after 2006 is that the taliban changed its tactics. before they were in a one-to-one confrontation with us face-to- face.

they couldn't win that armed battle, so they took to explosive devices, guerrilla warfare. and we had to respond to that as all our allies had to do. we have 1,000 new vehicles in afghanistan as a result of the decisions to get mastiffs and ridgebacks and other vehicles into the frontline. and we've also got more helicopters as a result of what we've done. >> i actually agree, strongly agree, and it's something i've been calling for for years, that we should have a complete review about whether our military equipment is right for the job that we are asking our brave soldiers and brave servicemen and women to do. because of course the world is changing and the threats to this country are changing with it. what i simply don't understand is if we hold that review, as i think is going to be likely after the general election, whoever wins that election, both david cameron and gordon brown want to rule out one of the biggest items of defense expenditure of all, which is the trident nuclear missile system. this was a system that was designed at the height of the cold war to flatten st petersburg and moscow. is it really that important?

>> let me bring david cameron in on that point. >> let me answer that directly because i think it's important. i think the most important duty of any government, anyone who wants to be prime minister of this country, is to protect and defend our united kingdom. and are we really happy to say that we'd give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don't know what is going to happen with iran, we can't be certain of the future in china, we don't know exactly what our world will look like? i say we should always have the ultimate protection of our independent nuclear deterrent. that's why we voted to make sure that happened. >> gordon brown. >> i've got to deal negotiations over iran, and we've got the problem over north korea. if countries unilaterally decide to have nuclear weapons and break the non-proliferation treaty, then we need multi- lateral action with all of us working together. we are nuclear weapon states. we can make a huge difference in the reduction of nuclear weapons overall, if we can persuade countries not to have nuclear weapons in the first place or force them not to have them, if we can then have a reduction in nuclear weapons all round. but i don't favor nick's

proposal which would unilaterally abandon our nuclear deterrent when we know iran and north korea and other countries are trying to get -- >> all i'm saying is, i don't think we should kid people into thinking we can either justify or afford 100 billion pounds over 25 years on a nuclear war system --missile system, which was designed explicitly to flatten st petersburg and moscow at the press of a button. i think the world has moved on and i think you two need to move with it. we're not in the cold war any more, and we shouldn't be spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on a cold war missile system when, as nick said in his original question, we have people on the frontline of afghanistan without the right equipment and without the right protection. it's a question of priorities. >> mr. cameron, on that context of priorities, a little more clarification. i'd like to put it to the three of you that we've dealt with that nuclear question. more on priorities, as the questioner put it. >> we need the defense review, so we can get everything required for the frontline. i just want to go back to what i think gordon didn't really tell you, which is, after we

deployed in afghanistan at the end of 2005, for several years, i went each year, and each year, you didn't have to talk to many of our servicemen and women before they told you they simply they didn't have enough helicopters. to blame it on taliban tactics, i think, frankly, is misleading. we didn't have enough helicopters. we needed more helicopters. we should have had helicopters. if the government hadn't cut the helicopter program back in 2004, we probably would have had more helicopters. >> this is not correct. the taliban changed their tactics. we brought in helicopters from iraq. we had to reprocess them because they were not suitable for the terrain in afghanistan. we've got chinooks in, we've got merlins in, we've got lynx in, all the helicopters we need have been put into afghanistan. i would say with the chief of defense staff, who said himself we are the best equipped armed forces in our history as a result of the action we've taken. i'm not complacent. i want to do more, but we put the helicopters in, we put the vehicles in, and we're giving our troops the equipment they need.

i'm very proud of our troops. >> thank you very much indeed. again, i'm going to draw the line at that point, but thank you all very much indeed. we're going to move on to take another question now. again, viewers in northern ireland will be able to see a debate between the leaders of the ulster unionist party, the democratic unionists, sinn fein and the sdlp next thursday at 9 o'clock on utv. our next question is on health, an area covered by devolution settlements in scotland and wales and northern ireland. to put it, we have sindhu navel, who's been a hospital nurse for 12 years. >> my question is, what are the parties' visions for the future of healthcare in britain? in particular, how would they address the cost pressures arising from an ageing population and more expensive new treatments? >> thank you very much indeed. mr. brown? >> to help people live at home, to give them the urgent care needs they have and see them met, for example, by home helps

and health visitors, so that people who want to stay at home don't have to go into institutional care. we've seen a revolution. large numbers of people are living longer, which is a great thing, but people need help in their homes so that they don't have to go into nursing homes or old people's homes. my priorities for the health service are that we give people personal guarantees that every individual patient will know they will get a cancer specialist seen within two weeks if need it. they'll get a diagnostic test within one week, and the results to them. they will also be able to know that their operation will be in 18 weeks if you're any patient in need of an operation. you'll be able to see a gp in the evenings and weekends, something which wasn't happening. you'll be able to get a free health check-up on the national health service. i want people to know that public services are personal to people's needs, and that's why we need to give these guarantees to individual patients, and that's what we're going to do from now on. >> first of all, can i thank you for your incredible service to the nhs. i think the nhs is a wonderful,

wonderful thing. what it did for my family and for my son, i will never forget. i went from hospital to hospital, a&es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards in different places. the dedication, and the vocation and the love you get from people who work in the nhs just, i think, makes me incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've done. i think it is special, the nhs, and we made a special exception of the nhs and said yes, there are going to have to be difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the nhs budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every year under a conservative government. my vision is that we improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got more choice and more control for the patient. but we need to do some short- term things too, like make cancer drugs available to people to people who need them. there are some tragic cases now of people not getting what they need. >> of course, the easy thing is to say how much we all love and

depend and rely on the nhs. the difficult question, which i think is the one you're addressing, is, how do we protect the nhs which we all rely on, maternity services, a&e departments, gp services and so on, when money is tight? i think it's a bit like the earlier discussion about equipment for the army. the priorities at the moment are all wrong. the last year under this government, they've employed 5,000 more managers in the nhs, yet the maternity ward in the nhs hospital where my third son was born just over a year ago is threatened with closure. this government spent 12 billion pounds on a computer testimony in the nhs which doesn't work, yet i was in burnley the other day, i think jacqueline was saying you come from burnley. as you know, they've closed the a&e department there. i think you now have to travel 25 miles to blackburn. what is going on? we're closing a&e departments and maternity wards and wasting money on computer systems and bureaucracy. i want to turn that on its head so we can protect the nhs we all rely on.

>> i've got to say that my equipment to the nhs is that we will give people these personal guarantees -- the main source of employment in the nhs is more nurses. we've got 80,000 to 90,000 more nurses across the united kingdom. we've got 30,000 more doctors. we've got the best equipment now in some of our hospitals. remember the situation before 1997, when people had to wait two years for operations? it's now a maximum of 18 weeks. yes, it is our priority that we will support the frontline services, health, the national health service, education and policing. these are the frontline services that people depend on. we will make sure that that finance is there. david says he will support the national health service, which assumes he will not give the same guarantees to education and policing as i asked him earlier this evening. the main point to recognize is this -- david will not give you the guarantee that you'll see a cancer specialist in two weeks, or the guarantee that you'll have a gp in the evenings and weekends.

these are personal guarantees written into the nhs constitution that we will give. >> the point is that today, actually, the number of nurses is going up -- the number of managers is going up five times faster than the number of nurses in our nhs. the government has had 13 years to fix these problems, and it hasn't done. gordon brown talks about cancer, but what he's not telling you is that there are people in our country, there was a case the other day of someone who had to sell their home to get the cancer drugs. and the prime minister, the government, is about to hit the nhs, britain's biggest employer, with this national insurance rise. it's going to take 200 million pounds out of our national health service. we say stop that national insurance rise, and instead spend the money on a cancer drugs fund, so people can get the drugs they need. talk about guarantees, but the fact is for some people, waiting two weeks to see a consultant is too long. we need a faster, choice-driven system, but the drugs have got to be there when you need them. they're not always right now.

>> this is a phony debate. this is pretending that somehow there are billions and squillions of pounds around that we can continue to pour into our nhs. every man, woman and child in this country spends 2,000 pounds on the nhs through our tax system. i want to judge the nhs about how it helps me and my family when we're ill, sick and in need of nhs care, not just by numbers plucked out of thin air. david cameron, you simply cannot seriously suggest that we should believe that you can cut the deficit immediately as you want, then have a whole blizzard of tax breaks, including a great big tax break for double millionaires in the inheritance tax system, and provide huge lashings of extra money to the public services. you might be able to do one of those things. you can't do all three. i want to say to people, let's be straight with you. we have to find savings in the nhs. i want to see strategic health authorities, which is a layer of bureaucracy, stripped away altogether and use that money on the frontline nhs services which are so important to us.

>> the point is, we have made a special exception for the nhs for exactly the reason that mrs. neville gives, which is that there are more older people. there are more expensive treatments. there are drugs budgets that are going up, and we say you need that extra money to even keep going with the nhs. that's why we make the exception of the nhs and say that's the budget that has to go up. what gordon brown is not telling you about the situation with cancer, cancer drugs and cancer outcomes is, after all the things he's talked about, all the money that's gone in, our death rate from cancer is actually worse than bulgaria's. so all that's happened has not actually improved the outcome, which is what matters. >> gordon brown? >> if people get early detection, and that means screening, i had a lady write to me who said that she would not be alive today if we hadn't introduced screening and we hadn't given the chance to see a specialist in two weeks. what david is not telling you is that while we're using the national insurance to pay for health, policing and schools,

he won't give the guarantee on policing in schools -- >> mr. brown, thank you. mr. cameron? >> the national insurance increase which gordon brown has said is definitely coming in, that will take 200 million pounds out of the nhs. he's not replacing that money, so he would have less to spend on cancer drugs. i have a man in my constituency called clive stone who had kidney cancer who came to see me with seven others. tragically, two of them have died because they couldn't get the drug sutent that they wanted, that was on the market, that people knew was a good drug. that's a scandal in our country today. so stop the national insurance rise, use that money for the cancer drugs and help people, so our outcomes can be amongst the best in europe rather than sadly amongst some of the worst. >> all i would appeal for is just a bit of honesty in this debate. people know that money is tight. people know that you can't promise something for nothing. you can't say you're going to fill the deficit tomorrow and you're going to give lots and lots of tax breaks to people,

inheritance tax breaks for double millionaires, tax breaks for one in three hand-picked married couples, and also extra, extra money to the nhs without explaining how you're going to do it. >> mr. cameron? >> i say again there's something wrong -- >> mr. cameron? thank you, mr. clegg. >> nick clegg is promising a 17 billion pound tax cut. we're saying, stop the waste of 6 billion pound to stop the national insurance rise. i would love to take everyone out of their first 10,000 pounds of income tax, nick. it's a beautiful idea, a lovely idea. we cannot afford it. >> shall i tell you how we pay for it? >> please do! mr. clegg? >> i'll tell you how we pay for it. we would, for instance, stop the huge unfair loopholes that only benefit the very wealthy at the top of the tax system. at the moment, the top 10% of earners in this country get twice as much tax subsidy from all the rest of you when they make contributions to their pension pot than everybody else. we say give everybody tax relief on their pension contributions but make sure they're the same. and use that money -- >> gordon brown.

>> so no one pays any income tax on the first 10,000 pounds they earn. >> thank you. mr. brown. >> where nick and i are agreed is that to give an inheritance tax cut to the 3,000 richest estates in the country, of 200,000 pounds each, the biggest manifesto promise that the conservatives made, is totally unfair to the rest of the population of this country. i say to him, we will use the national insurance to pay for health care, to pay for policing, and to pay for schools. he will not be able to do that, and he's got to tell us the truth about how he will pay for his policies. >> i'm going to stop you. i'm going to stop you there, partly because of time, also because, thank you, mr. brown, people have heard that particular exchange as well. i have time to get one more question in. that's why i interrupted at that point. i'm grateful for you accepting it. now, in what will be, as i've just told them, our final question of this evening, it's also a policy area that's devolved in scotland, wales and northern ireland. alan shaw is a train driver from accrington. your question, sir. >> thank you, alastair. gentlemen. when are each individual party going to introduce a fairer system to care for the elderly

when it is required, especially those who have worked and contributed towards the country's economy, without the need for them to sell and dispose of their assets? and what are your policies? >> thank you, alan, for asking this question. i think it's an absolutely vital question. i think it's so unfair that today you can have people who have worked hard all their lives, they've saved, they've paid down the mortgage, they've done all the right things, and yet if they go into residential care, they have to spend every penny of that money. and maybe the neighbor who didn't work hard, didn't save, and went about things in a different way, they get the whole thing paid for for free. i think that's just not fair. so we have -- as we know, there is a huge budget deficit, a great big hole left by gordon brown, so we can't make all care free, i don't think we can afford that. what we can do is say to people, if you put aside 8,000 pounds on turning 65, we can guarantee that you won't have to pay for residential care. that would remove the need to sell your home to pay for care.

it would mean you could pass your home on to your children rather than have to pay for your care bills. it doesn't solve the whole problem, but i think it'd be a good start, a fair start, in rewarding the people who have done the right thing. >> i think, alan, this is one of those rare issues where the issue is so big, and the costs are potentially so great, and it affects every family, it affects every individual, that i think this is one of those issues where i would say, it is worth the politicians setting aside their political differences for once and trying to come up with a solution everybody can agree with. we've all got different ideas. we have ideas, proposals, that there's a contribution from the individual and the state. david cameron's ideas, which helps some but doesn't help people in their home. gordon brown has some ideas which help some of the most needy, but not others. why don't we for once, given this is something which i think is bigger than any other party, actually work together? there are some things, however, that i think we can do immediately. i, for instance, would like to use the money that the government has allocated for its latest, i think slightly flawed, proposals, to give respite care to the carers who

look after loved ones, those who looked after loved ones for the greatest amount of time, give them respite for at least a week every year. that's something we can do now. let's come up with a longer term proposal together. >> elderly people should not have to choose between the home they own and the care they need. we have to devise a better system for the future. that's why the first stage of it is urgent-needs care. so you can stay in your own home, you don't have to go into a nursing home, you get the support you need to stay in your own home free of charge. we're introducing that from april next year. the second stage in the next parliament is to say to people, if you're in an old people's home and you're in that home for more than two years, it will be free for personal and medical care from then onwards. that will take away the worry and anxiety people feel that their own home will have to be sold to meet the costs of residential care. the third stage will be to move to a more comprehensive system where people can be guaranteed that their needs will be met in

the long run. i agree with nick, we want consensus on this, we want to proceed in a way that every party, that every part of the country is with us. that's why we are consulting the social care groups, setting up a new commission to look at the finding for the future after the next parliament, but we're committed to urgent needs being met now. >> it isn't a small problem about people having to sell their homes to pay for care. i believe it's 45,000 families every year who have to do that. as i say, i think there's a deep unfairness in the system. >> look, all of us, when we get older, want to spend as long as possible at home before going into residential care. anything we can do to help people adapt their homes and live in their homes, and also to help the carers, if carers stopped caring in britain, whether for disabled children or elderly people, if they packed up and gave up, that would cost us 50 billion pounds as well as the hurt and pain it would cause. so giving carers clearer rights and saying if you care for someone, you should get a break. the thing every carer says to

me more than anything else is, "give me a break every now and again, and i can go on doing what i do". i hope as we try and seek some consensus, let's put the carer absolutely up front and center. they're britain's unsung heroes. >> of course, i agree with that. there are about a million carers in this country who care, i think, for 50 hours or more for their loved ones, for members of their family who need care. they are the unsung army of heroines and heroes that keep our society together. they desperately need time for themselves, time to go on holiday. under our plans, what we could do immediately is give those million carers who care for the greatest length of time at least a week off -- at least a week off -- just to have a breather, spend some time on their own, visit friends, go on holiday, have some time to themselves again. but as i say, i think we've all got some ideas, but i don't

think any of us -- and you don't hear this from politicians very much -- i don't think any of us, if we're really honest with you, have got the perfect solution. that's why i think this is so important. let's for once put people before politics and come up with a solution that works for you and your family in the long run. >> we have tried to do something about respite care. there are six million carers in this country. i've met many of them and talked to them about their needs. one need is respite, so that they can have a break, as nick said. we're introducing, and have actually made provision, for more measures for respite care. but the questioner was asking about, also, how he could be sure that he could be less worried about having to go into an old people's home, or what would happen if he got ill later on in his life. that's why the urgent-needs measure we're introducing from april next year is so important. it means that you can stay in your own home, have the help that is available, the equipment, but also the home helps and the health visitors, and at the moment, it is being means-tested. now, in future, it will be free of charge. >> i think one of the biggest

things we must do is, i think it's right to try and forge a consensus, because this is a long-term issue we must deal with, is to try and give the carer and those they care for more power and control and influence over their lives. form an individual budget for each one. make sure that if they want to, they can take that as a direct payment, they can make decisions about the sort of respite they need. we tried to do this with my son, and when you try and get a direct payment system so you're in charge of the money and you can try and get some help, it's unbelievably complicated. you've got so set up a separate bank account, you've got to read about four lever-arch files. i found it testing enough. what someone who's recently had to start caring, who's under huge pressure, maybe getting ill of what they're doing, to try and get direct payments, let's make it easier. we ought to be trusting people to do this. >> i think the key is, of course, urgent-needs payments for people so that they are sure they can stay in their own home. i agree that we need to do more

for carers. i want carers to be able to manage their own budgets as well, and that's something we're really working on for the future as well. but we've got to find a solution to this big problem. the big problem is, people don't want to have to make the choice between owning their home and getting the care they need. that's why in the next parliament, it's important to try with the commission to reach a consensus on what the funding will be for the future. >> i think everybody will be surprised that the last question of the evening should actually have flowed into so much consensus. i think it is one of those issues, a bit like public sector pensions. i also think the scale of the public sector deficit is one of those issues where i think if we could introduce a new kind of politics in this country, not the old style of politics, we could actually come up with a solution that everybody could agree to, because i think you and your family would benefit from it so much. >> gentlemen, it will disappoint you and many people, but we've come to the end of our debating time. if i can just explain to you, while you mull over what you've

heard already, what happens now is that each of them will have one and a half minutes to make their closing statement. the evening began with an opener. you've heard lots of cut-and- thrust about a number of issues, but now each of them has one and a half minutes to attempt to persuade you of their overall position. mr. clegg, you first. >> well, thanks for starters, for sticking with us for a full 90 minutes. what i've tried to show you this evening is that there is an alternative to the two old parties. i know many of you think that all politicians are just the same. i hope i've tried to show you that that just isn't true. whether it is on the questions from alan on care, jacqueline on crime, helen on politics, joel on schooling, robert on the deficit, i believe we can answer all of those questions. i believe we can rise to all of those challenges if we say no to the old parties and yes to something new and something different.

that's what i offer and that's what the liberal democrats offer. so don't let them tell you that the only choice is between two old parties who have been playing pass the parcel with your government for 65 years now -- making the same promises, breaking the same promises. making the same old mistakes over and over again. i think, despite all the challenges, all the problems we have, i think we can be really hopeful about the future. i genuinely believe we can have a better fairer country if we do things differently. so give real change a chance. trust your instincts. support fairness. choose something different. and that will give you and your family a better, fairer life. thank you. >> you know it's been a great opportunity to exchange ideas this evening. i know we're not up against the x factor or britain's got talent and i hope people have been able to stay with us in the

exchange that we've had about the future policies of this country. i was really struck with a number of questions, but particularly the one from robert about the future of his healthcare trust and about the jobs that may be at risk. i've got to come to this central problem that we've got at the moment -- we've got to make a decision now about how we secure the recovery this year. we've got to make a decision about whether we put funds into the economy or take funds out of the economy. now, i'm very clear we mustn't make the mistakes of the 1930s or the 1980s when unemployment rose for five years after the official end of the recession. so we've got to make sure the money is in the economy this year so that the recovery is secure. and then we've got to make sure that as we cut the deficit, we are fair to our national health service, our policing, and fair to our schools. and that's why the national insurance rise is necessary, to protect our health service, our schools and our police. i think it was very interesting when david cameron was asked, he couldn't give a guarantee

that we are giving about the funding on schools, he couldn't give a guarantee about the funding on policing. and when it came to the national health service, he couldn't give the same personal guarantees that we're giving about cancer specialist care, about seeing a gp at the evenings and weekends. now these are problems he's got to address in the future. i look forward to the next debate so we can get all the issues raised, aired about the future of our country. >> david cameron. >> well i think it has been a great opportunity to have this debate. and i think one of the things i've heard during this debate is just repeated attempts to try and frighten you about a conservative government. and i would say, choose hope over fear, because we have incredibly exciting and optimistic plans for the future of our country. a great vision where we build a bigger society, where we get our economy moving, where we stop labour's jobs tax which could destroy that economy. i think it's been shown tonight the idea you have to go on wasting money to secure the

recovery is simply wrong. you heard a lot about policy tonight. but i think as important as policy is your values. let me tell you mine. if you work hard, i'll be behind you; if you want to raise a family, i will support you. if you're old and you become ill, we will always be there for you. this is an amazing country. we've done incredible things. i think we can go on and do even more incredible things but we need two things -- a government with the right values and also an understanding that we're all in this together and real change comes when we come together and work together. that's the sort of the change and that's the sort of leadership that i would bring to our great country. >> gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for your contributions to this, our first debate. can i turn to you as well, all of you here with us this evening. thank you particularly to those who asked the questions, and also a heartfelt thanks to those who submitted brilliant

questions but for which we did not have time. thank you so much. our thanks then to nick clegg, to gordon brown, and to david cameron. stay with us now on itv1 for instant reaction and analysis of the debate on news at ten. including the results of the first opinion poll on who came out on top tonight. at the end of an historic moment in television and political history, a very good night to you. good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪

>> you've been watching the first british election debate. next week we will show you the second period to learn more about the british elections, go online to our website, c- span.org, and follow the link to our british election page. and now from today's "washington journal," and update on the funeral service of poland's president. leaders in it presidential style debates. on friday in "the new york times", this editorial -- it's called polish heroes and victims. he joins us on the telephone

from budapest. guest: good morning. i am actually back in warsaw. host: we appreciate it. good morning. the peace talks about the funeral that will take place and grec-- in krakow. it is where the polish president died that makes him a hero or a martyr. can you explain? guest: it is not a discussion about the presidency. it is an incredible grief of ever won, -- over everyone, whether you'd like him or dislike him, because the parish, his wife who was a wonderful person perished, as well as 94

other people. they were on this plane because they were the best. the world knows about the president, but the polish women's movement will be extremely weak and by the death of his wife, and also members of parliament, 18 members of parliament, and six of them were men. -- were women. they were on this plane because they were the best. many people who were families, children, grandchildren of the officers in the military who died. this is an overwhelming event, of which can be compared to its impact on poland it to 9/11, with one multiplying effect, that was a horrible thing 9/11, but the elite of the nation

perished in one accident. this is overwhelming. host: that group was traveling to russia to commemorate the tragedy of april, 1943, that resulted in a loss of 22,000 polish officers. what happened? guest: in 1939, the germans attacked poland from the west, the soviets from the east. polish officers, reserve officers, doctors, others who were drafted, they kept them in the camp. stalin and other politburo members signed the decision to kill them by the shot in the back of the head. there's a movie that shows that. one of the most dramatic things, and it was suppressed because

the soviets were blaming the germans. it was clear the soviets did it. when poland was under soviet domination, this truth was suppressed. and now it has started to be released, and putin and the polish prime minister met three days earlier. the president went with this group of people to meet with the captains of families people. many people came by train and they address them. there was a possibility to de- rail the plane to minsk, but they crashed. this is the essential polish psyche. the law now being shown as the truth -- the lie now being shown

as the truth. host: why is this personal for you? guest: for many reasons. because we lost so many people, including the president. recently, me and my wife got close with the president and his wife appear. she was a wonderful lady. we cooperated with a number of women on the women's issues. we had a discussion about parity in voting. it is personal also to me as a pole, because there is something incredibly loving. my wife's father was killed when my wife was a baby. and that was personal and our family. everyone in poland will have

this kind of attention. -- of attachment. perhaps for the forerunner, the steps of greed --- the depths of is too much, but it has an incredible emotional and psychological influence on everyone. host: on fridays "the new york times", talking about the polish heroes and polish victims, the loss of the president of poland. >> thank you for calling me.

>> monday on "washington journal," diana orlick on foreclosures in the u.s.. gene karpinski talks about the pending climate change bill and the midterm elections. we will also chat with the author of the "obama zombies," jason mattera. also your telephone calls and comments. and then to the remembrance ceremony marking 15 years since the bombing of the murroah offie building. a keynote by janet the polish town of. it will live -- it will be applied beginning just before 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online.

you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. [no audio] [bird singing] [cohorse neighing] ♪ >> people should slow down as they walked through the capitol grounds because there are many things to discover. everyone is walking in the footsteps of history. as i walked through, i get a sense of the rich history that

is here, not only the rich history of our nation but the history plants in general. [laughter] [inaudible] >> the layout of the trees was designed in the late 1800's. this is an interesting story, the only landscape that he designed for the landscape was actually subordinate to the buildings. he really believed that

landscape should always be paramount to the structure that is there to complement. this is his one and only opportunity to make the capitol building the crown jewel, and how landscape design that really complement said instead of subordinating the building. he was the country's preeminent landscape architect. he designed many parks throughout many century -- cities throughout the country. he is equally well known for his design of central park. capitol square itself is 56 acres and the architecture of the capital manages about 150 acres of brown on behalf of the united states congress. we have about 70 groundskeepers now on staff that manage the browns from day to day. there are a series of landscape architects and horticulture and trees surgeons who come together

to make these capitol grounds look as beautiful as they do today. >> a couple of thing to note about the flowers. first you see on the capitol square itself, the square bordered, capitol square is the historic district of the capitol grounds. we try to maintain those grounds as close to the original design as we can. there are a few floured areas on capital square itself, but not that many. you will see many of them in the senate and house office building, on the library and the supreme court, as well as the

botanic gardens. we plant 70,000 tulips and another 100,000 pansy's across capitol grounds, at and the tulips begin to fade out, we replace those, about 80,000 annuals each year. >> the grotto is really an unknown treasure. people do not realize it is there. it is surrounded by landscape and matured trees. for the casual passer-by, and

you do not see it. in the late 1800's, it is a great place for a respite and relaxation on the capitol grounds. [unintelligible] >> i think it architect for to come back today, he would recognize his work very quickly. we try to stay true to it and i think we've done a good job of it. >> all this month, see the wonders of see spans studentcam

competition. students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest friends or challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning of videos every morning on c-span just before "washington journal." at 8:30 a.m. during the program, meet the students who made them. for preview of all the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> tomorrow morning, defense department officials and contractors testified to the commission on wartime contract in. that began as live at 9:30 eastern. later, the senate gavels them live at 2:00 p.m. eastern here they will consider the nomination of the treasury under secretary. later in the week, democratic leaders hope to bring up a financial regulation bill. see the senate live on c-span2. the house returns tuesday. a measure to repeal several d.c.

gun control laws. dad but another u.s. representative for utah. live coverage is on c-span. >> up next, "q&a," with stanley crouch. following that, the british parliamentarians a legend. and then jordan's king abdallah followed by a an iranian author.