future. it is one of the biggest decisions in the prime minister would have to take. we have to get this right. we are safer having a nuclear deterrent. we simply do not know what the world will look like in 40 years' time. you cannot take risks with this. if you do not believe me, they believe the several generals who wrote this week in the newspaper precisely where advancing along. why take a decision now to commit that amount of money on the place of an old cold war nuclear system when that system still has several years to run windows menippe -- and those military people say that they're better and cheaper alternatives. president obama said last week that the greatest threat to us is not the cold war threat of

all. it is terrorists getting ahold of dirty bombs. trenton is not one to help with that. -- triton is not going to help with that. >> i have to deal with these decisions every day and have to say, get real. get real. you're saying that we have to give up our trenton submarines. get real about the danger that we face if we have north korea, iran, and other countries with nuclear weapons and we give up our own. >> what is dangerous is to commit to spend a whole lot of money that we may not have on the system that will not help when the world is facing a new threat. you want to hold a review when you want to exclude the one big issue which should be right at the heart of that. >> i agree with gordon. [laughter] you cannot put off this

decision. you have to make it early. you have to make your country safe and secure. you cannot rustle up a nuclear deterrent at the last minute. >> we are going to move on now to the next question which comes from the collect from holefield. >> what have you done in the last six months to use more environmentally-friendly transportation? >> i have been on trains all the time. i didn't think i have been on more than one plane during this election. our high speed rail will help people get off the roads and also to get off domestic air flights. i think that is incredibly important.

we thought living on a hill with a lot of wind and now much whether that's a wind turbine would be the answer. better is a solar panel. i would encourage people to use this form of energy because it allows us to keep our water in a way that is far more environmentally friendly. we have the first climate change back in the world. there's a lot more to be done, both individually and as a committee. we also have to get a world agreement. we have to -- and as a community. we also have to get a world agreement. >> when i told my party that we had to get real about the the environment, i did get the letter from someone who would agree with this. he said, if you're so concerned with carbon emissions, why not stop breeding. that is when i realized that i still had some persuading to do.

in my alive, we have no proper insulation. it can really cut your energy bill and mike -- and make life greener. the biggest change that i have been able to make is coming at very strongly against the third runway at heathrow. i think it is wrong to do that. i think we should have a high- speed rail instead. we should have a high-speed rail hub at heathrow. i think that would be a really big step forward. >> like many people, i try to change my behavior i travel a lot to my constituency. i almost always do that by train. but i do not do enough. i am acutely aware that i do not do enough. i wish i could and would do more. i think that part of the problem

-- you referred to airplanes -- you're quite right. they do create a growing proportion of the total co2 emissions. at the moment, you have a tax system that taxes passengers in airplanes. that means that their plans with freight in them are not taxed. you have lots of their plans that are half-empty or barely have any passengers at all. if you change that to 8 per plaintext, you would make a difference on an unnecessary aviation pollution. >> if we are obliged to make a real difference, we have to change the energy balance in our country. we have to remove this fixation about using oil. that is why our energy plan talks about how we can move with nuclear and renewals and oil and gas. we want 15% renewables.

we want to do more in every area. the question that i have to ask them is why are you so against nuclear power? that is the means by which we can balance out our energy supply without having to depend on oil. david, why do not have a renewalbles target? let's get real also about getting this energy village right. >> -- energy balance fred. >> of course we need energy balance. it is a great -- energy balance right. >> of course, we need energy balance. you could spend up to $6,500 on your home to better insulated and better protected. you can see your energy bills come down.

there are those who can carry out that work and pay for it and show you the reduction in the bills. billing green can save you money. it can get a briton working again. it can cut carbon emissions. >> the only problem is that we're doing that already. >> hold your horses. borden asked about nuclear power. -- borden -- gordon asked about nuclear power. i see energy bills increasing in this country. it takes a long time to build the nuclear plants. all experts believe that it would take well into the next decade to create nuclear energy. then it would be too late.

we could develop a mass insulation program for our homes and hospitals. 20% of carbon emissions go straight out of your window and through the roof of your house. if we only use energy more efficiently and invest some of the money that would be wasted on the nuclear projects, on wind energy and other renewable energies, i think that would be the way to a more sustainable future. >> you cannot have allison and do without using nuclear power. -- you cannot have balanced energy without using nuclear power. i spoke with a couple of gentlemen who are in the business of insulation. yes, we have to insulate our houses. yes, we have to have the electric car.

we are investigating that. yes, we have to develop offshore wind power. any party that is now excluding nuclear party is not really thinking about the needs of a future where we cannot be dependent on these high oil prices forever. >> actually, the situation is worse. we are potentially heading for power cuts in 2017. we do need to look at the level of gas storage we have in this country, which is much lower than france or germany. they have about 100 days. we have a little over two weeks. we have to make sure that we get to the renewables. we have had so many different strategies -- [unintelligible] >> something that has not been mentioned that all is acting

globally. i remember seeing gordon brown on the sidelines while america cut everybody else out. you have to create strength in numbers in europe so that we can lead in the world. this is a global problem that requires a global response. >> you're right. there is no british specialists solution. you have to face up to the fact that 100 countries have signed carbon reduction plans. we're trying to persuade china and america to do so. we need america to be on our side. your anti-americanism is not helpful. >> the lisbon treaty has about seven words on climate change. you do not need another treaty

for politicians to get together in different countries. you need political will. you need action. instead, what we keep getting is more institutions, more regulation, which is not required. it requires political will. >> you do not need a new treaty, but you need to work with people in europe and agree that climate change exists. i have a very simple attitude toward our relationship with america. it should not be a one-way street. we should not automatically do what our american friends tell us to do. we have to make sure that we act on the world stage in our interests, not simply at the beck and call of anybody else. >> i persuaded the americans to be part of a g-20 that dealt with the banking crisis. i am still pushing the americans to take action on the climate change as well. but your anti-europeanism becomes more and more obvious as

this debate goes on. i think you have to rethink your policies. >> they're just trying to frighten you. they do not want a britain that stand up for itself in europe. they keep going on about these alliances. one of our main allies is the party of the polish president to tragically died in that tragic accident. of the fact is that you can cooperate and work with your european partners without signing a treaty or giving away powers. >> let's move on. we have a question from michael in bristol. >> if you win the election, will you disassociate your party from the post protection that of catholic priest who have been tried and convicted of child

abuse? will you have opposition to stem cell research, gay equality, and routine use of condoms when hiv yeis at an all-time high? >> do you back the pope's visit to? >> i do think it is welcome that the pope is coming to britain if i were your prime minister, i would support that visit and do everything in my power to make it a success. there are millions of people in our country will welcome that and share the pope's catholic faith. i think we should try to make a success of it. but do i agree with everything that the pope says? i do not agree. i do not agree with him on homosexuality. i do not think that the catholic church has some serious work to come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened. i do think we have to respect people of faith. i think kate is important in our country.

faith-based organizations do amazing things in our country, working in our prisons, providing for our schools, helping the most a vulnerable in our country. a visit from the pope, yes. but do we have to agree with everything he says, no. >> i am not a man of faith. my wife is. i have a little bit of experience with the feelings of anguish over the visit. i think they do want to see the catholic church expressed greater openness and repentance. you cannot keep the lid on sen. i do welcome the pope's visit could ih.

there has been terrible suffering there have been abusive relationships that have left a terrible scars. we need a process of openness and healing. you cannot undo the tragedies of the past. but you can be open about them so that people can start to move on. >> i have met some of the people who have read late complained about the abuse they were subject to when they were young. no matter what you can try to do to help, there's always this problem that they have to face up to every day, that they were cruelly abused by people on whom they placed their faith and trust. they have to make sure that there is an open and clean confession about what has happened and that we help those people who have been put into difficulty because of this abuse. i welcome the pope's visit to britain. i want him to come to britain. one reason is that the catholic church is a great part of our

society and we should recognize it as such. i hope every british citizen wants to see this as a by the pope take place. secondly, we must break down the barriers of religion that we have in their world. they have common values and interests. they'll believe that we should be good neighbors to each other. i am from the presbyterian religion. but i supported the visit. i want religious faiths to work more closely together. >> michael is also concerned about the attitude of the catholic church about the gender matters. >> again, i would agree with you. obviously, we need proper protections and proper rules. we have debated them at great lengths in the house of commons. there are a lot of areas in

which i do not agree, but that does not mean that we should stop them visiting american tree or condemn them. we must build a tolerant -- from visiting our country or condemn them. we must build a tolerant society. >> i do not agree with the formal doctrine on homosexuality by the catholic church. i do not agree with it at all. i do not think there should be an uprising against the pope's visit. i think the reverse. i think we have all acknowledged that one of the tht

need to subscribe to every letter of that church. >> i think we are proving ourselves to being a tolerant nation. i am pleased that this has happened in britain in the last few years. on human embryology, i have disagreed with the catholic church. if you can treat a disease by using embryos that are enabling us to make sure that people can be free of some of the conditions that affect their lives, we should do so under the right rules. i am sorry that, in principle, there is a disagreement with the church on that. on the concept of contraception, we know that it is important to give women access and choice so that they can make their own decisions. i regret the fact that the catholic church does not do that. but the pope should come to

britain. we should have these debates. we should welcome all religions. bringing religious together is the key to having a peaceful world. >> we are going to move on now. that brings to an end of the international affairs part of this debate. you can see the debate next sunday. and join me live from an umbrella -- from edinburgh. let's move on to the next question. this one comes from mary from montpellier. >> given the scandals in the last year, it is hard to find a person in my neighborhood who

believes in the power of their vote. >> how do you plan to restore our faith? >> first of all, you need to be given the power to set any politician that you believe to be corrupt. you're the boss. we need to clean up all the murky business of party funding. again, there was a deal on the table. we supported it. yet again, the old party said no. gordon brown wanted to protect his old union paymasters. we all believe on the right track of cleanup politics. we actually have to act. one of the reasons that your friends and your neighbors are right is that we have this old electoral system that allows the

prime minister to be in peril the only two -- to be in power when only 22% of his party voted for him. >> if you do like an mp for being corrupt and parliament does not take action, yes, you should remove them. yes, we want to referendum on the future on the house of commons and the house of lords. you should have the votes. your vote matters because this is a big choice election. we have to secure the recovery. we have to make sure that we have decent public services. that is put at risk by conservative policies. we have to build the jobs of the future. that is put at risk by both

parties here. this is the most decisive election for years because it depends on how you vote in the next few weeks. >> the first thing the people want to know is that they are going to be voting for a clean up parliament. everywhere i go in this country, it is simmering and bubbling below the servicsurface. people say, i pay my taxes to have decent politics. yet the money is spent on all of these appalling things. they want to be absolutely sure that this is never one to happen again. so we need a total transparency. that is the first thing that needs to be done. we also need to cut the cost of politics. everyone else in this country has had to make economies and make their businesses work better. i want to see many more people

involved in choosing a candidate for the parties. please let us not give up. >> one of the most heartening thing is over the last week, one of the great sort of the effects of these televised leaders' debates, is that more and more young people appear to be rushing to register to vote before it is too late. they have felt for so long a big turnoff by their own party politics. they are not excited.

they're beginning to hope that we can do something different this time. if you did not vote before ed did not register, register. it is your country. it is your future. assert your right to ship your own future. i think we can make this one of the most exciting election devore. >> i was ashamed by some of the behavior of some of the nt's and some of the [unintelligible] i think we have to be very clear that we want nobody standing at this election that is not transparent and open about what they are doing. anybody who reaches the guidelines that we have laid down, they should be thrown out of the house of commons and out of the house of lords. i was talking with young people only yesterday.

if u.s. and the question -- if you asked the question, my job may depend on the decisions of government, people may be interested. when you ask about crime and it depends on how many policemen are on the street, then it makes a difference. if you ask about schools and politics can make a difference. >> politics have been treating these people as much for too long. -- as mugs for too long. the truth is, if you really want to change things, if you want safer streets and better schools, the government has its role, but we'll have our responsibilities, too. we need to bring up their

children properly. we have to work with the school. we have to help the police. we have to make sure that we have discipline in our schools. the best solution comes when we all say, "i have responsibilities as well." i think that is a much more honest answer on how we really get the change in our country. >> but i take responsibility for my decisions and i ask people to take responsibility. but you cannot run health services on a do-it-yourself principle. >> let me get back to mary's question which is about people feeling switched off by politics. >we have a culture of jobs for life. hundreds of mp's from the old

party is basically know that, all they have to do every for five years, is get enough votes to get elected and then ignore them the rest of the time. of course, a few get jobs for life, no questions asked, they start to cut corners. >> all parties have had to take action. we have to clean up the politics for every single party. anybody who commits an offense is out, suspended, out. they should not be in politics at all. public service is about serving the public. it is not about serving yourself. >> he says that he asks people to take responsibility. one of the problems in our country today is that, did you take responsibility, you are often punished rather than rewarded. if you work hard and save, you do not get the government behind you. you get punished.

in my constituency, i meet couples who say that they are trying to get everything together before they get married and have children. they tell the people who do not do the right thing get pushed up the ladder ahead of them. there's a sense of unfairness in our country today that goes to the heart of some of the policies. >> the biggest beneficiary from the manifesto is the 3000 richest people in the country you get two hundred thousand pounds each, and parents and -- each from an inheritance tax. you do not cut the chow trust fund. you do not cut to the school budget. >> pour mary asked about politics. she is being told about tax credits. we need to make sure that people are responsible where they have made big mistakes. there is the fact that many mp's

have fled their homes from one to the next using taxpayer money and have not been held to account. you cannot move on a less people have done something serious. it has made people incredibly angry. i think there are now starting to get angry by politicians saying that my party was better than the others. frankly, we haven't all had problems with this -- we have all had problems with this. do not anyone try to put themselves on a pedestal on this issue. let's sort it out and clean it up and recognize that we are all in this mess. >> no one should be standing at this election if they're not transparent and tell you everything they're doing with their finances. they should be working full time for the constituents' interests. they should not be in a position

where they are not telling you where they will not report to you on everything they're doing and being held to account. if they are not doing the right thing and are corrupt, you should be able to take them out. it is something that has happened recently that i am ashamed of on behalf of all politicians. >.

>> david cameron. >> 59 pounds is not enough.

we have got to do better as a society giving people what we all want. those that have done the right should be giving you dignity and security in old age. i agree we need to up-rate the pension in line with earnings rather than prices. the reason i feel i can give you that answer with total confidence, that we will really deliver this, is we have made a tough decision to go with it. which is to say from 2016, we men, to retire a year later. that means we can fund this pledge. because we all know we have an enormous budget deficit, there isn't any money left in the kitty. so if we're going to make promises like that, and it's a big promise, an important promise, we have to say how we are going to pay for it. i want to make sure that when we see people going into old age that if you have worked hard, if you've saved, if you've put money aside, you are not punished. that is why we say as well, it is not right that you should have to pay for your residential care, and someone who didn't do the right thing gets the whole thing paid for free. that's not fair and we are going to change that. >> nick clegg. >> grace, the earnings link needs to be restored.

it needs to be restored immediately, there is no doubt about that. it shouldn't have been broken in the first place, you have lost out for many years, it needs to be restored. something which i'm sure you're familiar with, which is there are so many other costs which the elderly have to confront, which really do make it extremely difficult to make ends meet. fuel costs. we have just had a very cold winter for example, it's a very good example. i got a letter a few months ago from an elderly couple, who said to me they now found it so difficult to heat their homes on cold winter days, that on those cold winter days, they get into a bus in their town and travel around the bus just to stay warm. that is wrong. it is wrong that energy companies charge you more for the first bits of energy that you use in your home than the later bits. that means someone who's heating a great big five story mansion is paying cheaper, paying less for their energy than someone who's just heating a one bedroom flat. that needs to change too, so we can give you the dignity you deserve. >> gordon brown. >> i think grace's issue is that every woman should have a

full state pension. i think it's right that we say that that is what we're going to do as a result of our pension reforms. but it's also the case that everyone who works for an employer will now also have an occupational pension. that is another change we are making that is coming in the parliament to come. when we look at the needs of pensioners, it's absolutely true to say we need help with urgent needs social care in the home. that's what we're introducing over the next few months, so that people don't have to go into old people's homes. if they want to stay at home, they can get the home helps and the health visitors that are necessary for them so that they can have comfort in their own homes. but i've got one or two problems with the other two manifestos of the other parties. david doesn't seem to have mentioned free prescriptions for the elderly or free eye tests. and to be honest, nick has a problem in his manifesto, because he seems to be cutting the budget of the winter fuel allowance this year. i would like them to explain to the pensioners of this country what in fact they propose to do. >> david cameron, your chance. >> i just think it is

disgraceful to try and frighten people in an election campaign, as gordon brown has just done, and as the labour party are doing up and down the country. i would like to take this opportunity to say very clearly to any pensioner in the audience, anyone listening at home, that we will keep the free television license, we will keep the pension credit, we'll keep the winter fuel allowance, we'll keep the free bus pass. those leaflets you have been getting from labour, the letters you have been getting from labour are pure and simple lies. a politician shouldn't say lies very often, i say it because i have seen the leaflets and they make me really very, very angry. you should not be frightening people in an election campaign, it is just not right. >> well, firstly, before i respond to gordon brown's invitation, i'm glad you have been reading our manifesto with such care. >> absolutely. >> there are two-and-a-half million pensioners in poverty, so after 13 years and all labour's promises about giving a fair deal to pensioners, two- and-a-half million pensioners in poverty. that's how bad it is.

i think we need to, therefore, make sure that we use what little money we've got, money is tight at the moment, wisely. and what we are saying is this. the winter fuel payments, the age of eligibility is going to rise, this is a decision which gordon brown's government has already taken, from 60 to 65 in the coming years. we're saying if you bring that forward you could use the money to actually extend the winter fuel payments to people who are terminally ill and disabled, who at the moment don't get access to the winter fuel payments. i think that is fair. one final thing. we talked about social care, we talked about this last week, i really cannot stress enough, i think that's one issue where we just have got to put people before politics for once. this is something which is such a big issue, we need to agree on a common approach, that is the only way to provide good social care. >> free debate, now. gordon brown. >> i do seem to be right. david did not mention free eye tests. >> well let me do it right now. we'll keep them. let me challenge you. will you now withdraw the leaflets -- will you withdraw the leaflets that are going out round the country saying that the conservatives would take away things like the free bus pass?

you know, you really should be ashamed of doing things like that. >> david, i have not authorized any leaflets like that. what i would ask to you say is why is it not in your manifesto that you're keeping free eye tests and free prescription charges. to nick, i would say, if you're cutting the winter fuel allowance, that means that some people will suffer this year. we've already said that all pensioners over 60, all households, will get 250 pounds as the winter fuel allowance and 400 pounds if you're over 80. that's an innovation be brought in during the period of the labour government. i would not like to see it cut in one of the most difficult years for pensioners when we're just coming out of recession, but you seem to be cutting in. >> i've explained before, i don't think there's much. doing it again. we are actually extending the winter fuel payment to people who are terminally ill and disabled who presently don't get it. we're doing that by bringing forward a decision that gordon brown's government has made. but can i just say again before this completely collapses into a game of political ping-pong. there are big issues about how we look after the elderly which are huge. they are financially huge, they're socially huge. it's one of the biggest issues we face on how we provide social

care. none of us -- >> the question's about pensions. >> yes, but it's also related to it. it is about providing dignity to people in old age which is grace's question. i don't think we're going to serve the elderly today or those in the future very well if we hijack everything with cheap political point scoring when we can work together on a solution that works for many years in the future. >> i do think it is about dignity and security in old age to be able to say to elderly people that you should be able to if you've worked hard and save hard, you should be able to pass your home on to your children rather than have to use it to pay for your care. that's why we have this plan. if you put aside 8,000 pounds when you become 65, you have the guarantee that your home there will be there for your children because you've done the right thing. that doesn't solve the whole problem. that does seem to me a very good start, ending the unfairness of all those thousands of people who have done the right thing, who've worked hard all their lives, who then get penalized and punished by the system. >> the first stage to doing that is making sure people can stay in their own homes. that's the urgent needs payment

that should be available to all so that they can stay in their own homes without worrying about finance. the next thing we've got to do is make sure if people have to go into old people's homes, then there is a limit on the costs they have to bear, otherwise they will lose their homes and they'll have to choose between the care they need and the home they own. in the next parliament, what we're proposing to do is put a two-year limit on payments, so if you're, for example, suffering from alzheimer's or other diseases and you have to be in an old people's home for a longer period of time, can't be in your own home, we will suspend any payments after two years for personal and medical care. >> related to that, are those people who look after loved ones who are elderly and need help with cleaning, washing, getting dressed, getting fed. i do think in the past we've all agreed this is something we need to look at, is we need to provide more respite, more time off for people who care for their loved ones in that way. we have got a proposal which will take the money which the government has allocated to its rather flawed bill on social

care and use it instead to say to those who provide a lot of care every week, here's money so you can take a week off, spend some time with yourself on holiday just getting a break. because i think speaking to go any carers, that makes a huge, huge, dramatic difference to their lives. >> mr. cameron. >> the point about helping carers is, i think, we need to help them go on doing what they're doing. talk to any carer, they will say the one thing i need is a break. i don't think we do enough, put the budget in their hands and say, you decide how best to get that respite break, to get the extra help in your home. i remember trying to do this myself with the care for our son. it's incredibly complicated. this whole agenda should be about putting power and control in people's hands, letting them do more, because if britain's armies of carers gave up, that would cost our country 50 billion pounds and actually would lead heartbreak for many people. they're really heroes and heroines. we need to do more to help them. >> we move on to the next question. and the next question comes from frank hemsworth from whitney, in oxfordshire. >> gentlemen, given the current

financial difficulties facing the country, and now the possibility of a hung parliament, according to the polls, is it time to put aside political differences and form a government of the best talents from all the major parties? >> is a coalition government the best way forward, david cameron? >> i think we should try and work together where we can. i've always though that's important in politics. i helped tony blair get his education bill through parliament because i thought it was a good bill, even though a lot of labour mp's weren't backing it, that helped it go through. on the issue of trident, which we've covered already tonight, we put the possibility of defeating labour aside, backed them to do the right thing. obviously, if there is a hung parliament, we must be responsible, we must try and deliver the best government we can for this country. but i actually, if you want my frank and honest answer, i don't think a hung parliament will be good for britain because i think we do need quite decisive government to take some of the difficult decisions for the long-term. we've set out some of the things that need to be done to

get the debt and the deficit under control. i fear if we put them off, we could have a situation where we see interest rates rise, we see confidence taken out of our economy. i think we need change to get to top of the deficit, to start solving the problems so we get our economy moving. >> thank you. nick clegg. >> well, i think, frank, you're right on the simple assertion you're making that when the country's facing very big issues, we just talked about social care, but the one you're highlighting is of course the black hole in the public finances. it is better if politicians, i know it's an unfashionable thing to say, but it's better if politicians try and work together. that's why i proposed several weeks ago, that irrespective of the outcome of the next election, why don't we set up something which i call a council for financial stability, and you'd gather in that council for financial stability the chancellor and the shadow chancellors, the governor of the bank of england, the head of the financial services authority to do one simple thing, which is to come clean with you about how big this black hole is because there's still dispute about exactly how bad it is and then have an agreement on roughly how long it will take to fill it. so that everybody in a sense is

being open with you, which hasn't really happened until now, about how bad this situation is and how together we're going to get out of it. i do think there is potential for politicians to work with each other. don't believe all these ludicrous scare stories about markets and political armageddon if that is what happens. >> thank you. gordon brown. >> nick, we already have what's called the business council for britain and that brings together all the leading businessmen and women in our country with government ministers to look at what we can do. we have the tripartite committee for financial stability which brings together the governor of the bank of england and the head of the financial services authority, and the chancellor of the exchequer. we already have these things. but the key thing is that we've got to have an agreed plan to reduce the deficit, protect our public services, and get growth in the economy. and i'm afraid that we don't have agreement on what needs to be done even this year to sort the economy out. i want to see our economy grow this year. i want to see unemployment come down. i want to see businesses thrive, and that means we've got to keep the government support

in the economy for the time being, something the conservatives don't want to do. but i also want to say we should never take the votes of people for granted. the public must decide, and again it's up to the politicians to do what the public wants them to do. it's for the voters to decide. you're the boss, it's your decisions that will count. you have the votes to make a difference. >> thank you. before we go on to rebuttal round, i will remind you this is not a question about cooperation, it's about coalition, it's about people looking at where the opinion polls are, what might happen after the election and want to know your views. david cameron? >> well, i said very frankly, if it is a hung parliament, we will do our best to make it work. if we win the election outright, i'd do everything i can to take the country with us on some of these difficult decisions and also try and take other politicians with us because there will be some hard times before we get out of this, actually get the deficit sorted. but there is a problem in that you do need to have agreement. there is a fundamental disagreement between me and the other two parties about what we do this year.

i think we badly need to roll up our sleeves and make some savings this year so we can stop the jobs tax, the national insurance tax rise, that is coming down the road. when you've got an economy that is trying to recover, the worst thing you can do is put tax on every single job in our country. that's why it's over 1,100 business leaders have said don't do this. they've said very clearly the threat to our recovery is not cutting waste, the threat is the jobs tax. the others don't agree about that, but i badly think we really, really need to stop this tax that could kill our recovery and kill jobs. >> thank you. nick clegg. >> back to frank's question, in a sense what lurks behind your question is it a bad thing or not if politicians talk to each other? i don't think it is. in many other parts of the bog, it would seem to be a completely standard -- i mean, gordon brown has talked about various bodies but none involving the different parties. david cameron says he'll try and make a hung parliament work but spends all his time in the newspapers this week making those ludicrous claims about total meltdown as if the world will end. the world won't end and it will be your choice.

if you decide that no-one here deserves an outright majority, then we'll need to be open about it and talk to each other, talk to each other to provide the good government, sound government that you deserve, because you deserve a government where we put your interests first and don't allow everything constantly to be hijacked by short-term political point-scoring. >> i want the parties to work together. when i became prime minister, i invited one or two liberals to do things, like shirley williams, to do things for the government. i invited people who are businessmen and women to come into the government to work with us for national economic benefit. i will continue to ask people to give their talents to public service, and that is something that is really important to do. but there is this fundamental position about this year. i think we've got to resolve this. i have had to take the economy through the most global financial crisis. we made the right decisions to take ownership of the banks, and the right decisions to get the world together to deal with

that recession. every time, we've said we have to support the economy through difficult times. now, what david is saying even when it is fragile, he wants, for ideological reasons i think, to take 6 billion pounds out of the economy. that puts thousands of jobs, teachers, it puts policemen, it puts thousands of jobs at risk immediately, and that's why they're talking about an emergency budget in june. david, you're a risk to the economy. nick's a risk to our security with his nuclear weapons policy, you're a risk to the economy. >> i just think it's another attempt to try and frighten people. after 13 years of failure, 13 years in which we now have a budget deficit the same size as greece. don't take it from me, take it from the 1,100 business leaders, people who run sainsbury's, mothercare, next, marks & spencer's, these great british businesses who are going to help us out of recession, saying cut the waste this year, stop the jobs tax next year. to go back to frank's question, i do have one specific proposal where we really think we should come together much more effectively. that is, i want to see the national security council sitting as a war cabinet from day one if i become prime

minister. because, day one, afghanistan is the top priority, getting it right. i would invite, as prime minister, the leaders of the other two main parties to come to that meeting several times a year to make sure they were really seeing the advice we were getting from the security services, from the generals, from the chiefs of staff. i think in matters of peace and war, you've got to bring people together better than we do now. >> it's difficult to bring -- >> the only thing i would add to this discussion in response to frank is that if politicians are going to talk to each other, then i think what we need to do is be upfront about what our priorities are. we need to be upfront about what we would seek in any discussion with other parties. i've been very upfront, dealing obviously with the fiscal deficit, we've been much more open about how we would do that than the other two parties. but also tax reform, educational reform, political reform. those are our priorities, that's whate would fight for in whatever situation arises after the election. >> the priority at the moment is making sure we have an economic recovery, making sure we don't have higher unemployment. unemployment in america is a

lot higher than britain. unemployment in europe is a lot higher. i want to keep people in their jobs. but take 6,000 million pounds out of the economy, and you lose a lot of jobs and you put businesses at risk. david hasn't thought through his policy and neither is nick if he's going to argue against this because it's the right thing to do. >> no, gordon brown, what i'm saying is, if you care so much about making sure that out of the rubble of this recession we create a new economy, why won't you, and indeed why won't david cameron, take the radical steps needed to reform our banking system? nothing has happened which will prevent a disaster in the banking system because of the greed in the banking system from occurring all over again. we're the only party saying split them up, make sure that they lend to viable british businesses, here in bristol and elsewhere. that's the way to get the recovery going. >> you can see one of the problems with hung parliament and coalition forming is there's quite a lot of bickering going on already. there is a difference here, there really is a difference about what we believe particularly on the jobs tax. i think trying to stop this is vital. what nick and the liberal

democrats are saying is first of all when we announced let's stop the jobs tax, they said it was nauseating, and in their manifesto, they've now said that actually it's their aspiration. it's the first time in politics i can remember someone coming up with a nauseating aspiration that they want to fulfill. but it is a difference between us. we want to stop this job tax to keep the economy going. the other two parties are not going to do that. >> mr. brown. >> you see, david, i see you haven't denied you're taking 6,000 million pounds out of the economy in an emergency budget if you're elected. i would be very worried indeed. it seems a return to the old conservative party. nick, on this question of banks, you don't solve the problem by making all your banks smaller. northern rock was a small bank and it went completely under. what you've got to do is have proper capital controls. what you've got to do is have a global financial supervision system. alistair darling, our chancellor, is now in washington -- >> gordon brown, the governor of the bank of england -- >> negotiating a global financial tax. that is the right thing to do. >> the governor of the bank of england has quite clearly said that unless you split high-risk casino investment banking from low-risk high street banking,

the banks that you and i depend on, you're always going to get this risk that risks will be taken with your everyday savings. that's what you've got to stop. it's what they did in the 1930's in the depression in the united states. i think we need to do something similar. it's what president obama is doing, something similar, in the united states. and yet neither of the old parties want to even contemplate the major reforms needed to our banks. i think we owe it to future generations to make sure that the implosion in our banking system, never, ever, ever, can happen again. >> i think we're going to have to leave this question there. we're going to move on now to a question now from bethlehem negessi who is from bristol. >> i'm an immigrant, and i have been in the uk for 13 years. i recognize that immigration is becoming a problem in the country. what new measures would you introduce in order to make the system more fair? >> how would you make immigration fairer, nick clegg? >> firstly, you need to tighten the borders, bethlehem, so that we know who is coming in and who is going out. previous labour and

conservative governments removed the exit controls, so we didn't know who had to leave. i would want to see those reinstalled immediately. i want to see a border police force, we have every right to police our borders. secondly, i would make sure we direct people who come and live and work in the country, to the areas in the country where, of course, they have a job and they've got someone who can vouch for them, but also where there is space for them to live, where there isn't unreasonable strain placed on public services. and thirdly, we have to do something about the legacy about the problem created by the chaos which labour and conservative governments created in our immigration system. that was lots of people coming here illegally, who are now still living, years and years and years, in the shadows of our economy. i'd rather get them out of the hands of criminal gangs, so we can go after the criminal gangs, into the hands of the taxman, if they want to play by the rules, pay their taxes, speak english. that is a smart, fair, effective way of dealing with immigration. >> thank you. gordon brown. >> when we talked about it last week, nick didn't tell us he wants an amnesty for illegal

immigrants. i think that would be a wrong policy for this reason. it would encourage people to come to this country, thinking that at some point we would legalize their presence. i think that would be not a deterrent on people coming to our country illegally, it would mean that more and more people would come into our country. our policy is to control and manage immigration. we have a points system to do so. no unskilled worker from outside europe can now come into our country. if you have a skill, then we will get a british person to do that job advertised in a jobcenter if the skill is available in britain. we are gradually reducing the number of skills we need to come from abroad. so cooks and care assistants in future, they will come from abroad, they're trained up in britain. gradually, we'll go through the skills list and make sure those people who get jobs in britain are skilled in britain to do the jobs here. >> thank you. david cameron. >> thank you. well, the first thing to say to bethlehem is that we have benefited from immigration. and people who come here legally and come and live here legally, we should be incredibly warm and welcoming and

hospitable and build a strong and integrated country, where actually we build a strong society together. i think that's really important to say that, first up. i do believe that immigration in recent years has just simply been too high. we do need to bring the level down. that is the first bit of fairness that needs to be sorted out. people do want this addressed. the other two parties are not actually really addressing this issue. we believe you do need to have a cap on people coming from outside the european union, for economic reasons. that would help to bring it down. added to that, is new european countries, when they join the eu, we say there should be transitional controls. we were told there would only be 13,000 people coming from poland, in the end there were hundreds of thousands. that is absolutely vital, we are the only ones saying, let's grip this, let's have a cap, let's bring it down radically. then it won't be a political issue. it wasn't in the past, and i'd dearly love it not to be an issue again. >> ok, thank you. nick clegg. >> i think i want i guess you want, bethlehem, what everyone

wants, which is just an immigration system which works. we've had an immigration system which has been absolutely shambolic. no idea who is coming in or going out, no idea who's been living here for many years. gordon brown talks about an amnesty, the only person actually in british politics advocating a blanket amnesty, i'm not, it's boris johnson, the conservative mayor for london. what i'm saying is you can't live in denial of a problem which has been created by the chaos of the immigration system in the past. you can wish away, if either of you wish, that there are people who have been living here for a long time in the shadows of our economy. i want to go after the criminal gangs who are exploiting those people. if there are those people who've lived here for ten years, speak english, want to play by the rules, want to pay their taxes, why don't we say to them, ok, you come out of the shadows, pay your taxes, do some community service to make up for the fact that you came here illegally, and then we can free up resources to go after the criminal gangs. i think that is the right balance between fairness but also making sure we have a system which works. >> gordon brown. >> i think in the last two years we have seen the introduction, since i became

prime minister, of foreign national id cards. so anybody who comes into the country now will have to have an identity card. we're also introducing, from the end of the year, a control so that everybody is counted in and everybody is counted out. it was got rid of in the past, it should not have been got rid of. we are bringing that back. biometric visas mean that we can stop people at airports even before they come into the country if they've not got the right identification. so we're tightening up on that. but the big key to the future is the points system. if you don't have the points to come into this country, in other words if you don't have a skill we need, don't come to the country. but i must say, i'm very worried about nick's policy, because it sends a message to people all around the world, if you come to britain there'll be some sort of amnesty that will allow you to come here freely in the end, without having to be thrown out of the country. >> thank you. david cameron. >> well, the truth is there's a big difference between the conservative party, that is gripping this problem, and the other two parties, that i think are just dancing around it. the government's had 13 years to control immigration, yet we've had some of the highest

levels of immigration in the last 50 years. and frankly, i think nick's ideas would actually make the situation worse. there are two bad ideas. the idea of the amnesty -- it's been shown all over europe that what that leads to is a big increase in false asylum claims and more immigration. that's a bad idea. and i think this idea of somehow having regional immigration, saying it's ok to come and work in bristol but you can't live in birmingham, or you can live in bradford but you can't live in -- i mean, it sounds like they're going to put up border controls along the m5. it really doesn't make sense. it hasn't been thought through, it would make a bad situation worse, we need real change, genuine change that only the conservatives are offering. >> i just think -- look, this is a really sensitive issue. people feel, quite rightly, really strongly about immigration. people feel very unsettled that they have had no faith in an immigration system which has been run chaotically by both conservative and labour governments for a long time. all i would say to both david cameron and gordon brown is, yes, let's have our differences, but please don't live in denial about what is going on. don't live in denial about the

fact that, because of the chaos in the system, we've got lots of people here who are working for criminal gangs rather than for britain. we've got to deal with that. you can pretend we can wish it away. it is a problem. they are here. now, of course what i'm saying is controversial and people will try and score points. it is at least an attempt to deal with an issue which we have to deal with. i don't think we can have another ten years, another 20 years in the old way, just ignoring these things. we can't come up with promises like caps, which don't work. and by the way -- >> nick, i'm not really interested in point scoring, i'm interested in doing the right thing. if we send out a message to people in other parts of the world, you get an amnesty if you come to this country, then you've got a real problem. >> what are you going to do? >> net inward migration is coming down as a result of the points system that we introduced. it's come down three years ago, two years ago, and is coming down this year. we are taking the action that is necessary. from the end of this year, people will be counted in and counted out of the country -- >> gordon brown, what are you going to do? >> it would be more helpful if you would support identity cards

for foreign nationals instead of opposing them. >> i'm just asking for a simple, honest answer to a big question, which is that because of the chaos in the system in the past, we have lots of people who are here. now, if you just ignore it, they will carry on living in the shadow of our economy. you can either deny it, which you're doing because you have no plan to deal with it, neither do you -- >> we're removing them. >> or you try and -- no, you can't deport 900,000 people. you don't know where they live. >> we're removing them. >> ok. david cameron. >> all i'd say is that the more they argue amongst each other, the more it's absolutely clear to me the only way you'll get real change, real action, sensible action on this issue is from a conservative government. it is a sensitive issue, and it needs to be dealt with sensitively and reasonably. it's very important that we talk about this properly. but i think the country wants and deserves firm immigration control rather instead of the nonsense we're hearing. >> what kind of cap? >> and that would make a difference. and what it would really achieve is getting back to where we used to be, where we didn't have immigration questions at public meetings, we weren't asked about it on the streets. when you knocked on a door, nobody raised it. why? because the british public was happy with the level of immigration.

we knew that was a level we could integrate and provide good health, housing and schools for people. it's been out of control these last 13 years. that's labour's fault. and from all i can hear, the liberal democrats would make it much, much worse. >> no, david cameron, what would the cap be? >> you'd set the cap -- >> no, what's the number? is it ten? is it 10,000? it is ten million? >> if you have a cap -- do you want to let me answer the question? >> just a number. >> you're reminding me of gordon last week. it's like another replay. the fact is, every year, you need to talk with the health authorities, the housing authorities, the education authorities, and business, and set a cap to achieve a very big reduction in overall immigration levels. that can be done, we've done it in our past, we can do it again in our future. what's required is political will from a party that's prepared to make the difference. >> david cameron, you are -- let me get this straight, i genuinely want to understand, you're proposing a cap but you don't know what the cap would be. you're proposing to give people an assurance that we're going to count people in and count people out, but you don't know how many people. all i'm saying on the immigration debate, it's difficult, none of us have got

perfect answers. but let's at least not pretend that you can put forward these ideas which have got no substance, haven't been thought through. at least the kind of ideas i've been putting through are trying to deal with a really, really difficult issue which has been brushed under the carpet for too long. >> gordon brown. >> net immigration is falling as a result of the measures we are taking. the points system is the key to this. it's done in australia and other countries. you can't come in unless you've got a skill to offer, if you're from outside the european union. that has meant there are no unskilled workers coming into this country, a reduction in skilled workers, a reduction in university students as well. that is what we are actually doing now. we're counting people in and out from the end of the year. >> i don't want to bore people with the figures, but it is important. up until 1997, the highest number for net migration into the uk was 77,000 in a year. since 1997, since labour came to power, it has never been lower than 140,000, sometimes it has been 200,000, that's equivalent to two million across a decade. that's just too high, it can be

brought down, we have done it in the past and can do it again. >> what happens is there are a million people from britain who are in the european union, and staying in homes and staying in countries of the european union. and there are one million people from the european union who are in our country, that is what being part of the european union is about. there are many british citizens who want the chance to stay for a period of time in other countries in the european union. >> we are going to have to leave it there, i'm afraid that is the end of our audience questions. it's now time for the leaders to make their big pitches for your votes. with their closing statements. a reminder that each leader has one-and-a-half minutes for this. lots were drawn for the order in which they are going to go, we start now with gordon brown. >> the buck stops here, if you are in the job i'm in, you've got to take responsibility for the decisions. we've talked this evening about afghanistan and the responsibility i take, every day, making sure our forces can do the job in afghanistan, and can soon, as a result of the

efforts we are making, bring our forces home. we've talked today also about security, and how we need to be part of multilateral disarmament negotiations, so that we, britain, do not give up our weapons, unless others are prepared to do so, and reduce their weapons as well. we have talked also about the economy this evening, i've heard a number of people ask questions about the deficit, ask questions about how the economy is going to fare as businesses in the future, whether in or out of europe. the issue for me is don't do anything that puts this economic recovery at risk. we have fought so hard, for so long, over these last two years, to make sure we get through what has been the worst global financial recession since the 1930s. we've had to take ownership of our banks, we've had call the world together in london to have a big summit so that we can make decisions that everybody will work together. we all decided we'd put resources into the economy. unfortunately, the conservatives want to take these resources out far too early and put thousands of jobs at risk. i would say this evening, david, you're a risk to the

economy. nick, you're a risk because of what you're saying on iran and on nuclear weapons to our security. nick, you would leave us weak. david, you would leave us isolated in europe. i think these are the problems that these parties have got to face up to. we have a credible long-term plan for the future of britain. >> thank you, mr. brown. david cameron. >> well, i don't know about you, but i thought all that sounded slightly desperate and an attempt to frighten people, instead of doing what i think we need to do in our country, which is to take and make a clean break from the last 13 years. to have new leadership, to take the country forward, to solve the problems that we have. i think the conservatives are best-placed to offer that. if you vote conservative, you know you can get fresh, new leadership, from a new team on may 7th, rather than being stuck with what we have now. you've heard in the debate today some big differences set out between us, about how we believe you have to give more priority to keeping our country safe, keeping our borders secure, making sure we keep our defenses strong. but also you've heard a lot of

differences on values, how the family comes first for me, how we need to do more to help those who actually do the right thing and want their government behind them. we do face some difficult times in this country, but i still think we have incredible days ahead of us. we're a great country in so many different ways, with the right leadership, with the right values, with a clean break from these 13 years of failure, we can achieve anything if we pull together and build the big society we all know we need to make our country a better place to live in. >> thank you, david cameron. nick clegg. >> what i have tried to do tonight is to show if we do things differently, we can be a force for good in the world. we can lead, we can shape the world around us, not complain about the world around us. we have talked about a number of things this evening. we've talked about europe, afghanistan, climate change, the pope. we've talked about things closer to home as well, immigration, mp's' expenses, pensions. i believe, on all those things, all those issues, we can act differently.

there's still some way to go before this election is decided, but i hope that whether you're going to vote in the next few days by post, or make up your mind in the ballot box on may 6th, you agree with me that something really exciting is beginning to happen. people are beginning to believe, beginning to hope that we can do something different this time. of course there are people who will try to block change, of course there are people who are spreading fear to stop the change you want. i think they're wrong. i think if we do things differently, if we stand up for the value's that have made our country great, then we can be proud again, proud of greater fairness here at home, and proud also, of standing up for the things we believe in, in the world. we don't simply need to choose from the old choices of the past, we don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. don't let anyone tell you this time it can't be different. it can.

>> and that concludes this sky news leaders' debate. full reaction and analysis continues, of course, now here live on sky news. the third and final debate in this general election series will take place next week in the midlands. after that, of course, it's up to you to cast your vote on may 6th. many thanks to you for watching, thanks to our questioners, to the our studio audience, and to the people of bristol. and above all many thanks to our three leaders, the first ever to agree to debate live on television. gordon brown, david cameron, and nick clegg who i now invite to step forward and shake hands with each other. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the british national elections are may 6. we spoke to peter riddle of the times about the process. >> there are lots of money being spent in the british campaign. there is a legal ban on how much money that they can spend. but take away much more nowadays on direct mail campaigns and e-mail. because they cannot buy television time, it has opt-out -- a profound affect on the amount of money. we have some constitutional restraints that applied, the limit is about $30 million on

spending by each of the main parties during the actual period running up to the campaign. that is peanuts for a presidential campaign. >> the british election is may 6. next, a look at the three major political parties broadcast. in the u.k., the partisan broadcasters agree on an allocation of free air time. they're required to air them on main national television and radio channels. here's a look at the third labor party broadcast which aired on wednesday. >> everyone knows we have been through tough times lately but i don't make we should forget how far we have come. the rise on the minimum wage. >> helping a human interest and families. >> double maternity leave. >> of 42,000 more teachers.

published more teachers assistance and support staff. >> rebuilding our schools. >> more people would university than ever before. >> quality for all. >> or winter fuel payments. >> freedom to travel. ♪ 44,000 new doctors. >> a shorter waiting time for the national health services. >> more new hospitals. >> the economic recovery. >> 165,000 new apprentices. >> green jobs. >> what we have done together is more than that. we must go further.

that is a wide labour secure the recovery, and as we lock in recovery, we must not work for new jobs with a green investments jobs. labour will protect our schools and in a chest and policing by offering a guarantee that you're in charge. you will get the right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks of diagnosis. this is a future that we can build together. >> i don't see a broken britain. i see a caring britain. of britain with a future there for all. this election, things are still fragile. this is why now was not the time to switch and head off and a different direction. we are on the road to recovery but we're not there yet. so think about the future.

think about your job, your hope, your family. and think about voting for a future there for all. >> these of the british balal -- political party election broadcasts. during the political campaign, there's usually one broadcast aired each days, excluding sundays. these are produced by the partisan and the main national broadcasters are required by law to provide free air time. the conservative party released this broadcast on friday. >> let me tell you what i think this election is all about. it is about the future of our economy, it is about the future of our society, it is about the future of our country. it is the most important general election for a generation. where is it written that we have to put up with more debt, more

taxes, and more waste? where is it written that we cannot deal with the problems of antisocial behavior and crime and violence on our streets on friday and saturday nights? where is it written that we cannot have the best date schools in the whole world? i know from travelling up and down our country just how angry people still are about the expenses scandal and what happened in parliament. and it does not make it any better, but some politicians say that my party was much better than anybody else's, and that is rubbish. everybody was doing and everyone should admit to that and everyone should sort and clean up this system. we believe that in this country to politicians have been taking the public for mugs for far too long. they have been saying over and over again, just one more regulation issued, it just one more bit of public money spent,

and all of your problems are going to be solved. we note that that is a big allied urging lie -- lie. when we all joined together, when we work out that we are all in this together, that is the change that our country needs. it is a big society that we have been talking about in this general election could take crime. does anyone really believe that one moral all -- god knows we've had enough flaws in the last 16 years -- one more lot is going to cut crime? we're only going to cut crime when we all recognize our responsibility, when we start bringing apart children properly, when we make sure there's more discipline in school, when we all work with the police on the street to make sure the streets are safe. if you want to crack one of the biggest problems we've had in this country, then the big society has the answer. and the problem is unemployment

and welfare. we will say to you that if you can work and if you want to work, we will do everything we can to help you. we will give you the training, we will give you the support, we would give you the advice to get you going and get you back at work. but we will say something else -- that for far too long in this country, people who can work or were able to work, and people could choose not to work. you cannot go claiming welfare like you are now. imagine, "the people choose our candidate. you decide if you're a member of parliament has misbehaved. you second. you make sure that your ministers answer to you every day, every hour, in terms of what they do in the money that they spend. you make sure you can keep on growing your government can stop a system where they had all

and bickered for months and months. you make sure that we cut the cost of politics and you make sure that the ultimate authorities aware power lies with you the people, because you cannot give away when you are -- without asking people first. the politicians have forgotten the public are the master, we the servant. that is what needs to change in our system. that is the simple, straightforward, believable, do will change will get from a conservative government. you can only be sure of change with the conservatives. any other vote and you could wake up on may 7 and find that gordon brown and the same team are still running the country. any other vote and you could end up with a hung parliament and in decision and indecisiveness and all the problems that we have right now. let's concentrate on what we're bringing to this great country. let's get our economy moving and

focus on how we build a big society, how we bring this country together. it's positive energy, ideas, optimism that the people want and that is what they're going to get from the conservatives each and every day. >> you are watching the british political parties election broadcasts. in the u.k., paid political ads are not permitted. the law requires national broadcaster to allocate free airtime to the parties. this is the broadcast aired by the liberal democrats this week.

[police siren] >> broken promises. there have been too many in the last few years, too many in the last 30 years. in fact, our nation has been littered with a trail of broken promises. you remember them -- fairer taxes, a promise broken for it better schools for everyone, a promise broken. cleanup parliament, a promise broken. i believe it is time to do things differently. i believe it is time for fairness and britain. i believe it is time for promises to be capped. britain is a strong country. despite everything we got going for life is still unfair for to many people. people like you who have made us the nation we are today, and you deserve fairness more than anything. putting fairness back into our society for our children is the

biggest single step challenge that we face, but we can do it. if we do it together. and here is out. their taxes. under the liberal democrats, no one will pay any tax on the first 10,000 pounds they earned three in mean 700 pounds back in the pockets of almost everyone. it means tax freedom for millions of people on low pay and pensions. everybody knows that money is tight. we get to sort out the mess in the government finances. but we can pay for fairer taxes by closing the huge loopholes that only benefit the very wealthy and making sure the politicaos pay for the damages that they have caused. cutting class sizes in an elementary schools, and secondary schools, so that no one is left behind. just imagine it. opportunity for every child -- that is fairness.

imagine a fair and sustainable economy. let's break up the banks and make sure that they pay for the damage that they have caused as well, and less invest billions in new green infrastructure, affordable housing, green renewal energy, high-speed rail to build a new economy beyond london with jobs that last for everyone in every part of the country. that is fairness. and finally come if you are mp is corrupt, you will be able the sack them. we will fix the system so that your vote will count, no matter where you live. that is the way to put fairness back into politics. this election is different from every other religion. the trail of broken promises can come to an end, and a new road can began, a road into the future, opportunity and fairness for everyone. we can say goodbye to broken promises and welcome back up.

we can make britain but their country we all want it to be. choose fairness. choose real change the works for you. choose the liberal democrats. >> the british election is may 6. you can view these and other political election broadcast again on our web site, c- span.org. just look for 2010 british elections under that featured link section of the home page. this year, c-span studentcam asked students to make a video dealing with one of our country's great strength or challenge the country is facing here is the first prize middle

school winner. >> a child that is obese has a huge problem. >> this crisis cannot be overstated. >> things were different six years ago. mom's stated home and prepare meals for their families. kids rode their bikes are walk to school. now kids have about five hours of free time today, including television and video games. kids take the bus to school. as of 2008, many children under

18 are in the labor force. we've become a fast-food nation. as a consequence, childhood obesity has more than doubled since 1980. no one in seven of preschool children are obese. this is a challenge that affects us all. to get of medical professional view on top of the city, i talk to my pediatrician. can you define touted of the city for us? >> of the city by definition is actually measured in the percentile on a growth curve that we have, or by a calculation called the body mass index. >> whether the medical consequences? >> hypertension, which is high blood pressure, high cholesterol. they also have bone and joint problems and also some of their

organs can have problems like their lungs and heart. finally there is another entity called diabetes, and the specific one for kids that are really overweight, called type 2 diabetes. some of the causes for obesity as children that probably have too much to read or taken too many calories but don't have enough calories to burn up. and sometimes it takes just little adjustments, perhaps not eating a high calorie foods, or white sugar caloric drinks, and sometimes it is easier as just getting more play time activity. >> we live in a land of abundance. surrounded by calorie-rich food. it is easy to take into many -- taken too many calories.

after all, nutritious foods take time consuming preparation. calorie-dense foods are easy to eat. 8-18-year-old spent eight hours a day watching tv, and the bidets, and video games. kids ages 6-eleven what about 28 hours of television a week. that is time not spent outdoors getting exercise. at the same time, school exercise programs are being sharply cut back. but it is hard to make the balance of nutrition and exercise workout. in fact, childhood obesity has been recognized as a national problem. >> it is clear that out of the

city has become one of the most pressing challenges facing our nation the department of health and human services estimates that by 2010, one in five children in the u.s. will be obese. >> the number one health care crisis our children is facing right now was not cancer, it is not accidents, is not drugs or alcohol or smoking. is that childhood obesity. >> by the fourth grade your sentence to a life of physical problems associated with obesity and hypertension and high pressure. they may live to their fullest potential. >> economic factors are a big part of the trouble. >> in many communities, you can buy a weapon quicker than you can find fresh vegetables or food. >> they're not a lot of

supermarkets. you'd be hard-pressed to find many supermarkets. it is a nutritional desert. >> many kids do not have a lot of options for living healthy. >> kids are not walking to school in far greater percentages. there's very little physical activity when their radical. some of the gymnasiums are not available a lot of kids can i go outside and play anymore. there are many parents that are frayed. they're not are not cops or recreational centers to go. they could not go with their parents at a certain age. >> schools may be the only place that they can have. they are the safety net for kids to get enough exercise. the worst i really do believe we have to be in the curriculum of the school. we know it is virtually impossible to develop a healthy

mind without a healthy body. >> schools could be encouraged to make sure kids are active during the school day. >> what else can we do? >> there are three healthy habits are children could follow every day. first, never skip breakfast. second, play outside one hour a day. third, eat five servings of fruits and vegetables every day. on a national level, we can pass the fifth kids at co-authored by congressman ron kind to help bring back physical education in our public schools. encourage physical fitness. the was that government and also in force regulation about how foods can be marketed to kids and require more information on products a family uses to make smart food choices. we can reward farmers to grow

healthy foods and help families, especially low-income families, by nutritious products. childhood obesity -- is a complex problem that requires complex solutions. but the challenge is clear. we must improve nutrition. we must encourage exercise. and we must all work together to create a generation of healthy, that citizens for the 21st century. >> to see all the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org.