london pays a lower amount of taxes than the bottom 20% of people in this country who pay more in axe from a proportion of their income than the top 20%. i think we need to change that. david says we can't afford give-aways. no you can't. what you can do is make the tax system fair. make it so only people who can afford a football team of lawyers and accountants close those loopholes, give the money back to people so they pay no income tax on the first 10,000 pounds that you earn, that's 700 pounds back in the pockets of the vast majority of you in the country. >> let me repeat the question. over the past few years the tax man has taken more and more from the average person's payslip. if you were elected what would you do about taxes? gordon brown, what would you say in response to the attack on you? >> the reason for the national

insurance rise is to ensure our health services, our police, our education. david cannot guarantee funding for police and education that will match what we are doing. that's the reason for the national insurance rise. the conservatives and the liberals have a plan to reduce tax credits for lower paid families. if david wants fairness why did he support this inheritance tax for only 3,000 families? the biggest beneficiary is, as always, the irishest estates in the country and not the ordinary hard working people of this country. if the liberals want to cut tax credits for the child, i will never form an alliance with someone who computs -- cuts

child tax credits. >> you have heard from gordon brown if you earn 20,000 pounds or over you are considered rich. you are considered a target for the labor government to go on wasting your money this year and taxing you next year. i believe in this country, if you work hard and save money, and you put aside money, and you try to pay down your morton a family home, you -- your mortgage on a family home, you should be able to pass it on to your children. it is the most natural human instinct to all, and i'm afraid these other two parties don't understand that. inheritance tax should only be paid by the millionaires. should we try and encourage people to work hard and save? i say, yes, we should. >> nick clegg.

>> that was the greatest justification i have ever heard for giving double tax breaks to millionaires. i think taxes are unfair to people of ordinary incomes. not the double tax breaks for millionaires. but the people struggling to pay the petrol prices. i am with you on this. i think it is wrong. say you are tetching on 10,000 pounds a year. at the moment you will pay -- say you work three days a week. you will pay about a thousand pounds of that in taxes. under our plan, by lifting the income tax thresh hold, you won't pay any income tax on that first 10,000 pounds. i believe if people work hard, particularly if they want to get off benefits and start working, even if it is part time, we should help them keep more of their money. it is as simple as that. that is the fair thing to do. >> income tax means we have tax

credits and six million people benefit from that. as far as the teaching assistant who is earning a very low income is concerned, there is the working tax credit that is available to them. i come back to this central question about fairness that has been raised by our questioner. how can david possibly justify an inheritance tax credit at a time when he wants to cut child tax credits. the inheritance tax credit is -- what david is doing is giving 3,000 people, the richest people in the country, he's going to give them 200,000 pounds each a year. now, that is simply unfair when he also wants like nick to cut the child tax credit from ordinary families in this country. i've got to speak out about this because it is simply unfair and immoral for the conservatives to put this as their election manifesto. >> you are quite entitled to speak out, but the prime

minister ought to get his facts right. so often he gets his facts wrong. he told us the defense budget went up every year, but it didn't go up every year when he was sending troops to war. on this issue of tax credits, he was saying, we like tax credits. for families earning over 50,000 pounds we think we can't afford the child tax credit. that's one of the savings we're being up front and frank about. for gordon brown to say that the changes we're making would hit low income families, is simply not true. last week in these debates k -- he tried to frighten people saying the conservatives will take away benefits when we will keep the cold -- >> wait. >> he should be ashamed of what he's doing. >> nick clegg. here they go again. tax credits, which i think gordon brown has rightly raised, tax credits, i don't think it

makes sense at a time when there are financial problems. i think somebody like me, who has a good income, can receive tax credits. why should we say for the top 20% you can target tax credits for those who need it. i have now had enough people in tears in my constituency office where i am an m.p. in chef field -- sheff. ield because they have been given money at one moment and then they have been given a letter saying, you have to pay that money back. that is so unfair particularly on single parents, single mothers, for whom the tax credits are an absolute lifeline. >> can i ask you to clarify something. you said a little back that both liberal democrats want to abolish certain tax credits and you can't support a conservetive

party that wants you to do that. what about the liberal democratic party? >> they want to cut tax credits as well. we are talking about tax credits paid to childrenment we have fought long and hard to give children and families decent incomes. liberals will cut the tax credits and so will the conservatives. the conserve -- liberals want to save 4 million, the liberals more. i come back -- the conservatives more. why give tax breaks to the people in the country who do not need it? >> people remember the record for 13 years. they remember who abolished the tax that hit the poorest people in the country the hardest. they remember the small increase on pensioners that gordon brown is responsible for. let me say this, the whole reason we are having this debate about how difficult it is to get

taxes down, how difficult it will be to cut spending is because this prime minister and this government have left our economy in such a complete mess with a budget deficit that this year is depore cast to be bigger than that of greece. that's why we are having this debate. let's not forget. >> nick clegg, if you would -- >> adina, you are right, taxes are unfair. we think it is a great plan to switch taxes so that you get more bone money back in your pocket. that's what i think we need to do. >> thank you, mr. clegg. >> and this one is from ian gray. >> this is grossly unfair. the taxpayers funded the banks and yet they were given huge bonuses while ordinary people are worse off and many have lost their jobs. how will each party bring their version of fairness to this very

unfair situation? >> david cameron. >> he is right it is completely unfair and we need to sort this out. the first thing we need to do is regulate these banks properly. we would put back the big say over the appalling bonuses that have been paid. the next thing we say is a bank levee. put that on now to start getting money back from the banks that so many people have had to put in. we also want to see the banks lending again, particularly to small businesses. something else we need to do, retail banks. banks you and i put our deputy -- deposits into. we agree with president obama's plan which is actually to say those banks shouldn't be able to take part in the most risky activities. that i think would start to get this under control and make sure

the banks serve the people and the economy rather than the people and the economy serving the banks. >> specificly on bonuses, i think it is now necessary, we should say no bonuses whatsoever to the directors of banks at board level. why do i say that? i don't want people actually running those businesses which they should be running for the long-term interest of the business and their clients to be susceptible to the temptation of bonus. give them a fancy membership at a golf club, but don't give them these bonuses. then i would say no cash bonuses at all above $2.5,000 pounds. also i -- above 2.5,000 pounds. so no bonuses for banks that make a loss. no cash bonuses above 2.5,000

pounds. it is specific rvings it is tough, but it will root out this abuse of banker's bonuses. >> we had to take over the royal bank of scotland and halifax loyal g.s.b. the reason we did so was to save l savings and deposits of citizens throughout the country. had we not, the banks would have collapsed. now we have to restructure the banks. i have never been so angry as when i talked to the chairman of a bank who told me the night before his bank collapsed that all he had was a cash-flow problem when i knew it was a structural failing that was fundamental, and the banks needed recapitalized immediately. we need to recapitalize the banks so they are safe. we have to make sure remune racial is fair. we need a world wide agreement to get a global financial levee charged in every country so we are not undercut in other

countries and there is a race to the bottom. i would say to those bankers, we would never allow them to act in an irresponsible and unfair way again. >> david cameron? >> what i would say to what the prime minister has just said, if you look at the labor record over the last 13 years, they did very much pitch the whole fortunes -- hitch the whole fortunes of the economy to the city of london. we got into a situation where we ended up with the whole economy having to serve the banks rather than the other way around. i assume the banker we were talking about is fred goodwin. it was this government that gave this man a knighthood for services to banking. he not only broke his own bank, he nearly brought down the whole economy. there are big, big lessons to learn. i think the most important thing to learn is we put the bank of england back in charge of regulating the banks, and give them the specific duty of calling time on debt and the economy. things got completely out of

control. the banks were regular lated, but badly and by the wrong organization. and the one party that wants to scrap the whole system and put the bank of england back in charge is a conservetive. >> david clegg has been talking about parties being too close to the city. the blunt truth is that both conservetive and labour for ages have been far too close to the city basically preferring the one-square interests of the city rather than the hundred-square miles of the united kingdom. i think you need to look at what went wrong. when you have banks, high, risky casino banking on the one side and casino style banking we all depend on, then you are asking for trouble. that's why if the government of the bank of england seas many of us are increasingly saying we should split up the banks

between investment banking and high-street banking on the other in order to ensure we never, ever, ever again have a bank hold a gun to the heads of the british economy, and still we haven't done enough to protect ourselves from risk in the future. >> we have taxed our self on bonuses on a two billion tax. we are ensuring every penny that is being given to the banks comes back. that is why we are taking the action necessary to take back the banks. i want a global levy that i've been talking to president obama about and france and germany. northern rock failed. but it was a small bank. s.b.c. failed, and it is a large bank. it is not the size of the banks, but the way it is being run. the answer, david, is not what you are planning in your manifesto. you are going to take money from investment allowances in this

reasonon -- region and give a corporation cut to the banks. that, i'm afraid, is the same old tori party. >> let me make one more important point -- how do we learn the lesson of having not to bail out the banks? we must not put ourselves in the situation of having to bail out other european economies. people need to know the liberal democrats are still in favor of joining the euro. as late as last year nick clegg was saying the euro would be an ancor for our economy. do you realize realize what -- >> no, i am not advocating entry into the e.u. i would only advocate it if it was good for jobs, pensions, and savings, and it would only be decided on a ref rundrendyum where you can vote on it. -- a referendum where you can

vote on it. i think we need to impose a 10% tax on the profits of the banks now. i'll tell you why. under our tax system in this country, the banks can offset the taxes they are supposed to pay against the losses they have already made. that means for some banks, they are basically not paying any tax at all, even though we bailed them out, and the only tax they would pay would be this 10% levy they say should be on the books. >> mr. brown, we are taking the money back to the banks and will incest -- insist on doing so. we will recoup that volume for the country. then we will get the profit when we sell the shares at a future date. we will continue to fight for a global levy, and it will happen this year. it will happen in a way that

banks don't leave our country, that banks stay in the country. i come back to the question. i asked david again. he didn't answer the question on inheritance tax. corporation tax he's going to cut by three pence. why he is cutting when he says he wants to make sure the bank pays their share? to cut by three pence is to take -- it is the same old conservetive party. >> we have a bank levy to take the money off the banks we have all had to put into the banks. do i want to cut taxes on all businesses, particularly small businesses, to get the economy moving? you are damn right i do. otherwise we are not going to get the jobs or the investment or wealth that we need. the prime minister has to face up to the fact that right now it is not working. small businesses come to me and say, i have never gone over my overdraft limit, i have never broken my could have in any event, but i cannot get a loan. we have stuffed these banks full of money and they are not

lending. we need some action from a government that will roll up its sleeves, stop trying to defend its hopeless record, and realize we need change to get the economy moving. >> let's move on. a question from jean simpson, please. >> this area used to be full of businesses that made things. so many of them being shut down, sold off and gone abroad. i want to know how you propose to rebuild the country's manufacturing industries. we can't just have offices and shops. >> we can't just have offices and shops. >> i strongly agree with you, jean. i am very proud of my industrial heritage. i think the first thing we need to do -- i would say three things. the first thing is get the banks lending. it you don't get the banks lending, everything sort of stops. i was at a small company a few weeks ago.

they manufacture new environmently sustainable lighting fixtures. they have lots of clients, lots of demands. they can't expand because the banks won't lend at reasonable rates. the banks we own lent less money last year than the year before. they should be lending more. after all, it is your money that has gone to bail them out. secondly, we need to invest in affordable housing, green energy, renewable energy. the kind of things that create jobs for our young people and create the green infrastructure that i think we need as a country in any event. >> gordon brown. >> i visited a manufacturer who is involved in selling to the rest of the world, including china and asia, with the most advanced manufacturing. i believe over the next four years we can create low carbon jobs. i believe we can create half a billion jobs in the digital jobs of the future. i believe biotechnology is very

good in this region. biotechnology can see 100,000 jobs. we in the government are investing with these countries. i am optimistic about the future of the british economy and optimistic about this region. what i am inassistant on is that the bank -- that's why i am insistant that the banks do lend. secondly, we will continue to give investment allowances, which would be abolished by the conservatives, and we will maintain regional development agencies that the conservatives want to remove. it is very important we back regional manufacturing in this great center of manufacturing for our country. >> this area, the birmingham area, used to be full of businesses that made things. so many of them have been shut down or sold off or gone abroad. i want to know how you propose to rebuild the country's manufacturing. we can't just have offices examine shops.

-- offices and shops. >> i think jean is absolutely right. this was birmingham. this was known as the city of a thousand trades. we have lost 60,000 jobs in the last year. we have been losing jobs in manufacturing faster than in the 1980's. we have to rebuild. how do we do that? let's start by investing and making sure great universities like this are producing the scientists and entrepreneurs of the future. so much of the government's training budget is wasted. we say let's have an extra 200,000 apprenticeships. that would make a difference. you can't ignore the basics of making it easier for businesses to employ people. if we keep putting up the cost of one person saying to another person come work for me, we are never going to get more employment. it is scientists, technology, raising the status of teachers, making sure we reward entrepreneurship, and yes, having low taxes for businesses.

that's part of getting them here and keeping them here. >> how do you respond to the arguments of the other two, nick clegg. >> i think we all must agree on the points about investing in new technologies. i was at a college in birmingham today. young people developing vocational qual fantastics between the need for the skills of the future. i think it is a good thing that base clically all the parties agree on that. i come back do this point that i made to jean earlier. unless you have banks helping businesses, it is extremely difficult for them to expand their products, invest in their factories, and invest in trading new jobs. who would have thought here in birmingham of all places that a bank that you own should have been involved in lending money, money that you have given to them in the bailout, the taxpayer bailout. should have used that money to fund or help fund the american multinational take-over of

cadberries. when you lent that money to the banks did you think that money would be used to put people out of work in britain? no, and it was wrong. >> let's go do gordon brown. >> we have increased to over 200,000 now and we want to raise that number over the next few years. at the same time there were more students going to university than ever before in our history, and i'm pleased to say the majority of students are now women. to help manufacturing the regional developmental agencies, ask there are more than 20,000 firms in this region, receiving cash under our program. the problem is you can't take money out of the economy now as david proposes and hope business can survive. you have to keep the money in the economy. you can't take investment allowances away from businesses as david proposes to do to pay for its corporation tax cut to banks. and you cannot help the economic

development agency that is doing so much good. we have to face up to the fact we have to act now. we cannot take money out of the economy and we have to support manufacturing and not withdraw the support david would do with his policies. >> once again, i think there is complete confusion between the government and the economy. gordon brown doesn't seem to understand that to get the economy going, you have to help businesses employ people. you have to cut their red tape, cut their regulation. let me tell you one thing government to do to help. government is an enormous purchaser of goods and services, yet it hardly buys anything from small enterprises. we think government should give a quarter of its contracts to the small firms, the ones that will actually be the success stories of tomorrow. let's make it easier for firms to register with the government so they can buy and sell services to the government. that would help to get them going, the great businesses of tomorrow. that's what we need to build. >> should we briefly discuss

these points that need to be made? nick clegg first and then you, mr. brown. >> i want to come back to this point about how one takes the right decisions to support the new manufacturing industries of the future. i think, for instance, it is obvious if you look at the huge number of off-shore wind turbines being installed off the coast of britain in all sorts of places, that we should be a world leader in manufacturing this new green technology. let the only manufacturer of on-shore wind turbines is recently closed and the london -- one of the biggest off-shore wind projects off the shore of kent, 90% of the stuff there was built in denmark or germany. why are we not investing so we manufacture the new green technology of the future as well? >> wind turbines and the development of the off-shore wind industry is one of our priorities. and we are now the world's leading off-shore wind power. there are four countries

including seamens that announced they will invest in wind power in this country as a result of government incentives. we are doing the same with digital because we want 100% super fast broad band thr that will serve every place in this country. you have to make it necessary for people to go from 90% to 100%. we are investing in the leading cancer research firm that will be in britain as a result of the investment we're making. but i come back to this point, if you cut investment allowances, david, if you cut the regional development agency, and if you do that to cut corporation tax cuts for banks, you are putting manufacturing industry at risk and doing the opposite of what is needed now. >> thank you. >> if you say cutting corporation tax, i want to cut corporation tax for every firm to help them keep more of their

profits, to re-invest, expand, take people on. that's what a growing economy needs. right now we are stuck. the prime minister talks about renewable energy. after 13 years of a labor government, we have renewable shares of any country in europe. we have had nine energy ministers. nine energy ministers, several energy strategists, but nothing ever happens. what we need is change from a government that understands business, it feels the beating heart of entrepreneurs within it, and gets things moving. >> david, why are you cutting investment allowances for manufacturing industry? >> are you going to take away the regional development agencies and scrap the functions? what good does that do to the west midlands that wants the regional development agency to work for them. >> we are cutting taxes for businesses in our forthcoming budget if we win the election. something else we will do, you say to every new business that

starts up, the first 10 people you take on, you shouldn't have to pay national pins contributions. that's the sort of thing to get the economy moving. instead what you have with the current government is vast regional bureaucracies paying themselves huge subpoenas of money and not helping the businesses that want to get our economy moving. >> thank you very much. we are almost halfway through this debate and we have a number of other topics to come to apart from the economy. before we do, these three parties represented here tonight are, of course, not the only ones in the united kingdom asking for your vote next week. if you live in scottland you will be able to hear on tonight's 10:00 news as well as "newsnight scotland" which will be earlier than usual on bbc 2. then scottland's four political leaders go head-to-head. if you live in wales you can hear the 10:00 news in wales and the leaders of all the welsh parties will be on bbc 2 wales.

the leaders will debate on -- at 9:00 on bbc 1 wales. that's at 9:00 p.m. and finally you can hear ar from the greens on the news after this debate. >> now let's go on to another question. take this one, please, from bradley russell. >> are the politicians aware they have been removed from the concerns of the real people, and why don't you remember that you are there to serve us, not ignore us? >> gordon brown. >> the only reason i came into politics is because i saw what was happening in my local community and i have the good fortune of being the member of parliament for the people i grew up with and the people i went to school with. the reason i want to be in

politics is because when it comes to immigration, i want to see a situation where we increase the number of jobs that people trained in britain can take as we lower the numbers of people coming into this country. that's why we have banned outside work from coming into britain. that's why we have cut the numbers of semi-skilled persons that can come in. what we are doing at the moment is training up people so in the next few years, as we move forward out of this recession, the jobs will go to people trained in britain who have the kills in britain. . with

>> i want us to get back to the situation where the next level of people coming into our country is in the tens of thousands, not as it has been in recent years in the hundreds of thousands. one benefit of that is we can better integrate people into our country, build a stronger society, and we would not hear people worried about immigration because they knew their government had listened to them and got it under control. >> let me remind listeners and viewers, politicians are aware

of that have become removed from real concerns, and why don't you remember your there to serve us, and not ignore us? >> of course, you are right. we are there to serve, and we are there to respond to people's concerns. i hear concerns about immigration all the time. the reason i have become so anxious is because the immigration system itself, the way it works has become utterly chaotic with a succession of labour and conservative government talks. if that would remove the exit controls, so we did not only know what is coming in but who should be leaving as well. there are additional things we need to do. i think we have to have a regional approach to people coming in working here. it will be an unreasonable strain on public services. we need to deal with the

criminal gangs who have been exporting illegal immigrants. that is a fair, effective, workable approach of stealing a something that is of immense public concern. >> our politicians aware that have become remove from the concerns of real people, especially on immigration? >> i come back to the question of are we there to serve people and how we best serve them including action on immigration. i want to create jobs for people of this country. i know in birmingham and the west midlands, people are worried about their jobs and job security. they are worried whether their teenage sons and daughters can get a job. i want to get a guarantee that every person under 25, if they are unemployed for a few months, they will get a job. there are 50,000 jobs available in the future jobs fun, so they should not be redundant for long, either. i want to project -- protect people in jobs so that if you want short time, you can get

extra money from tax credits. i want to make sure their jobs for people in britain and train people what to do these jobs. as far as immigration, to tackle illegal immigration, we have four national id cards and we are going to be bringing people in andé># out of the country. >> david cameron, what is your response? as of course we have to include this is -- improve the system, but we have to get a grip on the numbers. people need to know what our in our manifestoes. people need to know that the liberal democrats propose amnesty for illegal immigrants. that could be 600,000 people who are here illegally being allowed to stay here and given full citizenship, access to welfare, and could bring -- that just does not make sense. that is a complete mistake and would make a bad situation even

worse. that is why i say let's rip this problem, talk about it sensibly and bring immigration down to more manageable levels. >> i do not want you to be misled by david cameron. the only politician in britain who a blanket amnesty is boris johnson. we do need to do something about the fact that there are lots of people living in the shadow of the economy. it will not go away. some of these people have been living for years and years in the shadow of our society. nasty, criminal gangs exploit them and create crime in our communities. when we deal with something as sensitive as immigration, let's at least be open and honest and straight about it. david cameron says you could put a cap on immigration.

this is complete nonsense, since he knows that 80% of people that come into the country come from the european union. it cannot cap those numbers so you should not give them false hope that you can bring the numbers down when you cannot control them in that way. it is wrong to raise hopes on such a sensitive topic. >> the proposed amnesty? you cannot get away from that. i think there were criticized for good reason. we should not be trying to encourage and reward people for doing the right thing. you are basically saying to people who came here illegally, who did not have the right to come here, that is ok, and to the people who work cuing up and want to do the right thing, who want to abate the rules, they are being punished. we need a different set of values. this does not make sense. >> i cannot see how you send out

anything other than the worst possible message et give amnesty to the people who have come here illegally. there is a suggestion that there is an amnesty for people after 10 years for people who come to this country illegally. this message is wrong, because it just encourages other people to want to come illegally. david says there should be a cap, but he will not give the figure. this is once again the conservative party concealing something that either they should tell us, or they should just say they are not going to do it properly. >> i think there is a problem. it is a problem i did not create, you did not create, they created it. they created keep up -- chaos in the new immigration system. they are here, and is a problem. whether we like it or not. i think we have to deal with it. i am saying for those who have

been here for a decade to speak english, who want to play by the rules and play in the pay taxes, they want to come out of the shadows, they can do community service. better to get them out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of the tax man. you can pretend as much as you like, that somebody can deport people when you don't even know where they are. i am coming up with apparena prl that is dealing with a world away is. it is a one of problem that needs a solution. >> nick has talked about 600,000 people having this amnesty, being able to stay. they would be able to -- that is 1.2 million, potentially. all those people would have access to welfare. >> instead of making an endlessly misleading comments,

but still say every time you talk about policy is just wrong. we have to deal with it. we have to get them out of the hands of criminals. am i right or wrong that 80% of people that come here come from the european union, and your cat would make no difference to that whatsoever. is that right, yes or no? >> we all remember what happened when poland joined the european union. we were told just 13,000 people would come, and in fact it was closer to 1 million. they should come clean about the number. >> yes or no, do 80% of people come from the european union, which your cap would not affect? >> both of them have got this wrong, i am afraid.

nick is wrong to send out a message to people that you can come here illegally and you will get amnesty. david is wrong to mislead people about his cap, because it does not include people from the european union and university status. he would make it impossible for some businesses to recruit people from abroad during the course of the year. he has never given us a number for his cap. he has to tell us what it is, or stop telling us there is going to get kaplan there is not going to be. -- stop telling us there is going to be a cap when there is not going to be. >> your not answering the question. nick will not answer the question about how he can justify amnesty for illegal immigrants because he is sending out a message to people to come to britain and you will be legalized.

it just does not make sense. >> let me repeat again. there is a problem that you have created. people that came here illegally because of the chaos of your government. we have to deal with it. it would be much easier for me to defend -- pretend it is not a problem. it is a problem. is helping criminals. i do not want to help criminals. i want to get them into that hands of the tax man. let's get rid of the way the world is, rather than the way we would like to think it should be. >> we must move onto another question. >> i am married. my husband is an accountant and we have two children. we work really hard making a good joint wage, yet still cannot afford a family home or the larger deposit necessary

today. what would your party do to help housing? what hope is there for anybody else if an accountant is priced out of the market? >> i have every sympathy for you. people who try and work hard and save and obey the rules and do the right thing, all too often just fine hurdle after hurdle put in their way, whereas people who do not play by the rules, who do not think about saving often get rewarded, and that is not right. what can we do to help you? first of all, we have to get spending under control so we stop putting your taxes up. we also show that -- also said we should have no stamp duty on the first 200 fethousand poundso under 50,000 pounds. we also have to build more houses. -- the first 250,000 pounds.

we have to scrap these top-down targets that make local citizens so angry but reward councils they go ahead and build homes for families like yours. >> this is one of those things along with emigration that i hear about more than anything else as i travel around the country, the lack of affordable housing. there are 1.8 million families, 5 million people who are still awaiting an affordable home. i would do three things. firstly, there are hundreds of thousands of in the properties in our communities, boarded up, which i think for a relatively modest amount of money, you could convert into homes. it is just not right, and either people cannot afford or cannot find places to live could have one of these in the properties. we have a plan set out to convert 250,000 empty homes into homes that people could live in.

second, i would give local so that they can invest in building homes. thirdly, all these empty flats ec inner-city center, i think they should be converted into the homes that people need for young families like yours. >> the house building industry has not served us well in this country. when a crisis happen, the building firms did not have enough capital and are not able to survive. so many went under. yet there is a pent-up demand for housing in our country. there are 1 million more homeowners than there were just over 10 years ago. so more people are buying their homes. what i would like to do -- we have extended tax relief for first-time buyers. shared equity is something that might be considered. that is a chance to buy part of your health. that is becoming more popular way of doing things. we are able to help finance that and work with the building societies and banks.

we signed agreements that require them to lend 92 million this year, a lot of that for mortgages. the fourth thing is using up in the property, giving local authorities the power to bill and making sure housing associations also have the power to build. i want to create an owner occupied majority in this country and increase home ownership, and i want to quickly with the measures we are taking. >> we should build more homes that are part rent, port mortgage. -- part in, part mortgage. as circumstances change, they can increase the mortgage and reduce the rent. also, rewarding responsibility. people live in housing association homes with the record of good behavior, give them a stake in that house, so when they moved to have the start of some capital to move up the housing ladder. one thing we should not do is put vat on building new homes.

that would just lift the price of new homes even higher. that would be a big mistake. once again, it just does not make any sense. >> i talked about how we need to convert into properties, how councils need the freedom to build homes. i have certainly seen lots of great city centers with flats designed for one person, private property developers put up these towers. they should be made available to families. i think there is a role for good old fashioned council houses. when i was in newcastle the other day, i saw the liberal democrat council has started building council houses again. they might not help you and your family, but the more housing we get in supply, the easy it is for everybody.

i think there is a funny glitch in the vat, paying no vat -- i think it is easier to have an equalized vat, but said it at lower rate than that top headline rate of vat. >> -- what he is saying is there would be no vat new homes. what i think is right is that we encourage local authorities to build. i think the other thing that matters is what i called shared equity. that is half rent, half buy. it is working with the owner and gradually buying up your house. that will be far more popular for young people in the years to come. the key to all this is low interest rates. we have to keep interest rates low. we have done that even during

this recession and have done so in the last few years. i am afraid the liberal and conservative policies are too big a risk to inflation and interest rates for the future. >> >> i am retired, having worked all my life and find it appalling that some who have not paid into the system are living on state benefits. what are you going to do to prevent that? >> i think one of the biggest issues you are touching on is how we encourage people that are on benefits to move into work. there are studies that compared the three parties manifestoes, and said very clearly to list the income tax -- left the income tax threshold to 300 pounds is the best incentive to work.

you have an incentive to get of benefits. to many people say that to be honest, it is not worth my while to get off benefits. when people look at this closely, they think it is not worth working. we need to give incentives to work. our plans do that. i believe in work. work is one of the most important things in society. it gives people self-respect, and i want to encourage it. that is what our plan proposes that we do. >> his question was that he finds it galling that some who have not paid into the system live on state benefits. >> we have to get people off unemployment benefits and they will have to be forced to work they have been on unemployment benefits for a period of time. we are getting an offer to young people of the moment under 25. we will give you worker training because we do not want the unemployment for young people.

we do not want to looless the lr market for young people. you cannot take this as an option. you will have to take up the job and the training. we are also doing a great deal to try and get people on incapacity benefits back to work. i believe in work, too, because i have been brought up that work is the way you reward people but also the way that you find self- esteem. my britain is one where i want more people working and without being on benefits. >> very simply, we should have a very straightforward approach. we should say to people, if you can work and want to work, we will do everything we can to help you. we will get the training. if you are offered a job that you can do and you don't take it, it cannot go on carrying on taking your benefits.

we have got to say no to that. the prime minister has just said no life on the dole. but we have had 30 years of a labour government, and there or 5 million people on our board benefits. there are 3 million people on incapacity benefits. they have had so long to do something about it. we are talking about the need to cut waste and cut budgets. should we start with people who can work but refused to work, so people who have done the right thing to do not have to feel as gramm does? so many people say i go to work and what passed houses where i know people could work which is not to. that is not acceptable, and we need change to make that happen. >> graham use that word galling. when you retired, that you will

find that the benefits you get are not as generous as i think they should be. i think one of the things we need to do immediately after the general election is restore the earnings link. it was broken some years ago by the conservative government and has not been restored under 13 years of labour government. the least they deserve when you retire, having worked hard and paid into the common pot is that you get a decent state pension when you retire. i hope that we do something to make that experience feel a little less galling. >> he is absolutely right. the pensions should relate to earnings. we will do that in 2012 when we have the resources to do so. we have also introduced the winter allows for all pensioner household for some as over 60. it is 400 pounds for people over

80. we are trying to create a new regime for pensioners where women have a full state pension, where they have not had in the past. we are making it a condition for young people that they have got to take a job. yes, we have 2.5 million more people out of work than in 1997. we have more young people in training and education and we have had before. yes, we have to go further and these are the measures of compulsion, a requirement to work and responsibility to work. >> when it comes to ending welfare dependency, labor had 30 years to deal with it and have not. liberal democrats have virtually nothing in their manifesto. people who work hard and put money aside, when they go into residential care, they have to pay every penny, including selling their homes. people who have not saved it the whole thing for free.

we say if you can put aside 8,000 pounds when you turn 65, he should get your care for free. i think that would remove one of the major and fairness is in our system. >> just to clarify, what do you see as the key differences between your positions? >> david cameron keeps repeating we have nothing to say. we are the only party that has a plan to get people off benefits and into work. that has been independently recognize. i think it is almost a philosophical issue here. do you think the best way to help people who are vulnerable and poor is to constantly give them more benefits for greater dependency on the state, or do you provide incentives to let them help themselves where they can? it our plan would get people off

that debt of the dependency and into work. >> you know what the difference is, because we do not water generation of young people growing up and not working. that is what happened in the 1980's under david's party. we are dealing with the consequences. we are saying every young person should either be in training are preparing for that training. and everyone should be compelled to do one of these things. it cannot have something for nothing in society anymore. under 25's will have to take the opportunity to work or training if they are not employed. that is the best way to do it, but we've got to get young people into work. we cannot have a situation where they are on the street corners. i just think the conservative party is still living in the

1980's and 1990's. >> i am a little bit unsure about which country gordon brown thinks he is prime minister up. in britain today, there are 900,000 young people not in employment on not in education, not in training. he has caused record youth unemployment. it is 40% higher than when he came to power in 1997 after the longest and deepest recession in our history. so to talk about it as if he has some kind of magnificent economic record -- it is outrageous that a single working mom gets 90% of income taken away by the state. we are saying et go on refusing the offer of a job you can do, you should loosen, and benefits for up to three years. -- you should lose benefits for up to three years. we all agree that benefits should be conditional.

they should not be dished out for free. we all agree on that. 3 disagree is that i have a plan to make sure that taxes reward work when you start work, particularly to get your of benefits. warren brown has no plans to lower taxes for people in middle to low income. >> the institute of fiscal studies you are quoting a few minutes ago says that your proposal for financing a tax cut are highly speculative. they do not know how you are going to get the money. that is what they say about your proposals. they are not thought out. we are trying to get people back to work in difficult situations, low inflation, lowered interest rates, get the economy moving. that is the way to get people back to work. >> i teach in a very depressed area of birmingham.

what should i do to show that children i teach that they have as many opportunities as others? >> what will each leader do to ensure that the children he teaches have the same opportunities in life from a very deprived area of birmingham as those from any other school? >> my mother used to say that when i was growing up, what was available for a mother and four of parent was paternity services -- maternity services when the shot was born. the new were called for vaccinations and then you were told to go to primary school at age of five. now we have a nursery education for 3-for your roles. we have sure start children centers around the country, and now we have maternity pay and return to pay and child tax credits, and we are moving forward by making the child tax credit even higher for the

parents of under it 3-year-old. that is how we can help give chances. i am interested in social mobility. you have to help children under 5 develop their potential. you have to encourage young people to stay in school and get qualifications. this is the way we can have a new generation of middle-class jobs in this country where young people can come from poor backgrounds and get the opportunities they have never had before. >> first of all, i would like to say a big thank you for what you do. i think teachers do incredibly important work in our society and we should do more to value and respect them. one of the most important things we can do is give the teacher control back over their schools. discipline is the absolute foundation of a good education. right now, it just does not work. we have something like 17,000 attacked each year, and you get

kids that can be excluded from school, including one in manchester who is excluding a chauffer having a nice, who gets put back in school by the appeals panel. we say make the head teachers captain of the ship, change all the great -- crazy rules that stopped teachers from searching for banned items. then we need to raise aspirations. we need to open up education and have the big society where, we say those who want to separate schools in inner-city areas, come on in. we want diversity and excellence in our state sector. that is where i send my children. we really have to do better than we do today. >> so the question is about teaching in a deprived area of birmingham. how will they have the same opportunities in life as those from any other school? >> what we want to do, and we have set out in one of the

biggest pledges in our manifesto, is to take 2.5 billion pounds from the 15 billion pounds of savings we government spending so that we can raise the money given to the poorest children to the same level that children get at other schools. it is one of the biggest issues that faces us as a country. a poor but right child gets overtaken by a less bright red wealthier job by the age of seven. after that, the gap is wider -- a lesson right but wealthier child by the age of seven. we have a plan to deliver more one-to-one tuition, smaller class sizes, and help those children in the crucial, early

years when they start school. >> i am very pleased this question is about teaching and from a teacher. you never forget your teacher. you remember what they did for you. teachers are so important. i want any underperforming schools to be taken over by a good school, and that is what we are trying to do at the moment. it cannot escape this back about poverty. it could cut child tax credits, if you cut the school's budget, then he put the future of these young children at risk. i am afraid the liberals and conservatives want to cut top tax credit. david wants to charge for nursery education. at the same time, he wants to cut the school's budget, which we would continue to finance. he is making the people who are the poorest pay the cost of his policy, while he still has this ridiculous policy of inheritance tax. >> i think you heard it all from a prime minister who has absolutely nothing left positive to say.

13 years of economic failure and a lot of educational failure, 13 years in which inequality has got worse anti-poverty has gotten worse. that is what you hear. let me give some positive things we would do that would make a difference. we have to get the basics right. i am clear that teaching children to read and write using the old fashioned synthetic phonics method works best. you accept that every job is not the same. let's stretch the brightest people and help those that are falling behind. i had a big argument with someone this week about special needs education. please, let's stop closing the special schools that do so much for families in our country. education is about aspirations. every child, you can go all the way according to your talents. that is what education should be

like. >> there is a link between poverty at home and underperformance in the classroom. it ishsñ that link which is holg back so many children. that is what is unfair. that link is the link i want to help solve. we would do it partly through the tax proposals i talked about earlier, giving people 700 pounds back in their pocket by raising the income tax threshold to 7,000 pounds. we call it a pupil premium. it means extra money, 2.5 billion pounds, that would allow our schools to reduce the average class size down to 20. i have three young children. two of them go to a local school. by six or myself as a father that what happens to young child is so important in developing their self- confidence, social skills, their

willingness to learn. get it right at an early age, and we can help people later in life. >> i feel passionate about opportunities for infants and young children. we have introduced the child tax credit. that is why we created the children's center that now focus is the committee. that is why nursery education is at 3 now and not ask for. -- at 3 now and not act foat 4. david is not answering the question. he has a coalition for cut on child tax credits that will cut them for the future. that is not the way to deal with the problem. you cannot solve the problem by taking away all the advances we have made. >> i just think people will see straight for that as an attempt

to try and frighten people. i have two children. my eldest is at a state school in london. i want every penny of the education budget to follow children like mine across the playground and into the school. i say after 13 years of a labour government, there is a lot of ways we can cut out. there is the fact that had teachers get four thousand pages of information every year. the department of children schools and families spend 3 million pounds, including a massaged sweet and contemplation room. we do not need those sorts of things. cut the waste and get the money into the classroom, and stop trying to frighten people. >> of course, gordon brown is right -- i do not know what they want to cut the school building

program. for gordon brown to constantly make these claims about tax credits, a come back to a simple figure. what we focus that money and where it is really needed and used the money that we can save elsewhere and invest in those individual children who need that individual care. it could be saturday morning classes, evening classes, one to one tuition. all the things that make the most dramatic difference for a child's education. >> a million people would lose the child tax credit under both of your proposals. >> we have to bring this part of the debate to an end. much, e of you. we end with final statements from each of the three party leaders. david cameron will start.

>> i am standing here for very simple reason. i love this country, and i think we can do even better in the years ahead. we can go on, solve our problems, and do great things, but we need a government with the right mandates. we need a government that backs families and understands that the family is the most important thing in our society. we need a government that backs work and people who try to do the right thing. we need a government that always understands that keeping a safe and secure is the most important thing of all. there's something else you need to know about me. i believe the test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most vulnerable, the most frail, and the poorest. that is true in good times but even more true in difficult times. there will be difficult decisions, but i want to lead us through those to better times ahead. i think i have a great team behind me. i think that we can do great things in this country. if you vote labor, you'll get

more of the same. if you vote liberal, as we have seen tonight, is just uncertainty. if you vote conservative on thursday, you can have a new, fresh government, making a clean break and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need. >> for the liberal democrats, nick clegg. >> everything have said during the three television debates is driven by a simple belief that if we do things different, we can build a better, a fairer britain. as you decide how to cast your vote, of course you will be told by these to that real change is dangerous, that it cannot be done. but don't let anyone scare you from following year in stakeyou. together next week, we can change britain for good. you have been given promises from these zero parties and when they get back in government, you find that nothing ever changes at all. we can do so much better than that this time. i cannot guarantee that all the problems you face will be solved

overnight. but i can guarantee that i will work tirelessly to deliver fairness, fair taxes so that you pay less, and all people pay their fair share.( a different approach to the economy, and decent, open politics that you can trust once again. i believe all this can happen. this is your election. this is your country. when you go to vote next week, shares the future you really want. if you believe, like i do, that we can do things differently this time, and together we really will change britain. don't let anyone tell you that it cannot happen. it can. this time, you can make the difference. >> these debates are the answer for people who said that politics does not matter. i want to thank everyone who has been involved in these debates

over the last few weeks. they show there are because we can fight for. they also show that the differences exist between the parties. i know that if things stay where they are, perhaps in eight days time, david cameron, perhaps supported by nick clegg, would be in office. i have had the duty of telling you this evening that while we have policies for the future, the conservatives would put the recovery and immediately at risk with an emergency budget. i have asked david and nick questions all evening. david has not been able to confirm that is the case that inheritance tax will go to the richest people -- cuts will go to the richest people in the country. i believe he is planning to cut the school's budget, and he has not denied it. i believe that child tax credits -- i believe that policing would be at risk from the conservative government because they have not said that they would match us on policing either. and healthe have that give every cancer patient right to see a specialist within two weeks, that would be scrapped by the

conservative government if they came into power. and don't like having to do this, but i have to tell you that things are too important to be left to risky policies under these two people. they are not ready for government because they have not brought did they have not thought through their policies. we are desperate to get this country through the recession and into recovery. that is what i intend to continue to do. it is up to the people to decide, and it is your decision. >> thank you to all three party leaders who have taken part in this debate, and to our audience here. i hope that the debate here, along with the other two, may have helped you to decide which put your vote next thursday. i will be back after the news here on bbc one. from the great hall of birmingham university, goodbye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[applause] >> the british election is may 6. c-span is covering the three main party leaders as the campaign to be the next prime minister. we talked with the body language expert about the first time ever tv leaders debate. >> in order to come across as really competent, believable politician, there are three things you need to do. one, you need to project an image of power. you need to look like a leader. that may have something to do with what you have to say. it also inevitably has to do with how you say it and how you behave.

secondly, you need to project an image of someone who is likable, approachable, and sincere. finally, what is really important is that you manage to disguise your disquiet. if you are feeling anxious, you have to find a way to conceal it. those are the three things that all politicians need to do. what i have been interested in over this debate is the ways in which the three contenders project images of themselves as prime minister material. what are the hand gestures they used to convey these things? even though they do not even know they are doing it. the ways in which they try to come across as an average joe, joe the plumber, and whether they succeed or fail in the process. i am also really focused on those tiny little signs that people give off inadvertently, those giveaway signals that tell us as a viewer that these three

contenders are in a state of anxiety. by central belief -- my central belief is that all politicians go on and talk about policy, principles, values, programs, all these kinds of things, really in the final count, it is not about that at all. is all about style, but they hate that. but even though they hated, they know they have to do it. as we have seen in the case of so many american presidential elections, those kinds of things, particularly when these conferences take place on television, those things are absolutely critical and decisive. the first leaders' debate, there were several indications of what was going on. for example, i was fascinated by the ways in which all three party leaders try to track each other.

a lot of hand gestures, using a step risk in order to appeared manley, presentation of the knuckles instead of the palms to insure they mean business. even though the years do not recognize this to be the case, viewers will take in this information and inform their opinions on the basis of this. >> the third and final leaders debate is this coming thursday. you can watch it on c-span this sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific time. on our website, c-span.org, you can watch the entire interview with the body language expert and other programs of the british election. the british election is may 6, and c-span is covering the leaders coming issues, and process. we asked to a british journalist with the british campaign is becoming more americanized. >> we are definitely getting

more focus on the character, the personality, the family lives of the leaders. it is where most of the work is gone into preparing. away from that, we are also getting the weives the first time. i cannot remember having a spouse is playing such essential part. date deconstructions of the wardrobe sarah brown, samantha cannon, and maria clegg. as opposed to the traditional party platform. >> you can go back over 100 years and complained that british elections are becoming americanized. it is normally deemed an insult. a lot of bill clinton's

campaign advisers -- people like sam greenberger were advising tony blair and are now advising gordon brown. it is a familiar charge. the really big innovation in this campaign is the leaders' debate. there is a big contrast and they are really more than the american campaign. it for laughs from labor day to that eight weeks or so leading up to november -- it normally lasts from labor day to 8 weeks or so leading up to november. the last the day will be a week before polling day. a lot of the dynamics of the campaign are being dictated by that debates. people are saying it has become americanized, and there has been a lot of pressure to have a leaders debate for a long time.

it is very different from "prime minister's questions." it is inescapable part of the american election is now becoming part of the british election. next the third and final leaders debate is this coming thursday. you can watch it this sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific time. on our website, c-span.org, you can watch campaign events and interviews on the election. go to the 2010 british elections page. >> you have been watching the third and final election debate, courtesy of the bbc. it can find more on the british election, which is may 6, on our website, c-span.org. look to link to our british election page under feature links on the right inside of our home page. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, an online.

you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and u2. sign up for scheduler email that c-span.org. >> president obama travel to louisiana sunday to get a firsthand look at the response to the bp gulf of mexico oil spill. he met with governor bobby jindal and some of the first responders and held a briefing to talk about federal efforts to assist with protecting the gulf coast environment. the president also talked about the attempted car bomb incident in new york city.

[no audio] >> bid afternoon, everybody. first, that me say a few words about the incident in new york city. i want to commend the work of the nypd, the new york fire department, an fbi, which responded swiftly and aggressively to a dangerous situation. i also want to commend the vigilant citizen who noted this but -- this suspicious activity reported it to the authorities. i just got off the phone on the way down here with mayor bluebird to make sure that the mayor bloomberg to make sure that state and federal officials are coordinating a effectively. we are taking every step necessary to ensure our state and local partners have the full support and cooperation of the

federal government. we will do what is necessary to protect the american people and determine who is behind this potentially deadly act and see that justice is done. i will continue to monitor the situation closely and do what it takes at home and abroad to safeguard the security of the american people. we just finished a meeting with admiral allen, our national commander for this bill as well as coast guard personnel. they gave me an update on our efforts to stop the bp oil spill and mitigate the damages. i want to point out, i was told it was drizzling out here. is this louisiana drizzle right here? they gave me a sense of how this bill is moving. it is now about 9 miles off the coast of southeastern louisiana. by the way, we had the governor

of louisiana, bobby jindal, as well as a parish presidents who are taking part in this meeting because we want to emphasize the importance of coordinating between local, state, and federal officials throughout this process. i think the american people are now aware that we are dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster. the oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the internment of our gulf states -- and the environment of our gulf states and it could extend for a long time. it could jeopardize the livelihood of thousands of americans call this place home. that is why the federal government has launched a coordinated and all hands on deck, relentless response to this crisis from day one. after the explosion on the drilling rig, it began with an aggressive search and rescue

effort current to evacuate 115 people, including three badly injured. i thought and prayer is going out to the family of the 11 workers who have not been found. when the drill unit sank on thursday, we immediately and intensely investigated by remotely operated vehicles the entire 5,000 feet of pipe on the floor of the ocean. in that process, three leagues were identified, the most recent coming just last wednesday evening -- 3 leaks were identified. we have made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worst-case scenario. we immediately set up command center operations here in the gulf and coordinated with all states and local governments. the third breach was discovered on wednesday. we already had by that time in position more than 70 vessels and hundreds of thousands of

feet of boom. the administrator of the epa, lisa jackson, was here. my assistant for energy and climate change policy and the administrator of noaa to the gulf coast to ensure we are doing whatever is occur to respond to this event. i want to emphasize from day one, we have prepared and planned for the worst, even as we hoped for the best. while we have prepared and react aggressively, i am not going to rest, and none of the men and women who are here wrong to arrest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source -- we are not going to rest or be satisfied until the league is stopped at the source and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods. currently, most technology --

advanced technology available is being used to try and stop a leak that is more than 5,000 feet under the surface. because it is unique and unprecedented, it could take many days to stop. that is why we are also using every resource available to stop the oil from coming ashore and mitigating the damage it could cause. much of the discussion here at the center was focused on if and when we have to deal with these mitigation efforts. thus far, as you can tell, the weather has not been as cooperative as we would like on this front, but we will continue to push forward. i also want to stress that we are working closely with the gulf states and local communities to help every american affected by this crisis. that me be clear, bp is responsible for this lead. bp will be paying the bill. as president of the united states, i will spare no effort to respond to this crisis for as long as it continues. we will spare no resources to

clean up whatever damage is caused. while there will be time to fully investigate what happened on that rig and hold responsible parties accountable, our focus now is on a clearly coordinated, relentless response effort to stop the leak and prevent war damage to the gulf. i want to thank the thousands of americans who have been working around the clock to stop this crisis, whether the men and women of the military or the local officials who call this area home. they are doing everything in their power to prevent damage to our environment and help our fellow citizens. during this visit, i hope to have the opportunity to speak with some of the individuals who are directly affected by this disaster. i have heard already that people are understandably frustrated and frightened, especially because the people of this region have been through worst disasters than anyone should have to bear. every american affected by this bill should know this --

affected by this spill. we will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to stop this crisis. for centuries, residents have enjoyed and made a living off the fish that swim in these waters and the wildlife that in habits these shores. this is also the heartbeat of the region's economic life. we will do everything in our power to protect our natural resources and compensate those who have been harmed, rebuild what has been damaged, and help this region persevere like it has done so many times before. that is a commitment i am making as president of the united states. i know that everybody who works for the federal government feels the exact same way. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

>> next, "q&a", then another chance to see the third debate of the three british -- the three british party leaders sure hoping to become the next prime minister. later, the pennsylvania democratic candidates for senate debate. >> the c-span video library has nearly 3000 references to abraham lincoln in merkt video library. you'll find lots of interesting programs online. for contemporary perspective in print, there is c-span is book, abraham lincoln, now in paperback at your favorite bookseller.