there were americans who went to somalia for nationalist reasons and hooked up with al-shabaab. people know to syria from every ethnic group and it is a much more ethnic, sectarian battle. we have only had one attack in the west during the syrian war, jewish museumhe in brussels, which killed four we haven't seen -- we've only seen one attack so far. i think that goes to the fact that every government is extremely -- the germans, french, the british, they're very concerned about this. hey are trying their best to get a handle on this problem. >> i want to open it up for questions. if you have a question, raise your hand. identify yourself. as my old journalism professor used to say, eight words or

less. bottom line up front. okay? there in the back. there's microphone so we can all hear you. thank you. >> my quick question really here is comments on lebanon and how it's impacting this current fight. nobody seems to talk about it much. nigel i know just did an article about drone usage by hezbollah, which i thought was interesting. > oh, lebanon. okay. yeah. well, there is a small contingent of militants inside of lebanon who have made some noise for many years, but there are not a lot of them. the number of them particularly down south have been co-opted by the government. ere were fears early on that

a lot of this contingent was going to be activated by the war in syria. in fact, the whole society was going to go down the tubes. that is still a worry and the longer that the war goes on the more that worry increases. but i have been really surprised at lebanon's resiliency, actually, whether you attribute that to actors we don't like, like hezbollah keeping a lid on things, or whether you attribute it to the sunnis not wanting to ignite another civil war. it has been really impressive able to step been -- stay out even though they've tried to stir things up and drag lebanon into the war. so far so good. >> just a comment on the hezbollah drone attack over the weekend. it was reported by an iranian government news agency that hezbollah deployed a drone against a nusra base on the

lebanon/syria borders and, in fact, there is footage which i'm not sure how, if it's legitimate or not, of the attack. i think that is very, very interesting. because if this is true, the first time that a nonstate has used an armed drone in combat successfully. i think it raises some pretty g issues for this discussion because this is not the end of this. this is the beginning. if you're a western country with a relatively sophisticated air defense system and jet air fighter aircraft drones are not a problem. in fact the pakistani air force could have shot down our drones. they chose not to. however, if you're let's say a some kind of western target somewhere around the world in a country without those things, and a militant organization we're an armed drone, in a different scenario. a number of organizations have

been using surveillance drones. isis used one last month and , otage is available at a base a fighter base 93, which they surveyed with the drone. the libyan opposition used one against gadhafi which they acquired for a hundred thousand dollars from a canadian company. hezbollah and hamas have been using surveillance drones. so arming a drone is much, much harder. it is not like just buying something from amazon and adding a kind of machine gun. it is pretty complicated. so there was no way hezbollah would have been able to do this themselves i don't think. iran, russia, and china all have armed drones and have not used them in combat so far. i think that sort of speaks for itself. >> let's take a minute here and draw down on the drone issue because the administration has held out the campaigns in yemen and somalia really as templates for how they're going to approach the issue in iraq. this is before the air strikes

in syria. i'd like everyone to give me their assessment as to the efficacy of drones and whether one of the lessons of the last decade is that it has to be coupled with a significant force on the ground. >> it depends on what your goal is. if your goal is to degrade an insurgent organization or a terrorist group, drones can be very useful with the caveat that of course if there is a government you have to partner with say in yemen it places a lot of political pressure on that government because it's not popular with the people. but, still, it is a very useful tool in degrading those organizations. >> degrading and containing. but that is not the -- >> exactly. that is exactly right. that is the problem with the framework particularly when -- in syria. the president has said not only degrade but destroy. that goes far beyond anything he has achieved with the same frame work in yemen or somalia.

>> mary? > i agree. air strikes are an important tool and i don't think anybody believes air strikes should be gotten rid of or drones should be gotten rid of as a way to deal with this problem we're facing, but on its own, attrition will not deal with an insurgency. in most of these countries that's what we're dealing with. in other words, we cannot simply kill our way out of this problem. it requires much more than that. the t don't think that american people or this administration are willing to do what's probably necessary in order to absolutely deal with it unless we have some sort of terrible disaster. otherwise, the american people i think are really convinced that it's a problem over there, not a problem over here, and therefore we don't need to deal with it. >> peter, you in your last point alluded to something which i'd like to explore a little bit further, which is

that we've had supremacy with drones now for a decade. but the technology has improved. we're now seeing other groups start to use the drones. we have used them in a way where the rules are very loose. i mean, we are launching strikes in country we are not at war with, per se. in the case of yemen we used it to target an american citizen. how does that maybe come back on us now that the technology has made it more available to other nations or groups? >> i think we're in a situation which is not completely disanalogous if that word exists to where we were when we ceased to have the monopoly on nuclear weapons. when we have the monopoly we aren't interested in the rules of the game but when not, it is

actually in our interest to create or think about some kind of international framework to government. and of course the international legal frameworks have been very much in our collective interests. it's both in drones and cyber where we've had overwhelming superiority in armed drones and also offensive cyber attacks but the monopoly is evaporating in both areas. so it is quite easy to imagine the chinese saying, hey, there is a group of separatists in northern afghanistan who we're going to take out because they're terrorists by our status. we're not at war with afghanistan but essentially the rules of the road have been made by the americans. you can imagine iran making the same argument with separatists in pakistan. the list can go on. so it is time to begin the discussion about it because maybe the international framework is the right one but whatever it is we have to be comfortable with the iranians and chinese sort of saying, hey.

that's the framework we're going to use. imilarly with cyber attacks. surely, was it an act of war or an act of sabotage is an interesting question. d what is the point at which there is international agreement about these issues? because right now we're being subjected to very intensive cyber espionage by the chinese. when chuck hagel went there some months ago to china, he tried to explain what the lines are to the chinese. apparently there wasn't much recognition of that. the point is we need to start having a discussion about these issues because we're in a different era of warfare. and we need to think about how to constrain, there is nothing wrong -- on the right this is unpopular as an idea because it would seem to constrain american power. on the left this is unpopular because it would seem to endorse kind of additional forms of warfare. but the point is that we are where we are. this is -- it's not completely

new. but it is different. we should be having a discussion collectively about what it is in this new world that we think the rules of the road should be. >> okay. next question. yes, right here, please. > is anybody looking for mr. zawahari and if so is the fact we haven't found him a eflection of how inetcht our -- inept our counterterrorism campaign has been? >> i think the short answer is yes. i don't think our counterterrorism campaign has been inept and the person who is the best interest for that position is osama bin laden himself who before he was killed in our counterterrorism campaign wrote lengthy memos about how concerned he was about basically most of his contemporaries in al qaeda were dead and he was urging one of

his sons to move to qatar because that's one of the richest and safest countries in the world. so our counterterrorism campaign has inflicted tremendous damage on al qaeda whether in the arabian peninsula or al qaeda central. if you look at the number of people who have been killed in their leadership by drone attacks as we say in the report almost none of the senior leadership is left. it's al za warry and maybe two or three other guys still alive and going to what mary said about the attack in karachi, it's very interesting. this was supposed to be the launch attack of al qaeda in the indian sub continent. it didn't happen in india. it happened in pakistan which is where al qaeda is located. al qaeda today because of our counterterrorism campaign is effective in only one country, al qaeda central. it is pakistan. the limits of their ability is to do basically a failed attempt on a karachi naval target or kidnap an american

aid worker in is early 70's warren weinstein who they're still holding. that is the limit of their capability. it is not very impressive. our counterterrorism campaign has inflicted tremendous damage on al qaeda. of course we've just heard this discussion today as indicated that doesn't mean the ideology or global movement or network of networks is over but the fact is, you know, somebody said if we had this conversation in 2002 and anybody on this panel asserted that only 25 americans would be killed by jihaddy terrorists in the united states within the next 12 or 13 years you'd have said that person is crazy. that's where we are today. because our offensive campaign against these groups has been very good. our defensive capabilities have been extremely goodd. >> we've had some good luck, though, too. >> yes. >> the underwear bomb failed because the device was degraded. >> yes. the less obon is don't wear a

bomb in your underpants for three weeks because it's not going to work. >> i agree that our counterterrorism has been fantastic. i have nothing but the highest praise for it. but counterterrorism, again, is just one tool to deal with these guys. when you're dealing with an insurgency as in many of these countries counterterrorism only goes so far. what we've done is we've set the objective that we believe al qaeda is fighting for. we think al qaeda is all about attacking the united states, not just because they said that, but because they've demonstrated that they want to attack the united states, but, in fact, that's not their real objective. that's actually a means toward their greater end. the greater ends are about creating -- they have been doing everything possible in order to drive us out of their countries so they'll have a free hand to do whatever they want to in places like

pakistan, syria, yemen, somalia, wherever they have anaged to set themselves up. to me the distinction between local and global is one we created. so on the local group in mali, we have captured documents from group a in the islamic where they are sending out what they call directives and they say don't talk about having a global or some sort of other kind of agenda, jihaddist agenda. talk about having a local agenda because that is what we want you to focus on right now. so we understood them just to have a local agenda and in fact they were being told hide your agenda so you can be more effective. >> okay. next question? > right over here, please.

>> i'm from the world organization for research and education development. i want to pick up on the theme you touched on. it seems this administration as well as the one before it had a clear preference for the capture and kill counterterrorism strategies and yet 13 years later the threat of violent extremism still persists. i was wondering if you could share in terms of your recommendations for how the u.s. can leverage its soft power in developing a sort of soft counterinsurgency in places like iraq and syria. and in this particularly difficult threat environment, how would you recommend that we go about identifying some of the local, moderate partners we could be engaging to implement some of these counterviolent extremism programs? >> right. i firmly support soft power and especially counter radicalization efforts everywhere they're being put into effect.

please, what i am going to say a t you should not take as denigration of those effort. i support them whole heartedly. one of my first efforts was working on this issue. the thing is when you're dealing with genocidal groups or groups with these grandiose visions they are willing to attempt to implement on the ground and kill thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, soft power can only take you so far. what it can do is undercut their support and maybe their recruitment, but it won't deal with the actual threat we're facing on the ground in places like iraq or syria. >> can i make an observation? i think the united states has a basic problem when it comes to these issues. we are very good about overthrowing -- we can overthrow anybody we want but because we conceive of ourselves as not being an empire and to some degree we aren't we won't do what is actually required. so there is no constituency for

what mary is suggesting in a sense in the united states. there is no -- john mccain, lindsay graham are not vacating large scale ground troops for what would be really required to completely eradicate this threat. you know, we can -- the afghan war is the most unpop war in american history and, by the way, that went pretty well. i think we have almost an ideological problem which is we can go in and overthrow the regime but we won't sustain that sort of centuries long occupation as the british or the french did. we just won't. and so we're lost, kind of caught in this paradox which is we can do this quick fix but in the long term it's not likely to work that well. it may work okay. it certainly works probably pretty well for protecting the american line but it is not going to defeat an insurgency of the kind we saw -- we didn't defeat the insurgency in iraq it turned out and we were there for ten years. but there is no public appetite

for what's really required. in fact, maybe that's a good thing. but it is certainly a very american thing. >> i also think we have to be pretty modest about what we can achieve with counterradicalization efforts. i think it helps at the margins, but i think we've seen during the arab spring that political instability and authoritarianism can drive a lot of radicalization and bring people into a conflict that may be willing to sit it out in more peaceful times. we have a very limited capability to shore up a lot of these governments that are going to have to go through this transition in order to reach a greater level of stability that will fundamentally undercut support for this. but that's years, years in the making. and we have a small part to play in it. >> i find myself kind of nodding my head on one hand to what you're saying, the american people probably don't want and for very good reasons

not to engage in this. also we have these kind of hopes that maybe strong, capable partners on the ground will be able to deal with it as so many of them did during the 1990's with threats that in some ways were very compareable. but at the same time, i don't believe that it's a sort of hundred-year effort nor do i think that everything that was done in iraq was completely in vain. what i do think, however, is once you've engaged in a civil war, where your neighbors have been killing each other, you need to have a third party present for probably a generation to act as a guarantor of people's security and safety. otherwise, you can't trust people who, you know, yesterday were picking up guns to shoot at you. so the example i would use is actually bosnia, where you have the same kind of civil war and you had the same kind of low appetite on the part of the united states to engage, you know, boots on the ground, but with capable partners and a small injection of force, not

an overwhelming one we were able to make a real difference but we still know that there are boots on the ground in former yugoslavia and necessary there. otherwise, you don't guarantee people's security, safety, and people will hedge their bets and start arming up again to protect themselves as we saw in iraq once the only guarantor of the peace walked away. >> let's take that one further step with afghanistan. it's one of the lessons that we learned from our decision to completely get out of iraq. really twofold that we lost the eyes and ears of the military that provided that intelligence component. we became wholly reliant or largely reliant on the iraqis so we were somewhat blind as to what was developing within iraq. secondly, this is coupled with the campaign as we've said which has amounted to a targeted killing campaign. there has not been intelligence gathered from interrogations in the same way in the last five

years as was under the previous administration with all of the issues that are associated with that. so how do we apply this to gunnarsson now, the last -- >> i think afghanistan is actually a slightly different problem because you haven't been dealing with the civil war. you don't have that on top of an insurgencyy. we're more dealing with a pure insurgency, which is in some ways easier, some ways more difficult. one of the great writers on counterinsurgency theory, a guy named galuzza wrote a book in which he described afghanistan as the perfect insurgent territory and almost impossible to control. so there are many differences here. with our effort the level of effort we actually put into a counterinsurgency was rather small compared to what we did in iraq, not as effective. so i don't see these are comparable. the only way they are comparable to me is this intelligence problem. and this problem of losing

visibility on threats if we walk away. but what would be necessary in order to carry out a successful counterinsurgency, it's actually been done numerous times. despite the fact that people call it the grave yard of empyres. local actors have managed to invade that territory and control it for hundreds of years. including the perfections, including people from india, including what we call india today and so on and so forth. it's not true that it's impossible to win a counterinsurgency but the level of effort is something i think we have no appetite for. >> i want to go back to peter's point about domestic politics but not domestic american politics. talking about domestic politics in iraq, domestic politics in afghanistan. the reason why we do not have forces inside iraq to prevent the rebirth of al qaeda in iraq is because the iraqi parliament did not want it. we wanted to keep a force there. we urged them to let us keep one there precisely to deal with this problem and the iraq -- it was politically

unpalatable. you saw the same kind of pushback against the american effort to keep forces in afghanistan with karzai just because we want to stabilize the country and we think it's the best thing for the country. the domestic politics of those countries often do not allow us to remain there as the keeper of the peace to say nothing for the domestic politics in our own country which make these kind of long-term occupations absolutely unpalatable. >> i agree with that reading. there was this difficulty over the sofa and a lot of back and forth and all kinds of problems getting a formal sofa signed. on the other hand we have now about a thousand boots on the ground in iraq without a sofa so we've actually figured out how to do it. >> a sofa is not a couch, right? >> i'm just saying. yes. a status of forces agreement. right? >> the difference between afghanistan and iraq is 29 million afghans want us to stay. karzai was in a minority of

one. they have a very simple view of this, which is, we can be somalia or we can be south korea. and agreeing with mary, you know, we are the guarantor, still the guarantor. south korea was one of the poorest countries in the world at the end of the korean war and it is now the sixth richest country in the world. so afghanistan, you know, the bsa i think is going to be signed very soon by the president and ceo abdula. and by the way, we have a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan that goes to 2024, which means, and you were on the nse and you can correct me if i'm wrong but the fact president obama said we're going to be moving combat troops or all troops out of afghanistan by the end of 2016, president hillary clinton or president jeb bush or whoever is president in 2016 doesn't have to -- can say, hey, look, i don't think this is a good idea. by the way, can you imagine the cost to the democratic party if there was an attack in the united states that was even

remotely traceable to pakistan, afghanistan, if a democratic president went along with removing -- by the way, also for a republican president, forfor any president. we were attacked from afghanistan on 9/11. so the point is that we are not bound by -- these are just -- this is the situation now. we already have an agreement in place that will allow us to have a long-term presence in afghanistan well past 2016. >> i agree. one of the misconceptions i think americans in general have about afghanistan is we're dealing with this intractable problem that's a centuries long one but afghanistan was actually the developed partner. when you look at afghanistan, pakistan back in the 1950's and 1960's and even in the 1970's. it was the one pakistan was afraid of because they were doing so well. and they had a well developed economy. they had international trade. they were on a path toward development. it was really only since 1979

that disastrous invasion by the soviet union and the civil war that had begun just slightly before then that we really have developed the afghanistan we all know today. but there is a past we can look back at and it where you had decades of a really developing country that had a future. >> is there another question? well, that leaves it to me. so, you know, all of this said, what do you think the wild cards are and how does that impact what a future attack will look like? does a future attack still look like some kind of bomb that's onboard an aircraft? does it look like the boston marathon bombing? peter, i'll begin with you. >> i think one wild card we haven't discussed at all is egypt. i mean, the regime makes mubarak look like, you know, a nice guy.

it's imprisoned 20,000 people, 2,000 people have been killed. sort of domestically. you know, what is happening in zawari exactly what al has always said would happen, if you engage in the politics it won't work -- you base that on the nullification of the vote in algeria by the army and again the most populous country in the arab world, the army nullified the popular vote. sure the muslim brotherhood were ineffective and made tons of mistakes but they were the actually elected government so his essential analysis that there is no point in engaging in electoral politics if you are an islamist, it's basically been confirmed. the reason i think that is significant is because we are seeing in the signi and other places in egypt these kind of jihadi groups and as you know

jihadi groups in the 1990's -- there was a mini civil war where 1200 people died. you could easily imagine that basically starting again because muslim brotherhood is a very large organization. essentially they've been criminalized in the country of their origin. and i see that as, you know, egypt has fallen off the front page for all the obvious reasons. i think that is a big wild card, what goes on there. >> so i have two sorts of responses. one is what we might expect, sorts of threats from al qaeda. and the other is the sorts of threats we might expect from isis. i actually have a little bit to add. >> sure. >> i do believe lone wolf attacks are the most likely thing we'll see from isis because they probably, in the united states at least, lack any capacity to actually carry out attacks. but on the other hand, over the past four months or so, a very large number of isis cells have been picked up in other countries. it's not just australia, which

just had a cell picked up. something like 62 members of an isis cell were picked up in saudi arabia. a bunch of people were picked up in kosovo. in morocco and in malaysia. so it's not quite true that we -- i think that we just have to worry about lone wolf attacks. what we might not see, though, is -- this sounds really funny -- is the kind of restraint that we've seen before from al qaeda. by that i mean, al qaeda, i think, has a commitment to spectacular attacks. they have to make up for the kind of disappointment after 9/11. please don't think i'm saying disappointment, you know, in an affirming way. in the sense that if they do something lesser than a 9/11, then everybody will say, wow. look how weak you've become. right? >> right. >> but on the other hand, isis doesn't have anything to live up to. so i think they're far more

likely to do things like a group of shooters at a mall than we would see from al qaeda. that kind of thing doesn't take all that much planning, does it? so that's my concern from isis. from al qaeda, i'm very worried about the guys that they're -- they have gotten or are attempting to get in syria and what was said isarently undetectable bombs a huge vulnerability. maybe we will not see that coming. >> so the crazy one. the true wildcard would be if the islamic's date pushed into saudi arabia. hear me out -- i sort of see islamic state like a party

balloon. you squeeze it on one evening and syria goes into iraq. you squeeze in iraq in a goes to syria. both ends, and where does it go? let's say it goes down south into saudi arabia, that would be incredibly destabilizing to the political system and saudi. saudi probably has the military system and firepower with our help to push them back, but it is not completely outlandish. there is a big fall among islamic state for folders for an invasion and saudi arabia. there is an did vision of the islamic state. a big heart of that vision has gone from early islamic prophecies after the establishment of the caliphate or the muslim saviors going to mecca and the final battle against the infidels. that kind of invasion combined with the 1979 takeover of the mosque area in mecca, which was fueled by an apocalyptic group, with the threat of saddam hussein's invasion in the early 1990's, both of which were

destabilizing to the saudi political system. that would throw world energy markets into turmoil as a consequence. >> can i say that is quite unlikely. >> come on. >> it is important. look, the saudi air force was part of this. the last time the saudis was part of this coalition with in the first gulf war. it has been a long time. senior saudi clerics have issued fatwas against isis. they have done criminalization and arrested 52 people within the last week or so.

this if you existential problem, just as returning saudi fighters from the iraq war was.

saudis, when they came out of their own security, really got on top of it quickly. >> time for one or two final questions. >> hello, i will not say the agency i am working for since i am here on a personal day. >> [inaudible] >> [laughs] what is the likelihood of i.s. are one of these groups using nuclear material to carry out one of these attacks? >> great questions. >> i believe a terrorist group deploying nuclear weapons is zero. iran has had a nuclear system for decades and unlimited supplies. it is very, very hard for countries to acquire nuclear weapons. so the idea that a terrorist group could acquire nuclear weapons i think is highly improbable. one of the takeaways of this report -- you look at the 247 terrorist cases in the u.s., not one of them involved chemical or biological, forget about nuclear. terrorists basically want to shoot people and blow up car bombs, things that are easy to do. things that they're exposed to include anthrax experimentations which were amateur. they never even acquired weaponized anthrax. so i cannot think of a case where -- if there was a terrorist group in this country that deploys some kind of weapon like this, it would be a right wing extremist group we have seen groups like this, kind of net cases, trying to acquire biological weapons, but for some

reason, jihadi terrorist have not been that interested in this. they did deploy chlorine in iraq during 2007. but this is the case of the dog that did not bark. >> the only thing i would add is that i think there are at least some data points which say to me that they certainly have that aspiration. correct me if i am wrong, the foreign policy has very strong reporting based on a laptop computer they were able to obtain, i believe the free syrian army from an isis fighter, which discussed at length as they went through the files their interest and intent to try and use biological weapons. to me, that is a very important data point, because i am not sure what our visibility is in that area. but it tells me there is the aspiration because the purported owner of that laptop was someone who reportedly had training and education.

there was a group calling for some sort of swap with the sort of poster woman for wmd. to me, these data points suggest that they certainly have the aspiration, and i am not working in the ic to know whether there is other data which points to confirm that aspiration or whether they have made more concrete steps down that road. >> i find myself in agreement with both of you that it seems highly unlikely that they will be able to, al qaeda, would be able to create their own nuclear weapons. but at the same time, they do have this aspiration and have had it apparently since the 1990's -- i remember reading the trial transcripts from the 1998 attacks in which there was this clear intent to get nuclear weapons.

they said they wanted nuclear weapons because they assumed the response of the u.s. to an attack on the homeland would be a nuclear strike, and they wanted to have enough of a deterrent. that shows how they misread the u.s. also, i have seen sort of senior leaders say that we would love to have nuclear weapons. so i think the intent is absolutely there. whether they have the capacity and capability -- it has never been done before, but then, they have done a lot of things that have never been done before. that is one. two, what about the always present pakistani nuclear weapons? given the fact that a group of guys, including some officers in the pakistani navy, took over the ship and tried to do an attack on an american ship with

it, i am not putting it be on the realm of possibilities that there is some percentage that the pakistani military might no longer have the best interest of pakistan in their minds. >> ok, with that, i think we're going to wrap it up. thank you very much to my fellow panelist, peter bergen, mary habeck, and william mccants. thank you to the bipartisan policy center. thank it to the audience. >> thank you to the moderator and fantastic panelist. thank you for making this event possible. i want to congratulate peter and his fantastic team, david, emily, billy, and jim for writing this wonderful report. my goal is hopefully next year the threat will be a little bit less. >> a look at our primetime

schedule. c-span campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. debate will be live on thursday. c-span, campaign 2014. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. last week we brought you a

debate between candidates for governor of arkansas. here is more from that debate. >> let me just come back to what mr. ross's speaking of. i have been positive, and he is talking about an ad from an out-of-state group we do not have control over. but you played an ad in which mr. ross attacked my character. that is what -- whenever i look at that happening, i think it is not encouraging an 18-year-old to vote. does it encourage people to participate in the political process? that is the test for us. we have an obligation for candidates to make sure that we are encouraging people to say that public service is good. i think negative advertising does not work that way. i can control the senate race, i cannot control out-of-state groups, i can control my own

message, and that is what i want to do. mike is right, it is about our vision for what we will do for the middle class, are tax cuts, our veterans. >> now wait a minute. asa wants to say poor me. he says he cannot control ads that are being run by the republican governors association? when he came out with this ad, my wife is a pharmacist. she spent 14 years every day going to build a business. it is america, she sold her business for a profit in america, imagine that. he attacked her for that. for him to say, that is not me, that is the governor's association, do you know when that had began airing? when the chairman of the governor's association was in arkansas raising money for cumbersome hutchinson's campaign. he could have said that that is not fair. the house ethics committee and said there is no truth to this. but he did not, he kind of wink and let it continue to go and go after my wife.

i think he owes my wife an apology, right here and right now. >> well, mr. ross, do you control the democratic governors association, the ads they run attacking me? you know better than that. i have no control over my ads it is illegal to coordinate those. i will let you answer the questions. i have never, never attack you on the issue. if you remember me attacking, tell me right now. >> that was part of the debate held last week tween the candidates for arkansas governor . the seat is currently open because of term limits. can see the entire debate at c-span.org. >> at his annual labour party conference, he talked about the labors airstrikes in syria.

talked about the outcome of the referendum in scotland. the leader ofome the labour party. ♪ [applause]

>> thank you so much for that incredibly kind welcome. i want to start by talking about somebody just on the road from here. that's alan henning, a british hostage taken by isil. his wife, barbara henning, made an incredibly moving appeal for his release just over the weekend. you know, alan henning is simply an aid worker trying to make life better for victims of conflict. i think it should tell us all we need to know about isil and their murderous ways that they take a decent british man like alan henning hostage. and it's not just british people that they are targeting; it is people of all

nationalities and all religions. that's why we supported a coalition, not simply based on military action but a coalition based on humanitarian, political and diplomatic action to counter the threat of isil. now this week, the president of the united states and the british prime minister are both at the united nations. we support the overnight action against isil, what needs to happen now is that the un needs to play its part. a un security council resolution to win the international support to counter that threat of isil. [applause] friends, this country will never turn our back on the world and will never turn our back on the principles of internationalism. [applause]

and those values are reflected not just in our country but in this party, in this hall and in this great city of manchester. [applause] friends, it is great to be with you in manchester. a fantastic city. a city with a great labour council leading the way. and a city that after this year's local elections, is not just a tory-free zone but a liberal democrat free zone as well. [applause] now manchester has special memories for me because it was four years ago that i was elected your leader, here in manchester. four years on i feel wiser.

i feel older. i feel much older, actually. [laughter] but hang on a minute, some of you look quite a lot older as well. at least i've got an excuse. but i am prouder than ever to be the leader of your party and i thank you for your support. [applause] now we meet here in serious times, not just for our world but for our country too. our country nearly broke up. a country that nearly splits apart is not a country in good health. i want to start by thanking all of labour's team scotland for the part they played in keeping our country together. [applause]

let us thank them all. gordon brown, alistair darling, margaret curran, douglas alexander, jim murphy, anas sarwar, johann lamont. [applause] let us thank them all, ladies and gentlemen because they helped save our country. [applause] and i want to say to the people of scotland directly, this labour party will show you over the coming years you made the right choice. because we are better together. [applause] now here's the thing. all of us, all political

leaders, all of us in this hall, have a responsibility to try and explain why 45% of people voted yes. 45% of people wanted to break up our country. and we've got to explain why the feeling we saw in scotland is not just in scotland but is reflected across the country and my story starts six days from the end of the referendum campaign. i was on my way to a public meeting. i was late as politicians tend to be. and just outside the meeting i met a woman and i was supposed to be going into the meeting but i wanted to stop and ask her how she was voting. i did that to everybody on the street. one vote at a time.

i said to her, how are you voting? she said, i haven't decided yet. turned out her name was josephine. she worked as a cleaner in the building. i asked her what the company was like that she worked for. she said the company was decent but the wages were rubbish. she hadn't decided because life was so incredibly tough for her. she didn't want to leave but she thought it might be the best thing to do. now, i don't know how josephine voted in the referendum, but i do know the question she was asking, is anyone going to make life better for me and my family? and here's the thing. it isn't just josephine's question. it's the question people are

asking right across britain, is anyone going to build a better life for the working people of our country? that wasn't just the referendum question. that is the general election question. [applause] i am not talking about the powerful and the privileged. those who do well whatever the weather. i'm talking about families like yours, who are treading water, working harder and harder just to stay afloat. for labour, this election is about you. you've made the sacrifices. you have taken home lower wages year after year. you have paid higher taxes. you have seen your energy bills rise and your nhs decline. you know this country doesn't work for you. my answer is that we can build a better future for you and your family and this speech is about labour's plan to do it. labour's plan for britain's future. [applause] so what do we need to have that

plan for the future? we've got to understand what people are saying to us right across the united kingdom. see, i think across our country there is a silent majority who wanted our country to endure but are telling us that things must change and they come from every walk of life. like a young woman called xiomara who works in a pub near where i live. she lives at the opposite end of the country from josephine. she's separated by at least a generation. but they share a common experience. xiomara couldn't afford to go to college. so she got a job in the pub kitchen nearby, washing dishes. she's worked incredibly hard and she's worked her way up to be one of the chefs. but like for josephine, life by xiomara is incredibly tough. and by the way, she thinks politics is rubbish. and let's not pretend we don't hear that a lot on the doorstep. what does she see in politics? she sees drift. she doesn't think we can solve her problems, now we've got to

prove her wrong. and it's not just that people like xiomara and josephine are struggling with the problems of today and millions of other people. i think there's something almost even more important about our country. people have lost faith in the future. you know, the other day i was in the park. i was actually trying to work on my speech, believe it or not, and i wasn't getting anywhere, so i went to the park and there were two young women who were in the park and they seemed excited to see me and they came over. and, it's not that funny -- [laughter] one of them actually said, so it is true, you do meet famous people in this park.

and the other one said, yeah it is. and then the first one said, no offence, we were hoping for benedict cumberbatch. [laughter] but anyway, one of them said something which really stuck with me. she said this, she said, my generation is falling into a black hole. and she said about her parents' generation, they've had it so good and now there's nothing left for us. she wasn't just speaking for herself, she was speaking for millions of people across our country. millions of people who have lost faith in the future. like gareth, who is high up at a software company. he's got a five year old daughter, he's earning a decent wage, he can't afford to buy a home for himself and for his family, he's priced out by the

richest. he thinks that unless you're one of the privileged few in britain the country is not going to work for you and your kids are going to have a worse life than you. and so many people, friends, across our country feel this way. they feel the country doesn't work for them. and they've lost that faith in the future. now our task is to restore people's faith in the future. not by breaking up our country. but by breaking with the old way of doing things. by breaking with the past. i'm not talking about a different policy or a different programme. i'm talking about something much bigger. i'm talking about a different idea, a different ethic for the way our country succeeds. you see, for all the sound and fury in england, scotland, wales, across the united kingdom, what people are actually saying to us is this country doesn't care about me. our politics doesn't listen. our economy doesn't work and they're not wrong, they're right and this labour party is going to put it right. [applause] but friends, to do that we have to go back to the very foundations of who we are and

how we run things. we just can't carry on with the belief that a country can succeed as a country with a tiny minority at the top doing well. prosperity in one part of britain, amongst a small elite. a circle that is closed to most, blind to the concerns of people. sending the message to everyone but a few, you're on your own. see, think about it for a minute. in our economy, it's working people who are made to bear the burden of anxiety, precariousness and insecurity. they've been told, you're on your own. so many young people who don't have the privileges, think their life is going to be worse than their parents. they've been told, you're on your own. so many small businesses are struggling against forces more powerful than themselves. they've been told, you're on your own. and the most vulnerable have been thrown on the scrapheap, cast aside, not listened to even when they have a case. they've been told, you're on your own.

and to cap it all, in our politics, it's a few who have the access while everyone else is locked out. they've been told, you're on your own. no wonder people have lost faith in the future. that's why so many people voted to break up our country. is it any wonder? the deck is stacked. the game is rigged in favour of those who have all the power. friends, in eight months' time, we're going to call time on this way of running the country. because you're on your own -- [applause] because you're on your own doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for your family, it doesn't work for britain. [applause]

can we build a different future for our country? of course we can. but with a different idea for how we succeed. an idea that in the end won this referendum. an idea i love because it says so much about who we are and who we have it in ourselves to become. an idea rooted in this party's character and our country's history. an idea that built our greatest institutions and got us through our darkest moments. an idea that is just one simple word. together. together. together we can restore faith in the future. together we can build a better future for the working people of britain. together we can rebuild britain. friends, together we can. [applause]

together says it is not just the powerful few at the top whose voices should be heard, it's the voice of everyone. together says that it is not just a few wealthy people who create the wealth of our country. it's every working person. together says that we just can't won't succeed as a country with the talents of a few, we've got to use the talents of all. together says that we can't have some people playing under different rules, everybody's got to play under the same rules. and together says that we have a duty to look after each other when times are hard. together. the way we restore faith in the future. together, a different idea for britain. [applause] now you might be thinking this sounds like a pretty big undertaking, changing the way

our country is run, a totally different idea, that's quite a big task, is it really going to be possible? can we do it? i mean, it's the 21st century, is that going backwards? well it isn't. and the reason it isn't is because that idea is everywhere around us to see. in every walk of life. the inspiration is everywhere of a different way of doing things. see, earlier on i mentioned gareth, who works at a software company, who's worried about his daughter and worried about the future. i didn't just meet him, i met his colleagues as well. and that software company, the thing that shines through about it for me is it is full of bright, savvy young people, full of great enthusiasm. but it isn't about the boss at the top. it isn't each individual on their own. go to every person at that company and they say the same thing.

you need to use the talents of every single person. not just the software designers, but the customer service. not just the developers, but those who manage the accounts. and go to so many great businesses across our country and they'll the same thing to you, that is the ethic of the 21st century in business. we need great entrepreneurs. britain needs great entrepreneurs. but the greatest entrepreneurs recognise that they're only as strong as their team. and it's not just in business. they'll be people here who work in our brilliant national health service. our brilliant national health service, friends. [applause] earlier this year, i spent a couple of days at an nhs hospital in watford. i wanted to go there to see how things look from the front line. mainly i sort of got in the way really, but that's what politicians tend to do.

and i remember one evening i was in a&e at 9:00 p.m. and i was watching nurses from different backgrounds different walks of life, all coming together. i was incredibly moved, i was incredibly inspired by the team work. i was so proud of our national health service. [applause] go to any great hospital, go to any great school, it is the team that makes it strong and then think about our brilliant armed forces and let us pay tribute to them today friends. [applause] our brilliant, heroic troops serving our country in the most dangerous places. talk to any of them and they will talk about the team and the team that make sit strong.

-- makes it strong. so it's true of business, it's true of public services, it's true of our armed forces, it's true of so many walks of life. you see, if the ethic of the 20th century was hierarchy, order, planning, control, the talents of just a few, the ethic of the 21st century co-operation, everybody playing their part, sharing the rewards, the talents of all. together. friends, it is time we ran the country like we know it can be run. [applause] now here's a question for you. if the challenge is to run the country on this principle of together, can the tories be the answer? can the tories be the answer?

i'll tell you why they can't be the answer, because if you want the best example of the you're on your own, rig the system for the powerful few, insecure, throwback dogma then just look at this government. [applause] if you're a low paid worker struggling to make ends meet, you're working harder for longer for less and you're on your own. if you're a family in the squeezed middle you feel like you're just treading water and you're on your own. if you're on a zero-hours contract, getting up at 5:00 a.m. every morning to find out whether you've got work, they'll tell you that is how an economy succeeds and you're on your own. if you are one of the people worried about the railway company, the payday lender, they're not going to do anything to help you. you're on your own.

and if you're one of the 9 million people who rent your home in the private sector, they're certainly not going to do anything for you. they're going to tell you you're on your own. and why? because they say intervening would be like venezuela. that's what they say. you see they say they don't believe in government intervention. really? of course they do. because if you are a millionaire who wants a tax cut, they're certainly going to intervene to support you. you're not going to be on your own. [applause] if you are a banker, who's worried about your bonus, well it's good news for you because george osborne is going to go all the way to europe to fight tooth and nail to try and protect it. you certainly won't be on your own. [applause]

if you are an energy company whose prices and profits are soaring, good news again. you've got a prime minister who'll be your own pr man. you won't be on your own. and by the way, if you are a conservative supporting, gold mining, luxury hotel owning, putin award winning, russian oligarch, and you have got a £160,000 to spare to bid in an auction, you won't be on your own; you will be on tennis court playing doubles, with david cameron. that tells you all you need to know about this government. [applause]

now, look, we know the kind of election campaign they are going to fight. in the next eight months, david cameron is going to talk a lot about the past. he's not going to want to talk that much about the present or the future. now why? he's going to tell you, he's going to tell the british public that none of the problems in our country are anything to do with him. he's done a really outstanding, tremendous job and he really deserves a lot of congratulations and thanks. so he's done a great job; all the problems are nothing to do with him and if you just hang on until after the general election things are about to turn the corner for your family. now the british people will have to be the judge of this. but i think there are some things to bear in mind. the record of this government, friends, isn't just mediocre. it is one of the worst ever. [applause]

the longest fall in living standards since 1870. wages rising slower than prices for 50 out of 51 months. for your family five years of this government; five years of sacrifice and zero years of success. now you might think that david cameron's right and things are about to turn round for you and your family. as i say the british people will have to be the judge of this. but isn't there a second, more plausible explanation for their record? a tory economy is always an economy for the few. because that's who they care about. that's the basis on which they think a country succeeds. and so the past with this government is a good guide to

the future. your family worse off. you can't afford to take that risk. the british people can't afford another five years of david cameron. [applause] now, i've got an idea for our prime minister, he likes the surfing, he likes playing that game angry birds and he likes the tennis with the russian oligarchs. friends, i've got a great idea, why don't we give him all the time in the world to do all of those things. come next may, let's send him into opposition. [applause]

it's up to us. we have to build a future for you and your family. that's what labour's plan for britain's future is all about. today i want to lay out six national goals. not just for one term of office. or even for one year. but a plan for the next ten years. britain 2025. day one of me as prime minster, this is the plan, and these are the goals i want us to pursue. now you might ask why ten years? i'll tell you one of the reasons. people are fed up with politicians who come along and say vote for me and on day one everything will be transformed. friends the british people won't believe it. it's what i call doing a nick clegg. [laughter] [applause]

look, when nick clegg broke that promise on tuition fees, he didn't just destroy trust in himself and the liberal democrats. he did something else. he destroyed trust in politics. every time a promise is broken, every time a false promise is made, every time we say vote for us and tomorrow everything will be totally different, people get more and more cynical. people get more and more turned off. people think politics is more and more a game and that all we're in it for is ourselves. that's why i plan for the next ten years. not a plan for the next ten years which says nothing changes. but a route map. a route map for the country. a route map for people like gareth that i talked about earlier. for the young woman who wanted to see benedict cumberbatch and ended up with me and said my

generation is falling into a black hole. i want to know there's a future for me. that's what this plan is about. our plan starts with rewarding hard work once again because that's what we've got to do as a country. one in five of the men and women go out to work in our country, do their bit, make their contribution, put in the hours and find themselves on low pay. with britain's traditions, with labour's traditions, that should shame us all. so our first national goal is that we halve the number of people in low pay by 2025. transforming the lives of two million people in our country. [applause] the principle of together says we don't just use the talents of all, we reward the talent of all. and the minimum wage has got to become a route to bringing up your family with dignity. so we will raise the minimum wage by £1.50 an hour by 2020. to over £8 an hour.

a rise in pay of £60 a week for a full-time worker on the minimum wage. or more than £3,000 a year. [applause] the tories are the party of wealth and privilege. labour is the party of hard work fairly paid. and it's not the low paid but it's all working people who should have their talents rewarded. so our second national goal is that all working people should share fairly in the growing wealth of the country. that means, as the economy grows, the wages of everyday working people grow at the same rate. you know what's amazing friends, is that statement, that goal is even controversial. it used to be taken for granted in our country that's what would happen. that's what the cost of living crisis which the tories don't

understand is all about. to counter it you need a government with a singular focus on tackling it. key to this is transforming our economy so we create good jobs at decent wages. that requires a massive national effort. the principle of together, everybody playing their part. for government it means no vested interest, no old orthodoxies, no stale mindset, should stand in the way of restoring this basic bargain of britain. it means reforming our banks, much bigger reform of our banks. breaking up the big banks. [applause] so that we have the competition we need in our banking system. it means getting power out of whitehall. we are far too centralised a country. it's time we did something about it. it's time we transferred power

out of whitehall. to our businesses, towns and cities, so that they can create the jobs, the prosperity, the wealth that they need. [applause] it's about businesses and trade unions engaging in cooperation not confrontation. and it's also about something else friends for this party. it's using our historic values to fight for those at the frontline of the modern workforce. i'm talking about a group of people that we in the labour party haven't talked about that much and we need to talk about them a lot more. the growing army of our self-employed. five million people in our country. often the most entrepreneurial, go-getting people in britain who have a hard, insecure life very often. you see, because of the job they do, two out of three don't have a pension. one in five can't get a

mortgage. they don't want special treatment. they just want a fair shot. the task for this labour party is to end this 21st century modern discrimination. it is to fight and deliver equal rights for the self-employed in britain. [applause] i said earlier that we need to create good jobs at decent wages. to transform our economy. the jobs of the future. so our third national goal is that by 2025, britain becomes truly a world leader in the green economy, creating one million new jobs as we do. under this government, we're falling behind germany, japan, the united states and even india and china when it comes to green technologies and services.

there are so many brilliant businesses who are desperate to do their bit but government's not playing its part. with our plan, we will. this is what we're going to do. we're going to commit to taking all of the carbon out of our electricity by 2030. we're going to have a green investment bank with powers to borrow and attract new investment. and as caroline flint announced tomorrow, we will devolve power and resources to communities so we can insulate 5 million homes over the next ten years. [applause] you see the environment isn't that fashionable any more in politics as you may have noticed with david cameron. but it matters. it's incredibly important for our economy.

and there is no more important issue for me when i think about my children's generation and what i can do in politics, than tackling global climate change. [applause] now we need a plan for jobs. we need a plan for wages. we need a plan that is actually going to help the working families of our country. at the heart of our plan for our country and for your family is also a future for all of our young people. i met somebody called elizabeth the other day. where is she?

she's here. [applause] elizabeth, why don't you stand up for one second. elizabeth is an apprentice. she's an auto-electrician. i think it's fair to say elizabeth that you are breaking through in what's been pretty much a man's world. now, let's have another round of applause for her and the great job she's doing. [applause] she is one of the lucky few. actually elizabeth's school, because i met her yesterday, elizabeth's school helped her to get an apprenticeship. but so many other schools don't do that. in fact, lots of the people i meet who are on apprenticeships say my school said apprenticeships were rubbish and they wouldn't help me but now i'm doing it, it's really great for me. frankly there aren't enough of them and they aren't high-quality enough. so our fourth national goal is that by 2025 as many young people will be leaving school or college to go on to an apprenticeship as currently go to university. [applause]

now, i've got to tell you this is an absolutely huge undertaking. we are such a long way away from this as a country. it is going to require a massive national effort. it's going to require young people to show the ambition to do well and to get on.

it's going to require schools to lead a dramatic change in education, with new gold standard technical qualifications. and it is going to need business and government to lead a revolution in apprenticeships. you know, government is very good at preaching to business about what it should be doing. let me just tell you, government is absolutely useless when it comes to apprenticeships. it's true of governments of both parties. look at other countries; they do a fantastic job in giving apprenticeships to the next generation. we don't do that in this country. first we've got to tackle the failure by government. then we've got to say to business that you've got to play your part. if you want to bring in a worker from outside the eu, that's ok but you must provide apprenticeships to the next generation. [applause] you see we can't have what's happening at the moment in it where you've got more and more people coming in but actually the number of apprenticeships falling in it. and we've also got to say to business this, we're going to give you control of the money for apprenticeships for the first time but in exchange, if you want a major government contract, then you must provide apprenticeships to our young

people. [applause] a plan for jobs, for wages, for education. but what is it, what other things give us confidence and security in life? it's the love of the people we care most about. decent work properly rewarded. but it's also the confidence and security of having our own home. so many people don't have that today. that very british dream, of home ownership, is fading for so many people. you know, under this government, we're building fewer homes than at any time since the 1920s. so our fifth national goal is that by 2025, for the first time in fifty years, this country will be building as many homes as we need. doubling the number of first time buyers in our country. [applause] again it is going to require a massive national effort, a massive national effort. we won't let large developers sit on land, we will say to small developers and

construction companies that we will help them to build homes again in our country. we will build a new generation of towns, garden cities and suburbs creating over half a million new homes. and we will also make housing the top priority for additional capital investment in the next parliament. this party will get britain building again. [applause] your family also needs public services you can rely on. education policing, transport, and nowhere is that more true than our national health service. i mentioned earlier on that i spent a couple of days at a hospital in watford earlier on this year.

and while i was there i met an amazing man called colin in his 80s, who sadly died a few weeks later. but i will always remember my conversations with him. you see he remembered the foundation of the nhs, he remembered what life was like before the national health service. and i remember him saying to me, ed the problem then was you were on your own. on your own having to pay for medical treatment. friends we are so proud of our national health service. and i know my duty to colin and to the british people. it is to make sure our nhs is there when we need it. [applause] so our sixth national goal is that we create a truly world-class 21st century health and care service. because a hospital is only as good as the services in the community.

so see that's the biggest lesson i learnt in watford. if people can't get to see their gp, if elderly people can't get the visits they need then they end up in hospital when it could have been avoided. and that's bad for them, and it is bad for the taxpayer it costs billions of pounds. and let's face it friends those services are creaking. those services are creaking just now. one in four people can't get to see their gp within a week. we've had the scandal of home care visits for the elderly restricted to just 15 minutes. in this day and age. the nhs does face huge challenges over the coming years. we will transform our nhs. it is time to care about our nhs. we need doctors, nurses, midwives, care workers, who are

able to spend proper time with us, not rushed off their feet. so we will set aside resources so that we can have in our nhs 3,000 more midwives, 5,000 more care workers, 8,000 more gps and 20,000 more nurses. an nhs with time to care. and in order to pay for it we won't borrow an extra penny. [applause] or raise taxes on ordinary

working families. we will clamp down on tax avoidance including tax loopholes by the hedge funds to raise over £1 billion. we will use the proceeds from a mansion tax on homes above £2 million. [applause] and we will raise extra resources from the tobacco companies, who make soaring profits on the back of ill health. [applause] because friends the principle of building it together means everyone playing their part in making our nhs what it needs to be.

[applause] in total we will set aside £2.5 billion in an nhs time to care fund and tomorrow andy burnham will set out our integrated plan for physical health, mental health and care for the elderly. truly a 21st century national health service. [applause] the stakes are incredibly high at this election and nowhere more so than on the national health service because we know the nhs is sliding backwards under this government. we know they are privatising and fragmenting it. just imagine what another five years of david cameron would mean for our national health service friends. we are not going to let it happen, our nhs is too precious,

too important and we will not let it happen. [applause] friends, we built the nhs. we saved the nhs. we are going to repeal the health and social care bill and we are going to transform our nhs for the future. that is what the next labour government will do and friends, we will do it together. [applause] six national goals friends. six national goals to transform

our country. not a false promise on day one. not some pie in the sky idea that can't be delivered. real, concrete ideas that can transform our country. that can restore faith in the future. a plan for britain's future. labour's plan for britain's future. but to make that happen we also have to do something else and transform who has power in our country so that those who feel locked out feel let back in. you know people think westminster politics is out of touch, irrelevant and often disconnected from their lives. and as somebody who stands at prime minister's questions each wednesday i often know what they mean. we might as well say it; it is what people think about politics.

they think it is not about them and we've got to change it. we don't just need to restore people's faith in the future with this economic and social plan we need to change the way politics works in this country. what does that mean? first of all it is time to hear the voice of young people in our politics so we will give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds in general elections. [applause] it is time we complete the unfinished business of reform of the house of lords so we truly have a senate of the nations and regions. [applause] and it is time to devolve power in england. and i'm incredibly proud of our proposals. our ambitious proposals to

reverse a century of centralisation and there can be no better place to be talking about this then here in manchester. devolving power to local government, bringing power closer to people right across england. [applause] and we need bigger reform of our constitution, but here is the thing friends, given everything we know about what people think of westminster politics, it has got to be led by the people. it can't be some westminster stitch-up. that is why we need a proper constitutional convention harnessing the civic energy and spirit of people right across our land. england, scotland, wales, every part of the united kingdom. but you know i have realised something else giving people voice is also about recognising who we are as a country.

we are more than ever, four countries and one. england, scotland, wales, northern ireland and britain too. each nation making its contribution. we are not just better together, we are greater together. and that is not something to fear that is something to be proud of. i learnt something really important as i'm sure we all did in this referendum campaign. all of those people who were proud to be scottish and proud to be british. just like there are so many people who are proud to be welsh and proud to be british. no one more so than our brilliant first minister of wales, carwyn jones and let's hear it for him today ladies and gentleman. [applause]

and so too we can be proud to be english and proud to be british. and i say to this party we must fight for these traditions and not cede them to others. englishness: a history of solidarity. from the battle of cable street against oswald mosley and the black shirts to the spirit of the blitz. englishness: traditions of fairness. from the ford workers at dagenham who fought for equal pay to today's campaigners for the living wage. [applause] englishness: a spirit of internationalism. from those who fought in the spanish civil war to our generosity to those overseas.

[applause] now friends there will be some people who tell you that being english, welsh or scottish means dividing or setting ourselves against each other. rubbish. why? because here is what we the labour party know. the injustices facing working face them right across the united kingdom and we can only tackle them together. that is after all what we spent the last two years fighting for and i am not going to let anyone after the last two years drive us apart. [applause] if david cameron cares so much about the union why is he seeking to divide us?

he is learning the wrong lessons from scotland. [applause] he is learning the wrong lessons from scotland. because what he doesn't understand is that the lessons are of course about the constitution, but they are not about playing political tactics about england. and here is why he is doing it. david cameron doesn't lie awake at night thinking about the united kingdom. he lies awake at night thinking about the united kingdom independence party. ukip. that is why he is doing it friends and i say pandering to them is just one more reason why he is not fit to be the prime minister of this great country.

[applause] better together, across the united kingdom. but also better together, true to our traditions of internationalism. and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to europe and the european union. friends, let me say it plainly: our future lies inside not outside the european union. [applause] we need to reform europe.

we need to reform europe on the economy, on immigration, on benefits, on all of these big issues. but here is the question for britain. how do we reform europe? do we reform europe by building alliances or by burning alliances? well, look, what's really good is that we've had a recent experience, a test case, by david cameron of his strategy. i don't know whether you missed it, but it's about somebody called jean-claude juncker. [laughter] and in case you missed the score, it's not so good from his point of view, that's david cameron, is he lost by 26 to 2. now, why did he lose? because at the start people thought he might win that vote. i'll tell you why. because you see the problem for our country is that when david cameron comes calling, people don't think he's calling about the problems of britain or the problems of europe. they think he's calling about the problems of the conservative party. and here's the funny thing friends, here's the funny thing. if you're elected the chancellor of germany or the prime minister of italy or the president of

france you don't really think you were elected to solve the problems of the conservative party. [applause] that's why he can't succeed for our country. and, look, what we had over jean-claude juncker is just a preview of what could befall this country if david cameron was back in power after 2015. because he lost 26 to 2 over that. he has to win 28-0 to get reform of europe. unanimity. no chance for david cameron. he's got no chance of fighting for this country. because people think he's got one hand on the exit door and his strategy has failed. if you want to reform europe. if you want to change the way europe works.

if you want to keep britain in the european union and if you realise that the biggest threat to our prosperity is now the conservative party, the right answer is a labour government. [applause] i'm determined that as prime minister, i promote our values all round the world and one of the things that that means friends is seeking a solution to a problem that we know in our hearts is one of the biggest problems our world faces and that is issues in the middle east and israel and palestine. i tell you, i will fight with every fibre of my being to get the two state solution, two states for two people, israel and a palestinian state living side by side, that will be a very, very important task of the next labour government, friends. [applause]

there's one other thing i want to say about what we need to do abroad. you know we have made extraordinary progress on lesbian and gay rights over the last twenty years. if i think about the transformation that i have seen growing up into adulthood, the biggest transformation. we've made such progress on equality. but we have to face the fact that internationally things are, if anything, going backwards. we can't just let that happen. we can't just say "well, that's ok". the next labour government will fight to make sure that we fight for our values and for human rights all round the world. so today i can announce that i am appointing michael cashman, lord cashman, as our envoy on lgbt rights all round the world. [applause]

so it's about a plan, at home and abroad, but it's also about leadership. friends - you know, i know, that the next eight months represent my interview with the british people for one of the most important jobs in our country. let me tell you what i care about. i care about big ideas that can change our country. the principle of together. i care about hearing the voices of people right across our land and not shutting them out. and i care about something else. i care about using the power of government to stand up against powerful forces when we need to do so. it came home to me the other day, when i met rosie, a doctor from devon, and she said to me: "what we need is someone who will stand up for working people, for everyday people, because you will have the power and we won't."

that's why i stood up to rupert murdoch over phone hacking. that's why i stood up to the banks over bonuses. that's why i stood up to the payday lenders over their exploitation of the poorest people in our country. that's why i stood up to the energy companies over their profits and prices and, yes, it's why i stood up to the daily mail when they said my dad hated britain because i know my dad loved britain. [applause] ok, that's me, but what about the other guy. now this isn't a conventional job interview so i get to say

something about him. he stands up for the principle of "you're on your own". he stands up for the privileged few. and here's the thing that gets me the most about him perhaps. he really thinks that a good photo opportunity will fool people into thinking he doesn't just stand up for the rich and privileged, he stands up for you and your family. in this day and age, when people are so cynical about politics, i just think it adds to that cynicism. but here's the thing. he's been found out. he's been found out because he hugged a huskie before an election, and then said "cut the green crap" after an election. he's been found out because he stood outside an nhs hospital before an election with a placard saying "no hospital closures", and he closed that very same a&e department after the election. he's been found out because he changed his logo to a tree before an election, and tried to sell off the forests after the election.

[laughter] [applause] and he's been found out because he said he was a compassionate conservative before the election, and he imposed the cruel, the vindictive, the unfair bedroom tax after the election. [applause] and you know what gets me even more? you know what gets me even more? is that even now, with all the tales of misery, hardship, injustice, he thinks a bit of rebranding will get him off the hook. so he calls it the "spare room subsidy" as if that will make the problem go away. well, david cameron, you've been found out. [applause]

so friends, there is a choice of leadership at this election. a real, stark choice of leadership. leadership that stands for the privileged few or leadership that fights for you and your family. and as i said earlier, this isn't just about leadership and government and labour's plan for britain's future. it's also about all of you. see, we can't build the country we need without you. without mobilising every part of britain. so i say to young people: we need your hope, your energy, your vitality. i say to every older person: we respect your service and we need your wisdom. i say to every business: you can be part of this and we can't do it without you.

i say to every entrepreneur: we need your ideas, your enthusiasm. i say to every charity: we admire your spirit and we want to hear your voice. i say to every nurse, every teacher, every public service worker: we salute your dedication and we know why you do what you do. [applause] i say to every person in our country who believes that tomorrow can be better than today: we need you. together we bring up our families. together we look out for our neighbours. together we care for our communities. together we build great businesses, the best in the world. together we teach the young. together we heal the sick. together we care for the old.

together we invent cures for the most terrible of diseases. so, of course, friends, together we can rebuild our country. together we can reward hard work. together we can ensure the next generation does better than the last. together we can make our nhs greater than it has ever been before. together we can make britain prouder, stronger in the world. together we can restore faith in the future. on our own, we can't but together we can. in the next eight months the british people face one of the biggest choices in generations. a choice between carrying on as we are, on your own, for the privileged few. or a different, better future for our country. we are ready. labour's plan for britain's future. let's make it happen. together. thank you very much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

♪

>> those remarks from the british labour party leader taking place today in manchester, england. a reminder that the british house of commons is calling a recess. they will return by wednesday, october 15, at 7:00 a.m. eastern 2. c-span here's a look at our prime time schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, remarks from president

obama at the united nations on climate change issues. on c-span2, georgetown university hold a conference on the recent west africa ebola outbreak and what can be done to keep the disease from spreading. , looking at current national security threats in light of isis and the iranian nuclear program. health and human services secretary sylvia burwell spoke today at the brookings institution about the health care law and what improvements still need to be made. she also talked about the health care website and the second beginment period set to november 13. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am delighted to welcome you to the brookings institution. i am even more delighted to welcome sylvia burwell,

secretary sylvia burwell, to this event at brookings. i have known sylvia a long time. over 20 years. when i first encountered sylvia in the clinton administration, i thought of her as that friendly, competent young woman who worked for bob rubin at the national economic council. i learned that sylvia was the go to person and a can-do person. that was a useful person to have around. i also learned that she liked to keep in touch with real people out around america, not just in washington. and that she grew up in west virginia. one day, i found myself in a hard hat, deep underground in

west virginia in a coal mine with sylvia, barbara ven and rich trumka. i was not the only one who noticed that sylvia was competent and levelheaded hearing the president notice to that, president clinton. by the end of the administration, she was the director of -- she's had a distinguished career. and philanthropy, she had major responsibilities and not one but two big foundations. then president obama had the good sense to bring her back to washington to be director of omb. i was delighted. i have a strong affection for the office of management and budget and i always feel better when i know the agency is in a strong, confident hand. i also have a deep respect for the difficulties of that job because it is the toughest job i ever did.

but apparently, it was not tough enough for sylvia. she let the president talked her into an even tougher one. the department of health and human services is a vital agency of government that literally affects every single american at sometime in their lives, often many times area at any time in history, running hhs effectively is a huge strategic and managerial challenge. but this may be the most challenging time of all. it includes implementing the affordable care act. the aca is a far-reaching, much-needed piece of legislation that has -- that is already providing millions of people with affordable health insurance and will impact the way americans interact with their health care system for decades to come. it is complex. we don't things simply in the united states. it gives states a lot of flex

ability. it will play out differently in different parts of the country. it will change as we gain experience with what works and what needs to sing. -- needs fixing. people in the academic world and at ring tanks like this one often imagine that the hard job in government is making policy. no, it is not. after the political battles are fought, and the compromises are made, after the bills are passed and signed, the really hard job is to implement the policy on the ground. and that is city of -- that is sylvia burwell's job right now, to make the affordable care act work and she is here to give us a progress report. sylvia. [applause]

>> thank you very much, alice. it is an honor to be introduced by someone that i have known and followed for so long. i am sure most of you all know that alice was the original director of the congressional budget office as well as the first woman to head the office of management and budget. as i aspired to follow in alice's footsteps, she was someone who has climbed many mountains, both literally and figuratively, for those who know her, and for whatever reason, in trying to aspire to do that, when i left the clinton administration, i decided to climb mount kilimanjaro. brookings is a place that has a special place in the burwell household. we like to read to her children. our children are sex and four. it is a morning ritual over breakfast.

sometimes we read the magic treehouse and sometimes we read brookings institution reports. [applause] when my six-year-old daughter found out that i was coming today, i don't seem all dervish, but i do have a message firm -- from my six-year-old. on the whole aggregate gdp eating a less good measure of economic progress, she does not agree. while i am not going to get in the middle of my daughter and a brookings scholar and academic leader, i do just want to skip view. they think about and analyze trends over time, conduct smart, systemic, empirical research. and focus on three words in the motto. quality, independence, and impact. as a former omb director, those words are music to my ears.

i want to take this opportunity to apply that analytical framework to the issue of health care. as we think about the question of how is the affordable care act working. then i would like to share with you a little bit about how i am thinking of the steps as we go forward. i have come to believe strongly in the importance of measurable impact. when it comes to the affordable care act, i think there are three basic measures. access, affordability, and quality. our more people getting covered? access and affordability. are middle-class families shielded from suffocating melba -- medical those? affordability -- medical bills? affordability. when you consider the law through affordability, access