intercepted phone calls from killers, and interviews with survivors. that is at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on the communicators, amy mitchell of the pew research center on political polarization and where people get their news. >> we look at facebook in particular, because they are still the largest and that is the outlet that has the greatest percentage of the american public using it in terms of official sites. about half of our respondents say they got a little news from facebook in the past week. that puts facebook in particular on par with local television and some of the other top outlets among the 89% of the population. it clearly plays a role in people's information environment and how they are learning and who they communicate with. what we have found when we broke down the differences ideologically is that the

conservatives were much more likely to have groups of friends and see political posts in line with our own political thinking. more so than those that are mixed and more than consistent liberals. consistent liberals are much more likely to defriend somebody because of their political views. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> coming up next on c-span, the bbc's parliament westminster in review. then the ongoing conflict between russia and ukraine. the un security council looks at north korea's human rights record. >> the british parliament is in recess so prime minister's questions will not be shown tonight. instead, a look back at some of the major event that took place

in december in the westminster review. topics include efforts to combat isis, and scotland's decision tuesday in the u.k. alicia mccarthy hosts the program, which concludes with a look ahead to the 2015 general elections. >> hello there, and welcome to “westminster in review.” the economic recovery may be underway, but who is best to handle the future? >> a long-term economic plan, on the course for prosperity. >> we have balanced the books in

a fair way with a long-term plan to save the nhs. >> also on this program, how to tackle the rise of islamic extremism at home and abroad. a series of inquiries rise to establish how child abusers got away with their crimes. and after scotland says no to independence, what is next for voters there and in the u.k. ? >> it is not fair for scotland to vote. >> let's start with the economy. the chancellor sets out his latest facts and figures in a budget. known as the autumn statement.

normally, the figures are secret, but this year there was an announcement. for the health service, the money is to support doctors and nurses. there was more money for roads too, with funds for a long-awaited project. opponents claim it is not new and will benefit coalition constituencies. what will the chancellor have left to announce on his big day? he made the short trip to the commons to unveil his final statement before the general elections. >> over the last year, we have grown 2.5 times faster than germany, over three times faster than the euro zone, and over

seven times faster than france. borrowing is falling, the deficit is down to half, britain is living within its means, and the economic plan is on course. >> on to savings in government spending. >> there are those who say we should faster or slower, but we have the pace right. >> so to the chancellor's big announcement. >> britain is on course for surplus, on course for lower taxes, on course for higher growth, on course for a national recovery, a long-term economic plan, on a course to prosperity.

>> as the cheering died away the chancellor got to his speech. he had promised a balanced budget by the end of the parliament. >> today they announced that the deficit next year is forecast to be 75.9 billion pounds. can the chancellor confirm that number? and that the national debt is forecast not to fall but to rise? wages have not kept pace with prices for 52 out of 53 months. today's forecast confirms that wage growth is once again weaker than expected. working people are 1600 pounds a year worse off than they were in 2010. someone in full-time work is thousands of pounds worse off.

we need the recovery for the many, not just a few. we will balance the books in a long-term way. that is the autumn statement we needed. it will take a labour government to deliver it. >> then it was over to the back benches. starting with two former chancellors. >> did i hear him right when he was claiming halving the deficit? because it used to be a terribly good thing to be doing. [laughter] >> he is proposing to devolve considerable powers to the various nations and cities of the united kingdom. can he reassure us that he will combine this with commitments to financial responsibility? >> what the chancellor said is that the target for this year

has not been met. that the borrowing, far from being 20 billion, will be almost four times that at 75 billion pounds. why should the public believe, if the government does the same thing, it will be any different than the failure? >> the economy is going to be crucial in the run-up to the election in may, but what pictures will the parties be attempting to paint? >> george osborne and david cameron has a bit of a dilemma on his hands in that on december the third, the office of budgetary responsibilities said that the economy was picking up faster than expected. they want to emphasize that it is not over yet and the job is not done.

they are balancing between boasting the economy is recovering and saying why they need to continue to be in government next year to continue with the cuts. we've heard what david cameron had to say about the red light of the dashboard. what is he trying to do there? >> america's growing and china is slowing down and japan is in a recession. it is political sleight of hand to point to what is happening elsewhere and say that this could happen to us but ultimately it will be trying to flag up the fact that people should not be too comforted by the recovery and that we could go back into recession. >> the parties are supporting themselves ahead of the election. what should we see there? >> it is five months before the election so cracks are appearing in the coalition. their leader has said that

basically after the deficit has been eliminated, they will not continue to shrink the state as the tories want to. he is trying to stake out the middle ground between the conservatives and labor. >> howl far apart are the coalition parties from labor? they are going to have to expect cuts. >> all parties through 2015 in 2016 but after that it does differ widely. the difference in fiscal policy between conservatives and labour is the largest that it has been since 1992. labour are only considering cutting the day-to-day deficit and not the federal deficit, and that will leave a 5 billion deficit by the end of next parliament. they do not want to be as harsh on welfare as conservatives.

>> we have come to the parliament central lobby, the crossroads between the common and the lords. it has been quiet with the mp's away for the recess. this september, both houses were recalled. the reason, the continuing rise of islamic extremism in syria and iraq. islamic state extremists captured the iraqi city of mosul and strengthened their hold over other cities and towns and seized territory in syria. estimates suggest they may have 35,000 jihadists fighting for them, but there is an outrage at the brutality and the hostages being held and beheaded. david cameron explained why he wanted the u.k. to join airstrikes against the militants in iraq. >> isis is a terrorist organization unlike those we have dealt with before.

the brutality is incredible. beheadings, crucifixion, the use of rape as a weapon. the slaughter of children. all these things belong to the dark ages. it is not just the brutality. it is backed by billions of dollars and has captured an arsenal of the most modern weapons. in the space of a few months isil has taken control of territory greater than the size of britain and has made millions selling oil. some will say that any action will further radicalize young people. i have to say that this is a counsel of despair. the threat of radicalization is already here. young people have left the country to fight for these extremists. we must take action at home, but we must also have a comprehensive strategy to defeat these extremists abroad.

>> two questions he has put to himself. how long will the war last, and when will mission creep set in? >> this will not take months but years. but i believe we have to be prepared for that commitment. >> the prime minister places trust in the iraqi army. the problem is that we armed the army and they ran away and now isil has their arms. is he seriously contending that by airstrikes alone we can rollback isil or is this just politics? >> i am not claiming that by airstrikes alone we can rollback this problem. what this problem requires is a comprehensive strategy including a well formed iraqi government and armed forces because they, in the end, will be the ones that have to defeat this on the ground. >> will he recognize that

killing extremists does not kill their ideas but can spread their ideas and that getting them around the negotiating table will be more effective than bombing? why are we not hearing more about diplomatic solutions? >> although we may have common cause with russia and with assad and iran over isis they have different views as to what they would see emerge on the ground as a lasting solution in syria. we need to be aware of the dangers that would propose. i do not think there is an appetite in the united kingdom in getting involved in an ongoing operation lasting many years on the ground trying to instill a new order. ed miliband back to the campaign

. though yet been against action in syria 13 months before. >> mr. speaker, let's be clear about what this is. isil is murdering muslims. those who say that it is an attack on islam, let me say this. i understand the anxiety including communities in britain, but the truth is entirely different. muslims themselves are saying it, leading scholars wrote this, and i quote, "isil is perpetuating the worst crimes." it is a war against all humanity. nobody is in doubt that it is a difficult mission and it will take time but there is evidence that the u.s. action is having the effect of holding back isil. prior to this action, isil was advancing. it is a choice to act or not to

act. >> most mps spoke in favor of action against isis, but not all. >> every matter will be made worse. extremism will spread further and deeper around the world, just like happened as a result of the last iraq or. the people outside can see it, that the fools in here, who draw big salaries and big expenses, cannot or will not see it. saudi arabia has 700 warplanes. get them to bomb. turkey is a nato member. get turkey to bomb. the last people who should be returning to a scene of the former crimes is written france , and the united states of america. >> when it came to the vote in the comments, there was a majority of 481 four u.k. military actions.

it was not just mp's that were recalled. >> the action proposed there is right but we must not rely on a short-term solution to a global, ideological, transgenerational challenge. we must demonstrate that there is a positive vision, far greater and more compelling than the evil of isil and its global clones. >> what sort of a country would we have become if we refuse to play our part in this international endeavor to confront evil? of course it is true that airstrikes alone will not definitively defeat or destroy isis. in due course, it may be necessary for action of a different kind to be taken. but the imperative now is to continue to stop their advance.

>> we see men and boys abducted and killed without mercy and women sold as sex slaves subject to rape and sexual violation including mutilation. the attitude of this group towards women is brutal and degrading. >> christianity has been able to go evil but that is no longer happening. the collective evil in radical islam can only be defeated by peaceful islam. >> as u.s. jets continued to pound fighters from islamic state, mps began an inquiry as to how to counter. but the experts said ultimately there was no military solution. instead there had to be

political change, particularly in iraq and specifically within the ruling elite in baghdad. >> we face a serious threat from the islamic state in terms of stability and the region. the only long-term solution that could ever work is a political one. if, in fact, this government is going to be a government backed by iran, based on shiite parties that do not want to make peace with the sunni population and its leaders and representatives, then we have a long-term conflict on our hands. >> is there a way we can use an international coalition to defeat isil? my view at the moment is no. >> but there was a role for airstrikes.

>> airstrikes do change the balance of power at a tactical level. what appears to be militias fighting isil militias, these are company actions, not very large. a few bombs can change the balance in that area, help to contain. the second thing that airstrikes do is connect to the counterterrorism initiative elsewhere. if a target pops up that is a threat to the united kingdom, we have the freedom to drop a bomb. in themselves, they are not going to come out your debate in 2005 or 2007, or in afghanistan in 2001, bring down the force you are opposing.

>> but it was the brutal murder of this man which brought home the impact of islamic extremism on our street. rigby was savagely attacked outside his barracks in southeast london. the parliamentary report rules that the murderer not have been prevented but that the killers had appeared in investigations before the attack. the prime minister said that although security agencies have made mistakes, the report said they were not significant enough to make a difference. but he called on internet companies to do more to counter terrorism. the counterterrorism bill would ban insurance companies from paying ransoms, place a duty on universities to counter extremism, and allow the relocation of terrorists in the u.k.

but it was the measure to ban foreign suspects returning home that was the most controversial. >> depending on the individual case, it may also require the individuals to perform activities when they are back in the u.k. there has been a lot of interest in the nature of this power. but i want to reassure the house it will not render an individual statements. all of those concerned will have the right to return to the u.k.. when they do it will be on our terms, and quite possibly in the company of a police officer. the police will interview them to explore their activities abroad and could make them subject to certain requirements. >> this is, in effect, exile. it is exiling, in many cases british citizens to another country.

all of history suggest that that radicalized its people and makes them more dangerous enemies to this country. without any judicial process which she is advocating, we are going to make ourselves in more danger rather than less. >> i would caution the gentleman in relation to this power. he has used the term “exile.” this is not saying that people cannot return, but they will be returning on the basis that we have set out in the bill and be returning in a way that is managed and we are able to have some control in relation to that. >> i understand the system that she is putting in place of managed return. what is not clear on the face of the bill is a system that will be present will be present allow that matters requirement to be challenged. i am wondering if she could help the house on that point.

it seems to me that there must be a mechanism that it can be challenged on their return to this country and to do so expeditiously if it is not an unwanted interference with the rights. >> it will be possible, there will be a formal challenge available to the individual through judicial review. >> i warmly welcome this measure because many of my constituents like to see people given a one ticket and not coming back to the country and i think she has found a balance. >> it is unclear exactly what the government wants to achieve from these powers. the prime minister says that we are clear in principle but what we need is a targeted exclusionary power to exclude british nationals from the u.k. that is not what this power does. if someone is served with an order and the host country decides to deport them, britain will cooperate and return them. there is the power to exclude them.

the suspect does not have to cooperate with the interview only to turn out. so it seems to be a temporary exclusion order to give the prime minister the headlines that he wanted. >> there was one other story that cast a long shadow over west mr. -- child abuse. the home affairs committee spent today cross-examining senior officials about the horrific scale of abuse there. a report found that, over a 16 year period, 1400 children have been abused by gangs of men, mostly of pakistani origin. it took the unusual step of getting witnesses to take the oa th prior to giving testimony. >> i have been out on patrol

with officers. we have held police authority meetings. i held community groups. there has been an inspection by her man -- majesties examiner in 2004. some of those reports make me sick when i read them last night. i am not immune to the ideas that this is a hideous crime and i am deeply embarrassed. but i can say with honesty that of the time i was told deputies and chief counsel, i had no idea of the scale and the scope of this kind of organized crime. >> we find this impossible to believe, because you have heard evidence of the most compelling nature.

and you're saying that the first time you about this is when you read these reports. we find that impossible to believe, mr. hughes. >> i have no understanding of the scale and scope of the issues. >> not a single case passed your desk? >> i was a patron of the missing person's charity that is mentioned in this group. it did not get that mentioned. it was not something i would have turned a blind eye to more something i would have willfully ignored. i will will respect the evidence who has been given. those who know me would know that i would not turn a blind eye or cover up child abuse. i take no pleasure in this.

i had a 32 year police career. and yet, on this issue, i have singly failed the victims of these criminals. >> the committee then heard from the director for children and young people, who says she has no plans to resign. >> you knew about all of this. how can you be accountable to the people of iran when you have failed them in such a way? shouldn't you more decently and honestly step aside from your own post to allow others to be able to do a proper investigation to what has happened? you clearly have not been able to do anything in this job for all these years. >> i have worked extremely hard to improve services. i have made sure that we have brought in good resource services. i have protected frontline social care, i have made sure that we had a child exploitation

team, i have worked hard with colleagues. we clearly have more to improve on but i did take those responsibilities seriously and no i do not intend to resign. >> finally, they heard from the crime commissioner. shaun wright. he had not reject -- resigned from his job at pcc. >> as elected individuals, we are not be experts in any of these areas. so we look to a range of indicators. not one member, not one local counselor asked me a question. not one local mp raised an issue of csa over these five years. not one report raised csa is a significant issue. >> we do not accept that.

>> what is the point of continuing? >> i have outlined the reason for that. >> in 26 years, i have served thousands of meetings and subcommittees. you are the least credible witness i have ever come across. i do not believe what you are saying. >> shaun wright and joyce stafford later resign from their posts. separately in july, the government announced an overarching inquiry into sexual abuse, how public bodies handle claims of abuse from the 1970's to the present day. attempts to find a chair to lead the inquiry wandered. retired butler's law retired over establishment connections. she was preceded by fiona will -- will.

she stepped down after this appearance before the committee about potential conflicts of interest when he appeared in front of mps, the most senior official of the home office apologized for the delay in finding somebody. >> when you were brought in and you were appointed, after a year and a half, as the new broom into the home office, here we have a situation where the home secretary has been left dangerously exposed both in parliament and outside to a lot of criticism over the way that due diligence was carried out. this is not something that minister should do, this is something that officials should do. why was that not carried out in both of these cases before these names were put in? >> i believe there was due diligence carried out. what i have not really appreciated was the threshold

that we were setting which was probably different for this inquiry then it would be for any others. let us talk briefly about due diligence. this is done like security vetting, professional associations, are they on the board of anything that might have association with work of the panel. in the end, we rely on individuals themselves to identify if they have any social or personal collections. that might be a real or perceived conflict of interest. >> you are saying it was not worthwhile. >> i am not saying that. >> are you accept any responsibility? >> yes, i do. >> would you like to apologize that this was not carried out in the way it should have been?

>> we tried to get the inquiry moving promptly. this caused a great deal of stress for survivors and representatives. >> so how easy or difficult to you think it is going to be to find a chairman with such eminence to chair this panel? who have not in their past had some discussion with somebody who is historically, if you like, part of the establishment? >> i think you put the conundrum very well. that was on our minds throughout the process for selecting the first two candidates. >> marked central, you are watching westminster in review, with me, alicia mccarthy. after the independence no vote, what is next for scotland and the u.k.? miles away and oceans apart,

politicians grapple with our relationships with europe. they may be peers, but they are still revolting. another withering verdict on government policy. >> yet again argument is being asked by the secretary of state for the justice to rubberstamp a rushed and discrete proposal. >> before that, let's turn our attention to scotland and the fallout from the independence referendum. this september the scots rejected the idea of leaving the u.k.. the campaign had been hard-fought, with polls suggesting things were going to be close. in the hopes of persuading scotland to stay in the union, the three main parties at westminster made a pledge during the campaign by gordon brown. the morning after the

referendum david cameron said that he wanted to look at the powers of the rest of the u.k. and stop scottish mp's from voting on english matters. that upset labor. opening a commons debate william hague argued there was a call for change. >> >> make no mistake, the need is palpable and serious, and across the united kingdom, we must find that for settlement. delay is not an option. >> the debate quickly turned to what is known as the west question, the ability of scot mps to go on laws affecting england while england's mps cannot vote on devolved decisions. >> our constituents feel that too many decisions are london-cen this is the problemtric.

with english laws. it does not take power near its peak. >> these issues are not mutually exclusive. it is entirely possible to believe there should be greater autonomy at the local level including her constituents and mine. if she is talking about what people feel about this, i think she will have to wait knowledge that they also feel, whether it be in yorkshire or county durham, scottish members should no longer be voting on those matters that have been devolved to scotland. >> gordon brown font hard for scotland to remain part of the u.k. and made what is known as the valve, a timetable for more powers to be devolved. >> you cannot have one united kingdom if you have two separate classes of parliament. you cannot have representatives elected by the people that are

half in and half out of the lawmaking process. let us remember the words in the new testament, i house divided cannot stand. and a house divided is brought into desolation. >> would he agree with me that my constituents in letchworth want to know why he should be able to vote in this place about education when i have absolutely no say on these matters in his constituency? >> just because we lost the referendum does not mean i have stopped believing in independence. just because we did not secure this referendum does not mean i stopped believing in the people who are best placed to run this fantastic country for the people who live and work here. we will apply ourselves and make sure that we get the maximum devolution. >> the only sensible way forward

is to devolved some of the income tax and not include scots or any representatives from voting at westminster on issues like taxation. >> gordon brown making one of his final appearances in the comments. he later announced he was to stand down as an mp in may. what does more devolution for scotland mean for the rest of the u.k.? on the committee quarter, it would hold that the referendum had woken the sleeping giant of england. in more referendums in other regions would follow. local government leaders said the debate should be about more power for local counsel and not just english votes for english laws. >> these scottish referendum has awoken the sleeping giant of england. i do not think we are going to go back to the complacency that has been in england before into the future.

we think that the government and political parties need to recognize what is being a received wisdom, which is after our mania we are the most centralized office in the world. >> what sort of devolution where they looking for? >> the emergence of combined authorities. essentially, combinations of local authorities around travel to work areas and other economic markets is the model that we will be adopting. >> meanwhile, plans for more devolution to scotland continued at top speed. the cross parties commission set up recommended that hollywood the given -- wrote begin and sweeping new powers. the recommendations were agreed upon by five parties. the smp, labor, the liberal

conservatives, and the scottish greens. the architect of those proposals, mrs. calvin, appeared before mp's at westminster. a member of the scottish affairs committee speculated on what might happen if the scottish government overreached on spending. >> the scottish government was going out and borrowing money with assets that the scottish government has. if you borrowed direct and feel that there is no implicit u.k. government guarantee, it is like a public loan board or something. probably, the scottish government would say we need another billion or something.

go to the u.k. government and they would go into the market with the u.k. credit rating. if you go too far in the other direction, california when lust. individual states can actually go lust -- bust. to me, it is inconceivable that a u.k. government would allow a scottish government, devolved scottish government, to go bust. if that is the case, there is an implicit guarantee. if there is an implicit guarantee, you have to talk closely together. because the scottish government is completely free to go out with an implicit guarantee for the u.k. government and borrow potentially recklessly. it just would not work. the u.k. government would

eventually say, hold on, that did not have an implicit guarantee. i think trust people to be grown-up and work together in a mature fashion saying we are going to have to smooth this out. you did give us sufficient and increased arlyn powers. we will do this the smartest way with the lowest interest rate. or we are going to do this direct. but we have your implicit guarantee. are you prepared to say that is there? >> it was also change in the scotish parliament. alec salmond announced he was standing down and was replaced by his long-standing deputy nicola sturgeon. but he was not leaving the political stage. he later announced he would stand for a seat in westminster.

>> in some cases, nothing changed. the scots voted to remain a part of the united kingdom. in other ways, everything changed. it was promised that scotland would get more devolution, they set up the smith commission. they are proposing radical powers, particularly on taxation, giving the scotish parliament for more power over day-to-day event. what will happen is that over the next few months that will be knocked into legal parliamentary control. the aim is that when the new government comes into westminster in may of 2015 although the legislation will be on the statute book, they can take it off the shelf and

we will pass it as a priority when the new government comes in. all of the three main parties, the conservatives, the labor and the liberal democrats, say they all want to do that and keep the momentum going. >> alec salmond has stood down as leader but he wants to come back to westminster. >> he is a big beast, he likes westminster and the environment of westminster. what will be important for alec salmond and nicholas sturgeon is how many people are coming with alec salmond if he is elected. in the opinion polls, they are playing on a large number of mps. they could have 20 or 25 mps. that would be a huge number. it would be important in deciding who governs. >> let's look at the flip side of devolution.

it has created a flurry amongst english cities who wants more power. >> the whole english votes for english laws, it has almost had turbo boosters put it by what happened in the scotish referendum and the promise of more devolution for scotland. although the government says the two issues are not linked and one does not depend on the other, it is pretty obvious that there are a large number of english mp's, conservative mps who say it is happy to have more powers. whether it be the cities of liverpool and manchester, leeds perhaps getting more power to or regions of the united kingdom. and again, there is there is a feeling that if scottish mps can

vote on matters that do not affect them. that is not fair. the question is not going away. >> there isn't an agreement within parties, let alone between parties. >> the proposals have three from the conservatives and the proposal from the liberal democrats. labor decided it did not want to be a part of the process. you have five proposals regarding english vote for english laws and you are right. within parties, there is disagreement about how that can happen. you get the impression that after the general election next year, when the new government comes in, it may not see sorting this constitutional reform out as a priority. >> it is not just the relationship between england and scotland that has taken on a new look. a new color has found its way onto the political map with the rise of the u.k. independence party. focusing on the relationship with europe.

in october, history was made in the comments when the parties first elected mp took his seat. >> i swear by almighty god that i will be faithful to her majesty queen elizabeth according to the law, so help me god. >> douglas had sat as a conservative before defecting. and then there were two. months later, the second elected mp took his seat in the commons. mark reckless have jumped ship from the tories,. u.k. tapped into many voter concerns about immigration into the u.k.. the government had to admit it is not going to hit its target

of getting the numbers down into the tens of thousands. david cameron's talk about changing the rules of limit into the you has been given short shrift by angela merkel. some people suspect ed miliband homed in on cameron's difficulties. >> he has to get 27 countries to agree with them. how many does he have so far? >> what we have is a thing that we want to sort out in europe. we want to sort out safeguards for the single market, get out of the union, reform of immigration. >> he used to say he would never be for leaving the european union. that was his position two years ago. he can't even answer the question.

i just asked him, using the same words he used to run. >> i answered that question the last time round. i want britain to stay in a reformed european union. but we need the reform. we have a plan and they have no plan. we say you, have to safeguard the single market, and what do they say? nothing. we say, you have to reform immigration, and what do they say? nothing. absolutely feeble. that is why, mr. speaker, he faces a crisis in his leadership. >> it is not just people coming to the u.k. through legitimate routes that is causing concern. it is estimated migrants have gathered looking for ways to smuggle themselves into the u.k. the government has spent millions of pounds but the french want more done.

the mayor of calle says that the generous british benefit system is to blame for immigrants crossing the channel. >> do you think there is a perception that england has a soft touch for those who want to come over? >> you have a much more favorable regime in britain than in other european countries. there is the language question. so the second thing is the weekly benefit given to migrants or asylum-seekers. a huge amount of people who have nothing in their lives. >> we come to the house of lords, where the government

found itself doing battle with the second chamber. the row was over the plan for secure college for criminals. the first is due to open in 2017 and would have hundreds of young offenders, doubling the amount of time they spent in education. peers were scathing about the plans. >> >> once again we are being asked to rubberstamp and unthought through proposal. on the one hand, we have a secretary of state with no experience of the management of young offenders claiming that he can improve the dreadful track record of the current system on which i reported adversely many times as chief inspector of prisons. by providing young offenders with better opportunities, particularly in education, at less cost because of economies of scale.

on the other, we have experienced experts say that his proposals are bad for children bad for justice, and bad for the taxpayer. both cannot be right. >> about 16% have serious speech, language, and learning disabilities. 20% or 30% have learning disabilities. about one in four have an i.q. estimated to be below 70. i would ask the minister where the evidence is that with these young people with severe previous trauma, brain injuries, learning disabilities and so on, that a short education program taking them away from their own environment is actually going to be effective? >> i found the visits to the young offenders institution in

my constituency among the most troubling ones i have ever had. because you met young men who have never had a chance of any kind whatsoever in their lives. and you recognize that they could so easily have been your own sons. and you recognize too, how much your own children were privileged. not through money or any of the things which are foolishly trotted out by egalitarian's but just by the fact that they were loved. now, that leads me to be very worried about any measures which are hurried. because i think this is very difficult. i just think it is very hard to get these things right. at present, we are only

committed to establish one secure college. >> this facility will be a pathfinder intended to demonstrate the success of the new bridge between educating and rehabilitating young offenders. i entirely agree that the first secure college must be rigorously evaluated. and let me really sure my local lords that is what the government needs -- intends. >> pierce rejected those arguments and voted down the idea of secure colleges. they also rejected another part of the criminal justice bill, a plan to shake up judicial review . under the system, ordinary citizens can challenge the decisions of ministers and local government of public bodies. the government wants to streamline the process, but peers rejected that puzzles well. when they sent the bill back to the upper house, peers rejected the idea once again.

conflicting the lord to 100 defeat since the general election. it was not just the lord making life difficult. the government suffered its first legislative defeat in the commons in mid-november. of course, with rebellion in the ranks, a proposal about pubs. an mp wanted to have rented independently reviewed and to be able to buy beer on the open market not just from the brewery that owns the pub. a labour mp served up the argument. >> if they are stopped from exploring -- exploiting rents and charging up to 70% more for the cost of a pint, in my view the price of a pint can only fall. >> immigration the state of the economy, and the terrorist threat. is it any wonder that they cannot point to a clear winner

to the general election in may? we spoke to professor john curtis and asked him if this was really the most unpredictable election ever. >> i think there is no doubt that we are in unshared -- uncharted territory. we have in this parliament the most substantial independent fourth party challenge in english politics since 1945. it does not look like that challenge will be disappearing anytime soon. north of the border, we are seeing the scottish national party in the wake of the referendum get a remarkable fill up. it looks like they are likely to vote for the s&p in the 2015 as they were four years ago. the greens are a party also. playing a nontrivial role. meanwhile, the two big supposing

parties, conservative and labor, are struggling to keep above the 50% mark. they are pretty close to each other. they believe labor has enjoyed much of this parliament. that does give a very serious polyp and we of a lot of snp mp's. it is looking increasingly difficult for all of the parties to have a majority in the house of commons. >> how hard will it be for labor or conservatives to form a majority government? >> as far as the conservatives are concerned, it will be very difficult to get a majority simply because we have an electoral system which has not been changed since 2010. we knew in 2010 that it was much more difficult for conservatives to get majority than labor. second problem they seem to face is where they lost most of their votes to. it points to u.k.i.p.

the british economy may be growing reason -- fast in recent months but you get supporters still look economically pessimistic. at the moment, it is not clear that they are convinced. as far as labor is concerned, that problem also lies in the economy. a much more deep-seated one. during the course of this parliament, they had failed to convince people that they know how to run the economy more effectively. they have not managed to overcome the suggestion that they were responsible for the financial crash. against that backdrop, one certainly sees support for their party and away, leaving the party looking as though it will, despite the advantage be incapable of getting majority. so are the coalition parties trying to separate themselves? >> both political parties inside