Full transcript

Gordon Brown

Michael Meacher

John McDonnell

Chair: Steve Richards

Steve Richards

Thank you all very much for coming along. I, Steve Richards, will be chairing this session which will be historic for sure because whatever else happens there will not be three candidates standing for the leadership by the end [laughter]. So you have come to a one off, unprecedented event. There might be two, and there might be one, and you've witnessed the only event with all three.

I'll just ask a general question to each of the three candidates and then we'll open it up. We've had questions from the audience as they've come in and then the panel will respond. I've been told to be quite strict about time and things like that and then we'll open it up and you'll have the chance to have follow up questions and the panel will then respond.

John McDonnell, you were the first to formally declare yourself for this contest. Now you haven't been in cabinet and all the rest of it. Why did you decide, very early on, to declare for the leadership of the Labour Party and therefore to be Prime Minister?

John McDonnell

Because the key thing for us, as ordinary Labour Party members to be honest, is just to have a debate about where we go from here. We've been in power 10 years. Now's the ideal opportunity to stand back, say what are the challenges ahead, and to be frank with you, more importantly than having an internal debate is to have a debate out there with the community. And if we can have a leadership debate based on policies, a comradely debate, a friendly debate, and then obviously after that we'll unite to defeat the Tories, it's as simple as that. Now, I've published a manifesto… £2, signed copies £1.50 (laughter)… and what I've been trying to say in that manifesto is that we need to show people out there we know what the real world is all about, and what I'm trying to say is look, we've come a long way the past 10 years but we still have a society where insecurity is endemic, where people feel insecure at work because of lack of trade union rights, they work all hours God sends to get a roof over their heads, they're worried about their children's education, they're worried about insecurity and social harm, and we've got the solutions to that, we've been implementing some of the solutions. Gordon's been part of that… you know, this is a man with a brain the size of mars [laughter], he's been part of that implementation, we've had real successes, but we need a new constitutional settlement that is based on social rights, which give back trade union rights, which tackles that insecurity. We have a society in which insecurity is still endemic. I do not want to live in a society where, for example just in my own borough, within three miles working people can live 10 years less than wealthy people, where working class children are five times more likely to die before the age of five than they are in Sweden, for example. We need to tackle inequality and that's about redistribution of wealth, and that's about not income tax or anything like that, we're talking about tackling corporation tax and corporates, making sure they pay their way. We live in a world where people see a world of fear, of war, of terrorism and climate change…the work that Michael has been splendidly doing over the years. We've got to reassure people that we've got the solutions to that. Put Iraq behind us and become a force for peace in the world again, make sure we're leading on climate change. I want this debate to demonstrate to people out there we share their concerns, we've got their solutions and we give the hope and belief again in the Labour Party. That's why I'm standing. [applause]

SR

Gordon Brown, if I can start by sort of almost asking the opposite question to the one I've just asked John. You have been part of the government, co-architect of New Labour as you've said many times. How do you signal a change, newness, having been so associated with that period?

Gordon Brown

I've been proud to work with Tony Blair over these last 10 years and to work in a New Labour government that has created two and a half million jobs, that has doubled investment in health and education, that has brought in the minimum wage and has legislated for new rights for people across the community. But I think we all know that the challenges are changing and the challenges are new for the next 10 years. We all came into politics because we believed we could create a better society, one where there is social justice alongside economic progress, and I believe we have made progress over these last 10 years but we've got a lot more to do. We have tackled and addressed child poverty, but I want every child in this country to have the best possible start in life. We have tackled pensioner poverty, and two million pensioners have been released from poverty, but I want every pensioner to have dignity in retirement. We have tackled unemployment, and unemployment has halved in most of the constituencies of this country, but I want every adult and every young person to either have the chance of training, an apprenticeship, a college place, or a job, and I want us to advance further and faster towards full employment. And I want every family in this country to know that the National Health Service is there for them when they need it and that the services will be as they should be – free of charge for everyone who has the need and that it should be met.

And as we face new challenges of terrorism and security, of environmental and climate change, of global economic competition, of building stronger communities, of reassuring about the importance of the British way of life, then I believe the solutions will be New Labour solutions based on our enduring values applied to new circumstances. And I want the opportunity today and over the next few days and weeks to be able to outline these new solutions for the new challenges of our time.

The Labour Party only exists to serve the people of this country. The only purpose of a leadership election is so that we can better serve the country in the future. And my aim has always been that every single individual in this country should have the chance to realise their potential, that they should be able to bridge the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become. And I am confident that if we put forward the policies that I am talking about – New Labour policies for the next election – then not only will we defeat the Conservatives but we will show people we are the only party in this country capable of building social justice for the future. [Applause]

SR

And finally, Michael Meacher. You came in long after John McDonnell declared his candidacy, so the obvious starting point is what is distinct that you offer that you didn't think he was already offering?

Michael Meacher

Well can I say first of all that I do very much welcome this debate and I welcome the fact that there should be an election of whoever it is to be the new leader. The Labour Party throughout the 100 years of its history has elected its leader every single time, except for 1931 which was very exceptional circumstances. And I think people want to have the opportunity of a debate and a choice and it is key that people choose and do not have leaders imposed on them. I entirely agree with what has been said about the need for a public debate; we haven't had a public debate about the direction of the government for nearly 15 years, it is the occasion when there is a leadership election to do this, and I think it is extremely important that we use that. Now, all the things that Gordon said are fine, and of course there have been great improvements under a Labour government in the last 10 years, but the fact remains that we have lost half our membership, we have lost four and a half million votes, we lost three hundred council seats last year, five hundred this year, after experiencing all the things that Gordon has been saying. And I think what that clearly indicates is that we have lost touch with our voters, we have lost touch with many people in our party, and we need renewal. People want to keep Labour in power but they want it to be a rather different Labour Party and I think there are key issues which need to be addressed. I think the most important is the whole issue of the growing divide between rich and poor in our society. The richest, I suppose the top executives of the big companies are now on £50,000….a week. Which is 250 times the minimum wage, 500 times the state pension, and I think that is completely unacceptable and we have to tackle it. And we've got to do something about housing. I think the government has concentrated very well on health and education but housing it has neglected. There is a real problem of affordable housing, not just for public sector workers but across the economy. People not being able to afford mortgages, no houses being built in order to reduce homelessness – there are very serious problems. Over pensions I think we have got a problem of means-tested poverty in retirement. It has been reduced and I think we should be pleased about that, but there are far too many people who are living on subsistence…£84 a week…how many of us would like to live on £84 a week? Why don't we raise that pension to the pension credit level of £114 a week, and when you say how will it be paid for, by abolishing the contracting out to defined contributions schemes, that would exactly pay for it. That would be a real switch from rich to poor. We need a more independent foreign policy….

SR

We'll have plenty of opportunity to talk about that….thank you very much indeed Michael [applause]

Right, we're going to open it up. Just before, because it's such an unusual occasion this, let's ask the two of you, are you confident that one of you will have the nominations to go forward?

JM

We're meeting again on Monday…put our two together one of us will be on the ballot paper.

SR

[to GB] And would you welcome that?

GB

I must say I was worried when I saw the headline on television: Labour leadership, McDonnell vs Meacher – too close to call. [laughter and applause].

I welcome the contest, welcome the debate we are having and it just seems here that the left hand doesn't know what the extreme left hand is doing [laughter and applause].

JM

Gordon's going to lend us a few…

SR

Let's have the first question…we're going to do domestic policy first. Jonathan Clarke with the first question…

Question

Do you think that involving the private sector in the delivery of public services is something we've learned to do effectively, is a waste of money or something in between?

SR

Ok, the involvement of the private sector in public services is obviously a key issue in recent years. Gordon Brown.

GB

If we had not used private finance we would not have been able to start more than a hundred hospitals in this country. If we had not used private finance we would not have been able to renovate already 20,000 schools. If we had not used private finance many of the transport programmes that we've started off would not actually have happened. And the issue in the modern world is the delivery of public services for all individuals and all families and of course almost all of it is public investment that is making it possible but if I can find a way of mobilising private as well as public finance to deliver faster or better or quicker public investments then I'm going to do it. And I think we've got to recognise in this debate that we're living in a mixed economy, that we should be using private investment as well as public investment where it is necessary to do so and of course we take seriously all the changes that we made in the private finance initiative so that we helped, for example, workers and health authorities and workers in schools and gave them new rights that didn't exist previously. But I do say to you we could not have built the hospitals and not have built the schools and we could not have continued to provide the transport and infrastructure without the combination of private finance. And let me say it is not at the cost of public investment. When we came into power public investment was something like £7bn a year; it is now in the order of £35bn a year, so we have raised public investment substantially but by using private finance as well we have been able to build more hospitals, build more schools and improve our infrastructure. And therefore I think the record is that we have done more because we have used more resources.

SR

You mentioned the private finance initiative. Are you happy with all the private sector mechanisms within the delivery of NHS services at the moment? Will some of them be reviewed on their efficiency and so on?

GB

Well of course we continue to look at everything because what we want is something that works and works successfully. But I do say to the other candidates who wish to scrap… the problem with John McDonnell's manifesto is that he does have a manifesto I'm afraid and when you look at it it is a very dangerous one, because they want to scrap all the private initiatives. That would mean that it would stall the programme of hospital improvements, it would stall the programme of school building, it would prevent us doing us doing infrastructure improvements and I say what is sensible is to have the right combination of private and public finance and of course to look at it as it works and to see what works better but don't throw out the possibility that we could invest more in our public services through the combination of public and private finance in the years to come. [Applause].

JM

I don't accept the premise that if we didn't go down the PFI route we couldn't afford to do… we could have borrowed in the traditional way and it would have been cheaper and more effective in the long term as well. When we were elected in '97, let's just take people at face value, we were told it wasn't going to be ideological these decisions, it's evidence-based policy making and what works is what matters. Well some of you will live in London and the southeast. Can you remember Southeast Trains run by Comex? It was so bad we took it back into the public sector, we ran it in the public sector, it was the most effective service in the country. Did we keep it that way just to benchmark the others? No, we reprivatised. Why? Because of ideological commitment for some reason that private sector 'good', public sector 'bad'. We've done lunatic things with regard to PFI. I've got a PFI school in my constituency, we campaigned because the Tories closed it. We reopened it, we opposed the PFI but it was imposed upon us. It's run by Jarvis. We can't afford the school rooms after half past five. The local police who want to run a football competition can't use it at the weekend for the local kids because they can't afford it. We can't even have the rehearsals for our drama classes in the evening for our school kids because the Jarvis prices are so high. That's the implications of PFI in many of our areas. You look at the headlines in the Evening Standard last Friday. Primary Care Trusts having to sack staff, cut services because of what they're having to pay under the PFI schemes that have been imposed upon them. Go to the PPP for London Underground and Metronet and speak to the men now upon whom it was imposed a disastrous policy that's costing us in the long run. Now I want to get back to what was promised originally – evidence-based policy making – what works is what matters. And on that basis I think these PFI schemes would be thrown out on cost-measure grounds and on deliverability as well. [applause].

SR

Michael Meacher, what do you think about the effectiveness, at all as you can see it, of the private sector in public services?

MM

I'm not against some involvement of the private sector, I'm not saying it is wrong in all circumstances but I do think that PFI is a disaster waiting to happen. The fact is it is extremely poor value for money. A recent parliamentary answer showed that the cost of building hospitals is about £8bn but the cost under PFI it works out over the 40-50 year period at about £53bn. It's extraordinarily poor value for money. The problem is of course that it is future generations who have to pay the interest in order to service the debt to the private sector, that's going to be the top slicing of public expenditure which is going to make it extremely difficult for public expenditure in those areas to achieve anything at all. And it is indeed true, we are seeing in the health service that trust deficits in the present time are gravely aggravated by the costs of PFI. And it is true that we could far better have done it at cheaper cost by normal borrowing. But it's the involvement of the private sector right across the board, it's not just the health service. Is it the case that as a result of independent treatment centres, as a result of foundation hospitals, as a result of payment by results as it is coming in that we are getting better health results? There's no evidence for that at all. Look at education. If you have academies, if you have independent trust schools within the state sector is there evidence that you get better education results? There is no evidence. In the case of housing the government is actually saying because of its ideological commitment to the private sector, unless you go into the private sector, either in the form of going over to private landlords or to housing associations, we're not going to deal with your repairs or improvements in your council estates. I think that's disgraceful and wrong. I think the private sector is dominating public services, it is undermining public accountability and it is taking us in the wrong direction. [applause]

SR

We'll take two or three from the audience and then turn briefly to the panel and move on.

Question

If I could just mention the privatisation of council housing which is clearly a major issue, council tenants around the country have been voting against privatisation. The private market has been claimed to deliver the homes we need. Voters voted three years running to support a fourth option so there could be investment to improve existing council homes and build new homes. Do you agree?

Question

My name's Margaret McCabe, I run a social enterprise. The Conservatives have said they will outsource virtually all public services to social enterprise. Have you got any comments on that?

Question

I just wanted to know whether the candidates were committed to seeing under their leadership a Labour government that would invest as much in the education of a child in the state sector as a child receives in the private sector.

SR

Thanks very much. Let's briefly return to the candidates. > Gordon Brown, picking up candidates who said PFI is a disaster, there are cheaper ways of doing it, very very ferocious criticism, your response to that. And that specific one, you have said a couple of times that you aspire to spend as much on state school as private schools. Is it any stronger than an aspiration?

GB

On schools first of all, we are moving the amount of money that we spend per pupil up from two and half thousand pounds to five thousand pounds now to seven thousand pounds during the next spending round. We will reach the same amount of capital expenditure per pupil as private schools in 2010 and we will continue to move towards our objective that private and state school pupils have the same expenditure. The same expenditure that private school pupils have now we will move state expenditure towards. And why do I believe that is so important? Because if you can have the individual tuition and if you can have the small group teaching that exists in a private school in a state school then young people who are falling behind at the moment will, with personal tuition and all the help that is necessary, move ahead. And this raises the fundamental problem that I think is suggested by the proposals of the other two: if we are to both spend on education on pupils and on teachers and on equipment, if we are to spend on healthcare, if we are to spend on our New Deal and employment programmes then we have got to recognise there is a limit to how much money we actually have and then you've got to make a decision about how you'd use the resources to best effect. And I say to you in terms of housing which has been raised, we have managed despite all the difficulties, a 30% increase in the spending per home that is renovated, we've renovated nearly 2 million homes since 1997, we have actually opened up the possibilities for local authorities to build houses for rent over the next few years, and I've said today, and it's right to say this, that we've got to do far more for those who are struggling to either buy their first home or to find a home to rent here in London and in the rest of the country. But if you do that you have got to have an understanding of what resources you need and what resources you can afford. And I just tell you, and it's a simple fact, we could not have started all the hospitals and all the schools – the school in John's constituency would not have happened if it had not been for the fact that we had mobilised both private and public finance – and I think there's got to be some realism in this debate that when we're trying to expand our public services we need to use private and public finance together. Now of course we'll look at all the criticisms and we will listen and learn. One of the reasons I'm going round the country is to hear what people say. But let us not go back to the old argument of 20 years ago that you throw aside one possible source of finance when it's the combination of private and public finance that is going to build the best public services for the future. [applause]

SR

Very briefly….

JM

It is about funding, it is making sure people and organisations pay their fair share. And at the moment corporations don't pay their fair share. Between £97bn and £150bn a year of tax avoidance and Gordon reduces corporation tax by another 2p in the pound. Extraordinary. Let me give you a last PFI example. Gordon privatised the Inland Revenue offices, sold them off to a company and then leased them back. We then discovered the company was in a tax haven, that's right isn't it, not paying tax. Extraordinary behaviour. On this housing issue….when I was elected as a London MP we had 40,000 families homeless; we've now got 64,000 families homeless. Come to my weekly surgery you could weep at the conditions people are living in because we haven't invested. And then we blackmail tenants that if they do not vote for a transfer of their stock they will not receive the money for the refurbishment of their property. That's unacceptable. We need to give the resource to local authorities and we need a housing programme to tackle homelessness in this country on a scale we've not seen for a generation.

MM

I agree with Gordon that a combination of private and public finance is a good idea - if it produces the best results at the cheapest [price]. The truth is it doesn't, it simply doesn't. it is a more expensive way of achieving the same result. And unfortunately it is the government's commitment to the private sector, to privatisation which has driven this, not sound economic sense. On the question of housing, which is really important, I think it is stunning that even in the mid 1990s we were building in this country about 13,000 council houses a year – far less than is actually necessary to meet the needs and the demands of people, the quarter lowest in income across the country who would never be able to afford private ownership of their house – they need good quality housing. You know what the rate was last year? 100 in a year. That really is utterly unacceptable. We need a huge housing programme, particularly to give council tenants in the private rented sector, good quality housing that they can afford. Homelessness has actually doubled and the need is enormous. And frankly if we're going to do that for heaven's sake let's borrow public borrowing and not do that through the private sector.

SR

Let's move on now to another issue.

Question

Is there a need now to build a broad progressive centre in politics that is a coalition against the Conservatives, rather than build on the left? Most of the country is not left, most of the country's centre. I'm particularly keen to hear Michael and John's views on that.

SR

To repeat, is it time to build a progressive consensus which includes Lib Dems and others? Michael…

MM

I'm not opposed to a progressive consensus at all and indeed there are many who argue for proportional representation in order to try and achieve this. I am not in favour of this but at the same time I do think there is pluralism in our society that is not reflected in our voting system and that we do find ways of avoiding the two major parties simply confronting each other and all other interests, including within those main parties, unable to be reflected. The question is how you do it, it's very difficult because any structure of voting in order to try and reflect that pluralism always has significant disadvantages and I think we need certainly a debate about this but it's a difficult question and I don't think there are any easy answers. But we do need to improve the reflection and representation of pluralistic views within our voting system and our parliament. We are not satisfying enough people at the present time.

SR

Gordon Brown, you coined the phrase 'progressive consensus', you referred in your launch to the 'ministry of all the talents' which immediately led to speculation that you were about to appoint Ming Campbell. Could you be very clear by what you mean by both those - 'progressive consensus' and 'the ministry of all the talents'.

GB

Well I think government's got to use all the talents and I think we'd be failing in our duty to the public if we didn't use people for example from business or the voluntary sector who've got a contribution to make, not necessarily in ministerial positions but in other positions helping the government push forward its policies for radical and progressive change. But when the progressive consensus idea is put forward by our questioner, let's just think of it this way: there is no problem that a government faces now that can be properly solved without building the support of people in the community and in the country. If you take the environment, we're going to have to build the support of people to take personal and social responsibility as well as have public investment and international cooperation to push through our proposals on climate change. If you take global economic competition, we're going to have to persuade people that they have got to upgrade their skills if they're going to solve that problem. So what you've got to do, you've got to go out, listen and learn, involve people and engage people, broaden your appeal to larger numbers of people who are engaged in future than are now. And if you can do that then I believe the progressive consensus is being built. So you start with an idea, you channel it through discussions in the country, you persuade people to be involved in that debate, you build broader support, and I would like to see the Labour Party renewed as an organisation that is in touch with all the voluntary groups in our constituencies, with all the sports groups, the church and faith groups, with all the business groups in our constituencies, I would like to see us reaching out to the whole of the community and I think that is the way to build a progressive consensus for the future. So we will have the best environmental policy if we can enlist all these people to that policy; we will have the best skills and education policy if we can enlist all the various groups. And most importantly, because that's where we started in our discussion, we'll have even stronger communities, and particularly for communities that are frayed at the edges at the moment, build strong communities, if we can engage a wider population. And I see that as a new progressive politics for the future and I hope all the people here this evening would want to involve themselves in that. The Labour Party, a network, looking outwards, reaching out, involving and engaging, and that's the way to achieve the progressive goals that we stand for. [Applause]

SR

Are you unequivocally opposed to electoral reform?

GB

I'm not closed to electoral reform at all, but what I would say is this: I would not like to lose the link between a member of parliament and the constituency. I think it's a very important part of what I'm saying is that anybody who is a representative has got to be involved and engaged in that constituency. Now of course the PR system has been proved in different areas of the country to be quite complex [laughter] and there are all these issues to discuss as well. But in the broader sweep of constitutional reform I would start with two things: the accountability of parliament and the executive to the people, where we need reform and I've been suggesting ways we can do that, and secondly enshrining the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a way that is more meaningful for the future so that people can understand what it is to be a citizen of Britain, what the responsibilities are but what the rights are too. And I think that is part of the civil liberties debate, is also a very important element of moving forward and I think people in this country are ready for what is an open and transparent debate about how they can participate more in the decisions that affect their lives.

SR

It's interesting you're not closed to the idea of electoral reform. John McDonnell…

JM

When I heard about the 'government of all the talents' I thought it was a job offer for a minute [laughter]

GB

I wouldn't want to disappoint you [laughter]

JM

[inaudible] said something quite important a few months ago, I think it was just after Christmas. He gave us a warning and I agree with it. He said we were elected in '97 with a very broad coalition, it was that progressive consensus coalition that we put together. And it was a coalition, for example of public sector workers, health workers who marched out for us in 97, who are marching again but they're against us at the moment on privatisation, job cuts and pay cuts. Trade unionists. Students, in 97 we had the students in a majority, young people in a majority, not anymore. Pensioners, we had a majority of pensioners coming out for us in 97, again disillusionment because of our inability to increase pensions sufficiently and restore the link with earnings. Peace campaigners, and it isn't just Iraq, it's Lebanon and Trident and all the rest. And those people also who wanted clean, honest government – can you remember the sleaze under the Tories? Well loans for peerages and some other aspects have alienated those people. What we need to do is recognise is how we've alienated that section after section, almost systematically, of that broad coalition and we need to learn why. It's like the old Clinton phrase during the election, it's not the economy stupid, it's the policies stupid, we've alienated by individual policies section by section of that coalition, and after 10 years we need to stand back now and examine what policies are actually alienating them, how do we address them, how do we change them and how do we rise to the new challenges. In that way we can put together that broad, progressive coalition again that got us elected in '97.

[applause]

SR

John, thank you very much. Any further questions on progressive consensus.

Question

There cannot be progressive consensus because New Labour is Tory now, it's like same policies. Why should we separate the domestic policy from the foreign policy?

Question

My name is Leona King and I'm a councillor in Wandsworth, my view may be somewhat coloured because it's very red or blue and nothing else there, but surely our real problem, and one that I hope is going to be taken up by any of these people on the platform today, is to expose the fact that the Tories are completely cynically trying to pretend they're coming into a progressive consensus today and surely we need to expose the complete cynicism of the Conservatives on this? [Applause]

Question

Given that a lot of people are dissatisfied with the current government's increasingly authoritarian state, how do you intend to counter that problem in the light of the very real threat of terrorism at the moment.

SR

That raises another issue that we are hoping to come onto. If it's ok we'll move onto another question. Louise Bamfield please.

Question

Should a Labour government narrow the gap between rich and poor or is it acceptable for the gap at the top to widen as long as poverty is being reduced?

SR

I think that's almost verbatim the same question that Jeremy Paxman famously asked Tony Blair. Gordon Brown…

GB

The gap between rich and poor is an issue, it is a matter of concern. But we are in a global economy and the way you deal with these issues is bound to be different from what you might have done 50 years ago or a hundred years ago. What we have concentrated on as a Labour government, and what we should concentrate on in future, is raising the incomes of people who are either pensioners on low incomes, people in work on low incomes and of course children in families where there are low incomes. And that is the basis of the policy that we have been pursuing. If you were the poorest child in 1997 you only received £27 a week for your upkeep. Today the figure is nearly £70 and it will continue to rise substantially in the years to come. So it has more than doubled and we are raising the incomes of the poor. Equally at the same time the pensioners, the pensioner credit which I think others are wrong to disparage has meant that the poorest pensioners have an income of £114 a week and that anybody who had less than £200 as a couple would receive help with pensioner credit and we are raising incomes up as we move to the next stage which is to relink pensions to earnings. The minimum wage was an introduction, and it was something we introduced, and that is the answer to the question what is the difference between ourselves and…we introduced a minimum wage. [applause]. They said it would cost two million jobs, that was the prediction, it actually created…with the minimum wage we have created two million jobs. And the working tax credit on top of the minimum wage takes the incomes of some people who are on low paid jobs to [£11 and £12 a week]. So that is the way to raise the incomes of people who are low income and we will continue to do that. And let me just say as far as the tax system is concerned that the top 10% of paid 40% in tax in 1997, they now pay more than 50% so we have continued to raise the percentage share that is taken by the top income earners in our society.

Yes, inequality is an issue in every country in the world. Our opportunity in this country is to raise the incomes of the poor and we will continue to do so. So, equal opportunity, fairness of outcome, that is what we're going to try and achieve. And just finally, it is no good Michael and John coming and now saying we want to spend more money on this, more money on that, more money on everything else because every single answer is about more money. When I costed John's policies, for pensions and child benefit alone it was £48bn and considering in 1992 we made proposals on child benefit and pensions that were about £5bn I think he is out of proportion what is possible in a modern economy. We have got to have a strong economy, we have got to finance our public services, we've got to move to a more equal society, the way that a government in a modern global economy can do that is raising incomes of the low income people in our society and we will continue to do that in the years to come and I hope we'll have your support to do that. [Applause]

JM

Just over half the price of Trident but never mind, we won't go there. Let's be fair though, Gordon has worked hard and in terms of the work he's done there has been redistribution of wealth and we've lifted people out of absolute poverty and we should thank him and praise him for that and I do so. The issue though is that we've still got 3.8 million of our children living in poverty and 10 years on after a Labour government's been elected we've got 2 million pensioners living in poverty and it shouldn't be like that. This issue of inequality is important. Our society now is more unequal than at any time since the Second World War. And inequality has increased under a Labour government. The top 1% in 1997 owned 26% of the wealth, they now own 34% of the wealth. Why is that important? Read Richard Wilkinson from Nottingham, he used to be one of our advisers in Opposition and he wrote a book in 1995, The Impact of Inequality On Health. He repeated that work in 2005. He studied societies right the way across Europe and Britain and America and he said, look at this, the more unequal a society, the more ill health there is for the lower paid and middle incomes, it's almost like a direct line, the more unequal the less the life expectancy for those people as well. But also, not just about health, the more unequal a society the more crime, the more anti-social behaviour. Even the lower turnout at elections…that's why inequality has to be tackled and it can only be tackled by the redistribution of wealth. And Gordon's right, that we have to bring people with us on that. And I go back to it again, it isn't this issue on income tax that we get hung up on all the time, it is that who is paying their way in society. And I have to say we live in London, look at the City bonuses last time – 10bn bonuses this year, 21bn bonuses last year. You tell me that's fair when we have two million pensioners living in poverty in our society. [Applause]

SR

[to GB] Are you not tempted to tax those £10bn City bonuses? Opinion polls suggest it would be popular and it would raise you some money.

GB

Well, I'm honouring the manifesto that we put forward at the last election and the previous election and I think that's the right thing to do. And we will continue to make sure that we have the resources that are necessary to raise the incomes of the poor. As far as dealing with issues in the City, I just tell you that we raised National Insurance, we did that to pay for the National Health Service, everybody is paying more National Insurance, even at the highest level, as a result of that. And I believe it was the right policy that had the support of the country.

SR

Michael Meacher, Labour did go into elections in '92 advocating some tax rises and lost. Why do you think they could do it now and still win?

MM

I don't think that is necessarily the only way and even the best way by which one could produce greater equality. The reason why there has been this enormous increase in inequality and John is quite right that Gordon has improved the position of some of the poorest, that is perfectly true and we should be very pleased about that, and we are, but the problem is that the poor have gone up by this much and the rich have gone up by this much because market forces in a globalised economy have been allowed to run riot and of course the mega rich, and they are now a very significant section of our population, they have a degree of wealth and income and exercise a degree of power which sets them completely apart from the rest of society and you get the consequences of a rise of inequality visited on the poorest of the population. The societies which are happiest, the societies which are most successful, the societies which do have a progressive consensus and a solidarity are those which are much more equal, for example in Scandinavia. And some of the increases are really staggering. I said at the beginning people on £2.5m a year whilst at the same time there are pensioners on less than five thousand pounds a year. I mean how can you have the same society with these enormous inequalities and the government doing little or nothing to change it? Now we can for example bring the pension at £84 a week which has progressively been getting less and less relative to the population because of the failure to make the earnings link which the Tories removed, we have not replaced it, we should, but we could get this £30 a week increase not by more taxes but by ending the contracting out into defined contribution schemes. That'll provide £11bn a year according to what the government themselves say. There are other ways to make changes without taxing people, although I do think that on tax the non-domecile of the mega rich ought to be ended, and some of those taxes do need in all fairness to be imposed but it's not the main way. [Applause]

SR

This issue of inequality has been a big one at various meetings I've attended as a journalist in recent days.

Question

You're a great panel but there's a certain lack of balance in gender and race. [applause] What are you going to do in practice to build a really tolerant, equal society that gives the same opportunities for everyone because if you look at the pensioners the vast majority of the poorest pensioners are women. [applause]

SR

There is a related question to the one you've just raise, we might as well take it now…

question

How are you going to convince women who are doubtful to vote for Labour?

SR

We'll ask the three men any second [laughter]

Question

I'm Nicholas Russell I'm co-chair of the Labour Party Disabled Members Group. How would the panel build on the very good Blair legacy on improving rights for disabled people?

Question

I'm Richard Watts, I'm a councillor in a deprived ward in north Islington. One of the key causes of inequality has been the ingrained problem with skills and training for young people. What do the panel propose to do to improve the skills and training opportunities for young people in deprived areas?

Question

I'm the counsel for the children in the MMR litigation. What would the panel do to restore access to justice for vaccine-damaged children and what would you do to fund research.

SR

Could I just ask you to focus…we've had lots of questions about women and voter appeal of the party in the future.

JM

We launched the women's manifesto a few weeks ago from a feminist group that supported my campaign. Can I just take one element out of that that I think is absolutely critically important. Women still in full time work are paid 20% less than men; in part time work it's 41% still. And what we need to do now I think is introduce equal pay legislation which ensures equal pay audits in every company so that we can expose what is going on and then enable people to have legal powers to challenge that inequality even further than they are. And it does link up this issue about legal rights as well. I'm concerned about what's happening with regard to legal aid and the cut backs in legal aid and access to the legal redress as a result of that. And it links up with this issue around disability too because we've introduced fairly strong legislation and we should be proud about that but unfortunately I don't think we've applied the resources to enable people to actually take legal action to enforce practical legislation on the ground. I think actually that a lot of the policies we've introduced have been good for women but you're right, why aren't there any women on here? I just was hoping that a woman would come forward in terms of the leadership campaign. There are a range of women in the deputy leadership campaign but it is an indication of just how far we have to go as a party, it's not acceptable, it's just three men on a platform like this.

SR

Would you both stand aside for a woman candidate? [laughter]

JM

To be frank with you, at one point in time I remember Lynne Jones indicating she might want to run and I was quite keen that she did…I have to say we've lost a number of good women from parliament as well as a result of the way Parliament is structured. We still haven't conquered the macho culture of Parliament or Labour Party politics.

SR [to GB]

With every respect to the rest of our panel, I'm sure they will accept you will be leader of the Labour Party very soon…

JM

I don't necessarily accept that [laughter]

SR

…Women…

GB

We want more women in Parliament, we want more women in positions of government, we want more women in the cabinet. I believe that what has been achieved in Scotland and Wales, with more women in the Scottish Parliament and more women from the Labour Party in the Welsh Assembly is something that we need to look at as well. As far as the issues about disability and about the legislation on that, I am determined that we have the best legislation to protect the disabled of any country in the world. As far as helping disabled men and women into jobs, I believe we can do far more in years to come because, of six million people who have a disability, most of them actually do want to work and given the opportunity to fulfil their potential in that way. On mmR, it is an issue that I feel strongly about and I'm very happy to take it up with the person who's raised it this evening. But of all the reforms we have made over the last 10 years and can now build on, the biggest beneficiaries of the minimum wage have been women, the biggest beneficiaries of our tax credits on child care have been women. I am determined that we increase the opportunities and the equality that is afforded to that group that has had least protection in the past and most discrimination against it, and that is women. And I believe that in the next 10 years this country can pride itself in moving further and faster towards what we have not yet achieved, and that is women's equality. [Applause]

SR

Would you like to have a female deputy leader?

GB

That's for the Labour Party to decide. [laughter]

SR

It was worth at try.

MM

I think the issue most of all for women is the lack of equal pay for work of equal value and after 30 or more years after the Equal Pay Act there is still something like a 20% differential. And I do think it is disappointing that when we find a Bill coming before Parliament to provide protection to temporary or agency workers, the great majority of whom are women, and who need a great deal of protection, the government drags its feet. I think that was a mistake. I think we need a universal nursery and child care system across the country so that women with young children who wish to work are able to do so without having to pay private child minders often as much as they actually earn. And I also think that it is very important that we have better flexible work/life system in this country. We do have flexible labour markets. When I first heard that term I thought that this was going to provide the kind of flexibility and rights but of course it's actually about hire and fire and greater power for the employers. We do need, I think, much greater flexibility to enable people not to undergo the sweated labour which we have in this country – the longest hours in the EU, greater insecurity because of the weakest employment rights in Europe. And if I may say just one last thing which is about skills and training, I think it is great that we had two million more jobs in the economy compared to '97; the trouble is that they are nearly all low paid, low skilled. And we are still not putting anything like the emphasis on training people, up-skilling people, for a globalised economy. Why don't we make it a responsibility of companies, of employers, to do this, why don't we make it a trade union negotiated issue to ensure that all workers in the company, particularly women, do get the full training they need to achieve their talents. If we did that then I think many of the discriminated groups would get opportunities which are still far too often denied. [applause]

GB

It was to give all people, women particularly who've been denied training opportunities, that we commissioned the Leach Report, that we now proposals that would give every adult the chance of learning opportunities, even after they have left school so that they can get the qualifications that are necessary. I think 'Michael is forgetting that we are putting resources to make that happen. And it is my aim, and this is the answer to the question about skills, that everybody after school, whether it's a second chance or a third chance or a fourth chance, gets the opportunity so that their qualifications can be those for the modern labour market. And just to finish on equal pay, I talked to Barbara Castle before she died – she was my mentor and she was my tormentor [laughter] – and she told me that she had tricked Roy Jenkins, the previous Chancellor, into the original Equal Pay Act in the first place. And the problem was for 20 years after the Equal Pay Act was in theory implemented, in practice not enough was being done. And I believe over the last few years with the measure we are taking we are doing more but I do say there is more to be done and women's equality is one of the priorities of the next few years. [Applause]

JM

Gordon, on the training issue, can you look again at the ESOL Proposals because it's having a dramatic effect on asylum seekers and the refugee community…[applause]

GB

Obviously we will look at this issue and all issues that relate to the future of our country. If we can do more to help people get skills, if we can do more to help people learn the English language, we will do so. But I've got to say to John and Michael, the reason that a Labour government has succeeded over the last 10 years, and the reason that we have economic growth in this country without having had a recession, is that we have managed the public finances in a way that we can do certain things and we can continue to do certain things, but don't put us in a position with a demand after a demand after a demand on every single issue where it's always more… [applause]

JM

This is not a cost issue, this is a policy issue and an administrative issue that's denying some of the poorest in our society access to the skills that they need…I just ask you to look again.

GB

And I've said that we're looking at these issues. But what we've got to be clear about in a debate like this, and this is why we are New Labour and we're not going back to where we were 20 years ago, is that you can't just in every question say we've got to spend more on this, more on this, more on this because that is the problem we got into as a Labour government in the past and we're not going to get into that problem again. We are going to govern in a prudent way and we're going to govern….

JM

You have not understood me.

MM

The stereotype that somehow we're wanting to go back to the old Labour of the 1980s. Neither of us are wanting to do that. What we're talking about is a modern, progressive politics which meets the problems of today. But we are not meeting some of those problems. And it's not a matter of going back, it's a matter of going forward, not increasing taxes, not making enormous cost demands of the government but by changing the policy in a way that will be much more effective for the poorer parts of our community rather than the richer. [applause]

SR

Let's move on to foreign affairs now which of course has been a huge issue in recent years. Jane Griffiths.

Question

Under what circumstances would all of you feel it's right to intervene in another country.

SR

Militarily do you mean?

Questioner

Not necessarily, there are other ways of intervention but possibly militarily.

SR

Ok well shall we take the militarily first and then explore other means.

GB

Well let me give the example of Darfur at the moment. Should you intervene or shouldn't you intervene? Should you protect people who are refugees now, many of whom are victims of racist and prejudicial assaults and many of whom have lost their lives. Now the answer is it would be right to intervene, to take action in this area. That's why the Africa Union and United Nations are proposing action. Then you've got to look at is it practical to intervene in the circumstances in which you are now in, are you putting potential troops at risk, are you endangering the civilian population. And of course what was decided originally on Darfur was that it would be economic sanctions and then there would be further financial sanctions and then there would be potentially a no-fly zone which is what is under discussion at the moment. But I say to you, the case for action has been made, the question now is whether we move from the sanctions and potentially to financial sanctions and then to a no-fly zone and how, most of all, which is what I want to achieve, we get an African Union and United Nations force in there almost immediately so that we can protect the civilian population. I think this is one of the urgent policies of the next six months. So, yes, I can show you there, it's the right thing to do but it's got to be done in the right way. [Applause]

SR

A lot of mistakes were made in Iraq. Were some of those mistakes not posing all those questions you've just done in relation to Darfur?

GB

Iraq arose from 10 years of refusal by Saddam Hussein to meet United Nations resolutions. Now we're in this question, what do you do about Iraq now, and we're moving to a new stage in Iraq, because I think it's often forgotten that three quarters of the provinces the British troops are now in have been handed back to the Iraqi people. There is only one province left to hand back. There were 44,000 troops in Iraq, there are now 7,000 going down to 6,000 so the numbers are very substantially less. But I would say that we still have obligations to the people of Iraq, that the United Nations resolutions are requiring us to take action in support of the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government want us to do that. And whatever the divisions have been, and it's been a set of divisions in this country over whether we are in Iraq, it would be the wrong thing now, as we release these provinces back to the Iraqi people, Iraqi security forces are built up, and at the same time of course we have the numbers of troops coming down, it would be the wrong time now to just say 'send troops home now', that would be the wrong position, the right position would be one where I, like other people, are going to visit Basra, visit Iraq, see what the situation is on the ground and evaluate it, but let us not jump to one simple conclusion. This is a situation which has changed, which is developing and where the Iraqi government and the United Nations wants us to be there at the moment. [Applause].

SR

Michael Meacher, you voted for the war. Has that experience put you off other forms of intervention and military intervention in other places?

MM

Can I start with Darfur. I agree with a policy of intervention, I think there is a place for military intervention in certain carefully defined cases for humanitarian purposes. I certainly think that applies to what is happening in Darfur, I certainly think it applied to Rwanda where the West in [1985] completely failed to take any action and I think we should have drawn the lesson from that that we need a new section in the UN treaty which allows intervention provided it is in agreement with the Security Council and the UN Community and in accordance with rules which have been widely agreed. I think that's very important if we're going to stop murderous leaders of nations committing genocide against their own people. Now back to Iraq. I think the real issue here is that General Sir Richard Dannet, who is the British commander, said not long ago that the occupation forces were now exacerbating the security problem, not helping it. In those circumstances I think it is right to leave Iraq at the earliest moment that is compatible with salvaging as much stability as is possible in that war torn country. I do believe that that is in the end the only way that you are going to bring peace. It is the occupation forces which have produced the suicide bombings, there were no suicide bombings in Iraq before the invasion. And I do think it is absolutely clear….and it [cannot] be done quickly but we are talking about some few months and not planning on staying for a very long period of time. I think British troops have got to leave.

JM

You asked when should we intervene, I'll tell you when we shouldn't intervene – on the basis of a dodgy dossier, on the basis of changing legal advice, at the behest of a foreign power that's interested in oil and strategic military positioning in the Middle East as we did on Iraq. And I think we must never ever again get ourselves into that situation. [Applause]. We've always had a just war theory, we've always had, dating back to the Middle Ages, international treatise which explain to us when it's best to intervene. It's usually as a last resort on the basis of international law and going through world governance organisations like the United Nations and that's exactly what we're doing in Darfur. Can I just mention the Congo as well. The Congo itself is a nightmare at the moment, I just want to mention one point about it. In my constituency I have two detention centres, [Harmondsworth and Conborough], I'm dealing with it on a regular basis. The people we're deporting to the Congo at the moment, whose human rights and lives will be at risk, I think we have a responsibility to them as well as to these macro-global solutions. [Applause].

Question

Do you think we should keep a special relationship with America after the fiasco in Iraq?

Question

Is it not time for the Labour government to adopt a less I> SRaeli stance…in the bombing of Lebanon, for example, it seemed that Tony Blair endorsed the bombing but the vast majority of deaths were civilian. And it seems that even the Conservatives adopted a more sceptical stance, saying that the response was disproportionate. [applause]

Question

Let's have a hypothetical for a minute. One of you is Prime Minister and Kurdistan declares independence, the Sunni triangle declares independence, fundamentally Iraq as a country starts to break up – what do you do?

Question

Given that we in Britain should live in a situation where we're free from terrorism surely the same rights should be afforded to the I> SRaelis. Do you agree?

Question

I just wanted to know what your position is regarding the Middle East, whether you support a two state solution or whether you think the boycotts of I> SRael is a good thing or whether you think engaging with them is a good thing.

Question

Patrick Woodman. I'd like to ask how you see Britain's future in the European Union in the next few years?

Question

What pressure can you put on the United States and China to ensure they do cut emissions so that they follow the example of our Climate Change Bill and that we can safeguard the future of the environment, because I'm worried that the Tories, and Cameron in particular, are going to use this as a huge issue at the next election.

SR

First of all, the special relationship with America, so-called. Gordon Brown, do you envisage it being different or the same…

GB

There will always be a strong and special relationship with America and that is because we share the same values of liberty and opportunity and freedom for the individual. Equally there will be a strong relationship between any British government and its membership of the European Union so that we have a level of international cooperation, for example in the environment, that is absolutely essential for the future. I sense that what is possible in the next few years is a new multilateralism. People have talked in the last few years about unilateral action here there and everywhere and that has been an issue. But I sense, whether it's over Iran or North Korea that we're moving towards a more multilateral world where people are prepared to join together and to cooperate on common issues. Now, when we talk about the Middle East and we talk about Israel and Palestine, this is to a large extent the source of many of the problems that we have in other parts of the world. If I can help in any way to bring about a solution which is a two state solution with Palestine given its status as a state with I> SRael given protection and security so that its borders are upheld and recognised by other powers, and one of the ways we're going to do that is by making sure that we can show that the Palestinian people can enjoy economic prosperity in these new arrangements. And what I sense is that Israeli business communities, what I also sense is America and the European Union, are ready to support an economic initiative which would underpin the peace process and the roadmap to peace where we would support small business development, infrastructure development, new industrial parks, which would reduce unemployment in the Palestinian areas which is unacceptable at 50% or more, poverty at more than 50% and completely unacceptable and then we can bring the Palestinians into the prospect, as in Northern Ireland frankly, that peace can be matched by prosperity. And I think that is one of the ways that we can bring about, not just peace in the Middle East, but peace right across the world, where people are exploiting our failure to solve the Middle East problem and of course it is giving succour to the form of terrorism that's represented by Al Qaeda. So yes a new multilateralism, yes a push on Middle East peace, and yes also I believe we've got to win the war of hearts and minds against Al Qaeda. We've got to support the moderates who are taking on those extremists who use every problem in the world to further the extremism represented by Al Qaeda. But we've got to win that not militarily alone and not by policing and security alone, we've got to win that by winning the battle of hearts of minds, showing people that extreme views are unacceptable and showing people that most of the world and most of the religions of the world and most of the countries of the world can unite around a programme of social justice. [Applause]

MM

Well, of course we're going to remain close allies and friends of the United States, there's no question about that. But the issue is whether in the end our foreign policy reflects British and UN interests and not American interests. That's the real issue. Why are we in Iraq in the first place? Not because we chose to go there but because the Americans wanted to go there and they wanted us to provide the kind of protection for that initiative.

Now could I just ask Gordon, if he has been talking in the press about a certain measure of independence from the United States. Supposing we woke up in a few months and found that overnight there had been an attack on Iran, from the United States, would Gordon support the United States in those circumstances?

GB

I don't believe there is going to be an attack on Iran because I believe that the multilateral process which is at work is bringing Iran to a position where it is negotiating now. And let's remember Michael before we have slogans about this that the multilateral process involving all countries in relation to Iran was France, Germany, Russia, China, America and Britain and not just America, and we've got to recognise that where countries are either a threat or potentially a threat the way ahead is to bring people together in a multilateral basis so that we can take action. I believe that is the best way, and you don't rule anything in or out, but what you say exactly is this – that we want a multilateral process and I believe that is the way we are going to solve the problem with Iran.

MM

Could you now actually answer the question….

GB

I have answered the question.

MM

No you haven't. If there were a US attack on Iran from America and we woke up one night and found that that had happened would you support….

GB

I said I don't believe that that is going to happen. We don't commit ourselves in advance to any particular position. But what we do say is this we want a multilateral….[applause]…Let's have a sensible way of approaching foreign policy, recognise that things are complex, they have to be dealt with in a sensible way, we want to have international cooperation and coordination and that is going to be the best way we achieve peace in the Middle East, we achieve a solution of the Iranian problem, we get help to people in Darfur and we build the cooperation of all continents of the world that can achieve not only peace and environmental progress but prosperity for the poorest of the world as well. [Applause]

JM

On the special relationship, I think we should be fortifying that special relationship but with American progressives. So when unanimously the Democratic Presidential candidates stood together and called for the withdrawal from Iraq we should have stood with them, that's my view on that. Someone mention the Lebanon, can I say I found it inexplicable that a British Prime Minister did not stand up and call for an immediate cease fire and I found it infuriating to the point of anger that we discovered that the air bases in this country were being used for the transport of weapons from the US through Britain and then to Israel to be used against the Lebanon. I found that unacceptable, I found that unacceptable subservience to a foreign state. [Applause]

With regard to Kurdistan and Iraq, the whole point is that actually to try to say that the Iraqis themselves will determine their future and if there is to be Iraq in any way disaggregates itself, that will be for the people of Iraq to decide, that will not be for us as an imperial power otherwise.

Let's go to this Middle East question. I think now that what we could reach is the potential for a Middle East conference where we bring all the parties back together again, and that we use all the influence we possibly can. And if that means sanctions for some, so be it, and if it means recognition of the Hamas democratically elected government so be it. We've got to get people back round the table again. And yes it is a two state solution but it's a two state solution of mutual respect. And Gordon's right there is international and humanitarian aid that we could provide to assist in that process that tackles some of the suffering that's been undertaken on all sides there. Let's work forwards now as really it is as a way of resolving conflicts in the world. I wanted Tony Blair's legacy to be Northern Ireland because he did such a fantastic job on it. The tragedy for him it's going to be Iraq. Let's learn the lessons from Northern Ireland so we become peace resolvers, conflict preventers in the future. [Applause]

SR

We've only got a couple of minutes left so if we could end as I began by saying this is a very unusual meeting, there won't be another one like it. Let me just ask first of all if I could Michael and John. You can't even guarantee at the moment getting 45 MPs, so this is a rather artificial debate as both of you are representing a relatively small part of the Labour Party. There's two of you…

JM

We'll resolve that issue shortly… [laughter]…Let me just say this to you. If one of us gets on the ballot paper, let's see what representation there is because I think we'll shock people. I've been doing meetings right away across the country since last July, large and small. The shocker for me, I have to say to you, is how little there is left of the Labour Party out there. Constituencies not meeting, a third of our constituencies don't send delegates to the Labour Party conference anymore, because they know what sort of stitch up it is. This campaign is about giving people a voice again. Those people who deliver our leaflets, knock on doors…don't they have a right to vote in a leadership election and participate in that? [Applause] What we want to do is demonstrate out there that the Labour Party is the same broad church it was under John Smith - left, right and centre… debate of course but as a result of that good policy making. And then after democratic election we unite and we defeat the Tories. Cameron and Osborne is a politics of the crèche. What we want is a mature debate followed by democratic decision making. We're the most democratic party in the country, we should allow our members to vote. [Applause]

SR

And Michael, you agree with all that but it should be you going….?

MM

I do agree with what John has said and I think it is very important that the kind of presentation that has been made that it is a foregone conclusion. If you stick within the Westminster bubble, which is the word that I continually use, where MPs undoubtedly have made up their mind and I think that journalists who mix with them are also very much of the same mind….this is the whole point about disengagement, we have lost touch with our grass roots. And if you do go amongst the trade unions, if you do go amongst the constituency parties – as much as is left of them – you get an entirely different worldview, an entirely different understanding, of disillusionment, of disappointment, a tremendous desire to have a Labour Party as it once was – not going back to the 1980s but a vibrant, effective force which the leadership took account of, which it consulted and listened to and actually those things were reflected in policy. That's what people want and I think if we do have a democratic election, if we do offer a choice then I think that one of the biggest steps we can take towards the renewal of our party which is going to be very necessary if we're going to win the next election.

SR

Gordon Brown, can I finally ask you, you've taken on tonight two MPs from the left, one of whom might or might not enter the contest. But the real debate, some would say, is within New Labour, those so-called Blairites who worry about you in terms of public service reform and one or two other issues. And that is where the centre of the debate has been for several years and will continue if and when you win the leadership.

GB

Can I say, I welcome any challenger. The reason I was very happy to have this debate this evening is I'm happy to debate even with people who have not yet got the nominations to be able to stand. And I think the debate that we're having is an important one for the future of both the Labour Party and the country. But let us be absolutely clear that progress for this country is not to return to policies that failed in the past, it must be to move forward to policies that will work for the future. You cannot make billions of pounds of promises like we used to do, you cannot return to…

JM

Don't trivialise this debate… do not trivialise…

GB

…You cannot return to secondary and illegal picketing. You cannot return to policies that failed in the past. We have got to move forward as New Labour and moving forward means meeting the challenges ahead – the environmental challenge, the security challenge, the challenge of global economic competition, the challenge of building stronger communities in this country. I want a higher minimum wage, I want more child care for mothers so that they can be helped to balance working and family life, I want higher child benefit, I want more people with a chance of jobs, I want more people with a chance of being able to buy their own homes and rent their own homes. Now the way to do it is to run a successful economic policy to build our public services and to have a united party looking forward to the next election. And I believe if we do that we will beat the Conservatives and beat them proudly. Thank you very much. [Applause