Tag: Charles Kennedy

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Liberal MP for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the House of Commons on 15 January 1986.

The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was reasonably credible, and I agreed with much of what he said until his closing sentiments—perhaps that does not surprise him. It will certainly not surprise those sitting on the Treasury Bench. A return of the Labour party to power would greatly surprise the British people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I welcome the fact that, on this occasion, the DHSS is staying within and upholding the law of the land, and will uprate accordingly. We have no argument with that. It was sensible of the DHSS to bring the uprating procedure into line as from 1987. My noble Friend Lord Banks and others have argued for that, and we welcome it.

My basic point on the uprating order relates to the impact that statutory sick pay has on small businesses. The Minister will recall that my hon. Friend and I have moved amendments and made speeches, in Committee and in the House, on the effect of the statutory sick pay scheme in this respect. That is why we welcome the reference in the explanatory details that accompanied the order to the DHSS consultation paper on the reduction of burdens on business. It would be helpful if the Minister would say briefly how matters are progressing in that respect—by which I mean the suggestion that employers should be allowed to opt out of SSP, provided that they pay wages to their sick employees at least as good as their SSP entitlement.

The Government will recall that the announcement of an extension of the SSP scheme was met with horror by, among others, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the bureaucracy of the SSP scheme and the extension which has been announced would discriminate against the employment potential of small businesses, and encourage more part-time employment rather than full-time employment. The Government said during SSP debates that they were conscious of the difficulty, and made some concessions in terms of bridging the gap.

You have been tolerant of my similarly lateral interpretation of the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I end by saying that we welcome the fact that the uprating will go ahead, and especially the fact that the SSP uprating will be brought into line with other benefits. Any comments which the Minister can make on these broader points, based on the principle that we are debating this evening, would be helpful to my hon. Friend and myself.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then SDP MP for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the House of Commons on 15 July 1985.

From one argumentative Scot to another I beg to move,

That this House believes that district health authorities and Scottish health boards should not be expected to find the extra resources in the current financial year that are now necessary to implement the Government’s decisions arising out of the recommendations of the pay review bodies; and further believes that if no extra money is provided from the Contingency Reserve there will be a damaging in and unacceptable reduction in real terms in standards of health care.

Mr. Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister

Mr. Kennedy

In moving the motion, our task and objective is to highlight the disgraceful state of affairs into which the Government are plunging the National Health Service and important branches of it by rather inadequate and third-rate stealth, and to offer a constructive solution to the present financial paralysis facing many health authorities and the nation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), in a question to the Prime Minister, asked whether

“any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? … Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?”—[Official Report, 4 June 1985; Vol. 80,c. 153.]

If the Minister for Health speaks this afternoon, he may have to behave more in his capacity as a Queen’s Counsel than a Privy Councillor. The more one studies the Government’s financing of the NHS, the more one realises that the description applied to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Tory Government could well be applied to the Minister for Health, who displays all the attributes of a barrister trying his best to defend his client without realising that his client has seen the light and changed his plea to guilty.
The unfairness which my hon. Friend tried to highlight was that the lack of extra cash to fund the rewards would lead to job reductions. The complete lack of extra cash in the aftermath of the pay review body recommendations will, as an inevitable and direct consequence of ministerial decisions, lead to a lowering of health provision and a decline in the quality of patient care. That is why the alliance describes the Government’s NHS policy as cuts by stealth at the expense of patients. Today we seek to highlight the plight of the NHS, and to persuade the Government to make extra cash available from the contingency reserve.

It is worth putting into context the role and position of nurses within both the NHS and the community as a whole. Who better to quote than the Minister? In a debate on the NHS, referring to the nursing profession’s pay increase, the Minister said:

“The Government have made it available to them, because we recognise their abstention from industrial action and the fact that the country, the Government, and the patients in particular, owe them a great obligation. It is irrefutable that it is good news for nurses to have major pay increases, in the second instalment, particularly for the staff nurses and ward sisters. It is irrefutable ​ that it is a major advance for the nursing profession to have a lasting system.”—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 216.]

Those are noble and honourable sentiments, which will command support from both sides of the House. It is sad that, characteristically, the Minister is not living up to his rhetoric at the Dispatch Box in his funding of the NHS.

The Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services have confirmed that the cost of the pay review body awards would be about £240 million in England in 1985–86. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) who is responsible for health in Scotland, is present, and I shall deal with the Scottish position later. DHSS Ministers make great play of the fact that this year they are cash allocating an additional £500 million, which is equivalent to 5·5 per cent., to branches of the NHS. They refer in particular to the hospital and community health services, and rightly so. However, we must consider what the figure means when it is analysed carefully and beyond the rhetoric of Ministers.

The January 1985 public expenditure White Paper notes that the hospital and community health services will account for more than 70 per cent. of the NHS budget. In 1985–86, current expenditure will increase by 5·8 per cent. over last year’s total. The inflation rate, which the Government estimate at 3·5 per cent. and which will produce a notional real terms increase of 2·3 per cent., reflects the Government’s general illustrative assumption of a 3 per cent. pay rise in the public sector and a 5 per cent. general price rise in the NHS sector. Those figures are taken directly from the Government’s White Paper.

However, there is an important qualification and, for the purposes of the debate, a fundamental point to be made. The assumptions about wage and price increases are fundamental to the forecasts, because the 2·2 per cent. real growth figure has disappeared as a result of the 6 June doctors and nurses pay review body reports. The additional pay costs in 1985–86 for cash-limited NHS services will be 5·4 per cent. for doctors and 5·6 per cent. for nurses. The inflation rate or relative price effect estimate has been pushed up to nearly 6 per cent.—I shall return to that figure and quote the Minister shortly—according to the Social Services Select Committee’s sixth report, which was published on 22 June. That would mean a real terms decrease of about 0·3 per cent., which is 0·2 per cent. higher than what the DHSS now concedes was one tenth of a 1 per cent. decrease in 1984–85.

Those detailed figures are based on a careful and serious analysis of the projections and on hard accurate statistics, which the Government have made available in their forecasting and White Paper. The figures are extremely damaging because they point the way to further reductions in patient care and health service facilities to fund the costs of legitimate and well-deserved pay increases for the professions allied to medicine—nursing, health visiting and midwifery.

Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe) rose

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) rose

Mr. Kennedy

I shall take my pick, but it is something of a Hobson’s choice.​

Mr. Hickmet

That is not a nice way to describe my hon. Friend and me.

The hon. Gentleman talks about further cuts. Why does he expect further cuts when, since May 1979, the NHS budget has increased by 20 per cent., there are 55,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and dentists, more outpatients and inpatients have been treated, and there are more day patients and home visits? Why does he speak of further cuts when that is manifestly not the case? Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government’s record on the NHS is the finest since the war?

Mr. Kennedy

I have been a Member of the House for only two years, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who entered at the same time as me, that the gullibility of Tory Back-Bench Members never ceases to amaze me. Let us consider the real world and leave the Thatcherite monetarist universe which the hon. Gentleman seems to occupy. Let us consider what those in the front line of the service say about the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not listen—[Interruption.] The public school boys on the Treasury Bench should keep quiet, because we are quoting their figures.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) did not listen to what I said. When he talks about last year’s figures, he should remember what I said about a 0·1 per cent. cut in real terms, which, on current predictions, will be trebled this year. That will be extremely damaging.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the National Association of Health Authorities is aware of the difficulties and realities of providing health care. The Minister for Health visited Cardiff last month, and much good that did the Tory party when the voters were asked for their opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: “Cheap.”] It was not cheap. I was an expensive mistake for the Tory party to send the Minister to address the annual conference of the National Association of Health Authorities. To be fair to the Minister, we should argue on his terms this afternoon and use his words as the parameters within which the debate should be conducted. When the general manager of West Lancashire health authority asked him what the funding consequences would be for next year’s allocation, the Minister said:

“I do not accept that the award poses any threat to standards of care.”

Within the NHS, the Minister’s is a lone voice compared with what is being said in the authorities of England and Wales and in the Scottish boards. He continued:

“I just hope we are not looking too far ahead”—

it is good to know that the Health Service is being governed by ad hoc expediency

“with the implications of this”—

—[Interruption.] Those are the Minister’s words. Hon. Members should heckle him, not me. The Minister continued:

“After all, we have until next February to fund the full award and I hope we will not hear about cutbacks, which I frankly regard as the routine small talk of NHS politics and not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

That demonstration of arrogance and insensitivity to those who must make the painful choices that will be made necessary by having to fund the nurses’ pay award is extremely disturbing.

We should examine what some of those who live in the real world said in response to the Minister’s comment. The ​ national association passed a motion calling on the Government fully to meet the costs of the award. The member of Salford health authority who moved the motion said that her authority had already used its efficiency savings—no doubt the Minister will try to tell us about those—and faced a burden of £1 million for wage claims during next year. The person who seconded the motion, who came from North Tees authority, said that patient care would suffer if authorities had to find the cash for awards. Simply to balance the budget, his authority would have to make a 2 per cent. cut, and he referred to this as “crisis management” leading to inefficiency. I ask the House to compare that statement with the Minister’s statement that the routine small talk of NHS politics is

“not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

We now know who realises the damage that will be caused by the Government’s decision in relation to the nurses’ pay award.
However, the matter goes deeper and further than that. During a debate on nurses’ pay on 25 March this year, the Minister talked about the expected outcome of the pay review structure. Hon. Members should not let him off of that hook this afternoon. He said:

“The result is that all we are doing is facing everybody—Government, health authorities, staff and review body—with the reality that there is a relationship between pay and service provision.”—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 195.]

I am glad that we have established that reality, because the thrust of the argument by alliance Members today will be that, given that the Minister has signalled clearly that we cannot divorce the two elements of Health Service management and delivery of patient care, it is wrong for the Government to argue that, even if they do not provide additional funds to meet the pay increases, there will be no detrimental impact on patient care.

Mr. Tracey rose——

Mr. Kennedy

We have had Tweedledum, so we had better have Tweedledee.

Mr. Tracey

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give serious instead of frivolous consideration to my point. He talked about service provision. Has he heard about cost effectiveness in service provision? Will he say anything about putting ancillary services out to tender? Has he said a word to the officers of his local health authority about putting services out to tender? He must realise that many costs can be saved in that way.

Mr. Kennedy

Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said at the outset. I quoted from a representative of one authority at the NAHA conference, which the Minister addressed, who recognised immediately that the efficiency savings that the authority had achieved, and which I hope the Minister will confirm have been achieved in many cases, have already been swallowed up as a result of the Government’s decision. I was extremely interested to note that the Institute of Health Services Management said that it makes nonsense of Health Service management to try to encourage efficiency savings and then to tell managers that those savings cannot be ploughed back into providing better patient care.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in Brussels on 5 December 2000.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to be here today to talk about Britain’s role in the EU and the case for the Single Currency.

So much of the discourse about Europe or the Euro in Britain is characterised by scare stories and misinformation that it is scarcely possible to have a serious debate on the issues any more. Any positive news stories about the benefits of EU membership or the virtues of the Single Currency tend to be subverted by the sceptical British press in favour of scare stories about straight bananas or the fact that the European Union flag will fly alongside the Union Jack over Downing Street for one day this year to mark our membership of the EU.

You would think from the hysterical reaction in one particular Sunday newspaper a couple of days ago to that story that we weren’t actually members of the European Union at all. It is becoming more and more necessary in Britain for those of us who support Britain’s membership of the European Union and think that a successful Single Currency will yield benefits for British businesses, and British workers, and British consumers to go out and make the case for them both time and time again.

The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of the European Union. Let us not forget the dream of the original members of what is now the EU. It was that a degree of economic and political integration would bring co-operation and, more importantly, peace and stability to Western Europe, which had been notably absent for centuries.

Having, most of us, grown up in the last fifty years it is perhaps easy to underestimate the degree to which the European Union has been the cause and the guarantor of that peace. The longest continual period of peace in Western Europe since Roman times. Membership of the European Union also gives Britain more power and influence than if we were a nation alone.

Look at the example of British beef and the BSE crisis. The United States has banned the import of British beef for a number of years. and we have absolutely no power to stop them. Yet France also maintains an unwarranted ban on our beef. The difference is that in this case, we are able to complain to the European Union who are now taking legal steps to force the French to lift this unnecessary and unacceptable ban.

Indeed, given the current fears over the safety beef produced in other EU countries, notably France, I find it hard to understand any justification for the French action. Measures must be taken speedily to reassure public opinion as to the safety of beef in the EU, so as not to undermine confidence in beef produced in this country. I want to see nothing less than a total EU-wide ban on all cattle over 30-months old entering the food-chain. The European Union must provide 100 per cent compensation to farmers for destroying cattle of that age.

The EU must not shy away from taking the strong action necessary to ensure public safety and reassure public opinion. Membership of the European Union gives us the leverage to fight for this to happen. If we were not members our calls would mean nothing.

In a wider sense, Britain’s place in the world order has changed dramatically, in the years since we joined what was then the Common Market. Britain is now a stronger trading nation than at any time since World War Two.

In the years since 1973, our trade has increased by 138%. More than half of British trade now is actually with other EU countries. In 1999, the value of Britain’s trade with the EU approached £350 billion. Almost a tenth of that was with Belgium. As businessmen and women, you will know how easily levels of trade are affected by tariffs, barriers to entry, and exchange rate fluctuations.

So long as we are members of the European Union we will enjoy the benefits of a common market. But if we remain outside of the Single Currency we remain open to the damage that an unstable and high exchange rate can do to our exporters and to inward investment in Britain. The high pound has already been doing serious damage to our manufacturing industry and exporters in recent years. If this were to be perpetuated in the future it could have a seriously adverse impact on Britain as a trading nation.

The Liberal Democrats have not been alone in arguing this case. But we have perhaps been the most consistent. The Prime Minister, for example, probably shares this view. Although some of his ministers, including the Chancellor, may not. But he is timid when it comes to discussing the benefits of joining a successful Single Currency, preferring to hide behind a series of utterly subjective economic tests laid down by Gordon Brown. They are a fig leaf to hide the Government’s indecision.

Yet, I believe people need the British Government to take a lead, more than ever, on the issue of the Single Currency. To give them the certainty they need to plan their businesses or to give them the certainty that their job is secure.

It is important also to take heed of the views of those in business and industry when looking at the case for or against the Euro. Over the course of the last year, numerous big hitters in business have spoken out in favour of Britain joining a successful Single Currency. Richard Branson, for example, has let it be known that he is increasingly concerned about our non-membership. Earlier this year he wrote: “Outside the Euro we will be much poorer both as a nation and as individuals.” A month later, the President of the Japanese electronics giant Matsushita spoke out of his concerns that Britain had still not made a commitment to join the Euro. “The immediate question is when the pound will be included in the Euro” he said. “If Britain does nothing to solve the problem, foreign companies, regardless of whether they are Japanese American, or whatever nationality, may exit the country.”

These words should be heard by all politicians when deciding whether we should join the Single Currency. But I readily accept that this issue cannot, and should not, just be decided on economic grounds. There are constitutional implications to consider also. That is why the Liberal Democrats were the first major political party to call for a referendum on this issue. To call for the British people to have the final say on whether to adopt the Euro.

All I ask is that the public are given all the information on the pros and cons of membership in order to make an informed decision when the times comes, rather than being fed a diet of half-truths, exaggeration and plain hysteria as is the case all too often at present. The British people deserve nothing less than the whole truth.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in London on 23 January 2001.

Ladies and Gentlemen

I am delighted to be here this evening.

I’d like to begin by thanking Hugh Macdonald and Martin Ely

for inviting me to meet you all.

The former Conservative Chancellor

Nigel Lawson once famously called ACI UK

“a bunch of City scribblers”.

Diplomacy was never really his strong point.

I can assure you that I have a higher opinion of your organisation

and look forward to talking to many of you later to hear your views.

London remains the largest financial centre in the world

accounting for almost one third of global currency business.

As such issues that affect that City and those who work in it

are of great importance to politicians of all parties

and naturally to government, let me be clear from the outset.

I want the City of London and the UK financial services industry

to be the global leader. Government should do all that it can

to enable you to do this.

At home that means competitive taxes, consistent policy, and sensible regulation.

In Europe – completing the Single Market,

winning for the City of London

and getting the economy right for Euro entry.

In the world, opening up the market for financial services.

Where regulators need to be tough they should be,

with the full support of politicians.

Tough because reputation and confidence

The most important ingredient for a healthy economy,

I believe, is financial stability.

That is why the Liberal Democrats entered the last election campaign

advocating independence for the Bank of England.

We were delighted that the Government chose to adopt our policy

which has proved to be very successful.

No decision has done more to end boom and bust economics.

However, the other chief ingredient in economic stability is

exchange rate stability.

On this, the Government has failed.

Prolonged over-valuation of sterling

has done a great deal of harm

to certain sectors of the UK economy.

Which is why the Liberal Democrats

advocate membership of a successful Single Currency

at an appropriate exchange rate

subject to the consent of the British people.

Last May, my party set up a commission,

chaired by Chris Huhne MEP,

whose members included such people as

Willem Buiter of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee,

and a variety of other distinguished

City practitioners and economists,

to advise on those measures Britain needs to take

in order to join the Euro-zone successfully.

Their report was published in September.

Yet, almost five months later the Government

still has not taken a lead on this issue.

My Party welcomed the step forward

that was taken in financial regulation

in the City in the last few years.

We have a high personal regard for Howard Davies

and believe the concept of the FSA is the right one.

Whilst regulation must never be over-bearing

we have always believed that the FSA

must take full account of the need

for proper consumer protection

in the job that they do.

In this respect,

regulators need

to be prepared, on occasion, to be tough to ensure that

And that means there should be no hiding place

for those who have mis-sold pensions,

failed to deliver on endowment mortgages

or closed rural bank branches.

Economic efficiency and social justice can, and must,

go hand in hand.

Before moving on to the main theme of my speech

I want to take a moment to

make some points on two specific regulatory issues

of which you will no doubt be aware

and which are of great importance to financial service institutions

as well as to politicians both as public policy makers

and as representatives of our constituents’ interests.

The first is the recent AXA deal on disposing

of its ‘orphan assets’,

And the second is the plight of Equitable Life

whose many policyholders

may suffer some heavy losses

as a result of the company’s difficulties.

Both of these issues are linked,

in my mind,

by the role of the FSA in regulating each company.

And they have implications

for the job that the FSA is doing more widely.

The recent controversy over the AXA deal on ‘orphan assets’

and particularly the role of the FSA

in giving it the green light to that deal

is a source of great concern to me and has been much commented on.

We have great sympathy with the Consumer Association

in the action that they took on behalf of consumers.

Government ministers

seemed to indicate a few years ago

that ‘orphan assets’ belonged to policyholders

in a ratio of 9 to 1.

Yet now, the AXA case would now seem to imply

that this principle has been undermined.

Previously I had understood

that ‘orphan assets’ were to be allocated

according to the ‘90% rule’

whereby nine tenths of the value of those assets

is given over to policyholders.

In the AXA case, the figure is much closer to a mere one-third.

This case is particularly important not only because it affects

the 660,000 with-profits policy holders

who are disputing the £1.68 billion worth of AXA ‘orphan assets’

but also because it has implications for those

with a potential claim on the £20 – 30 billion worth

of unallocated ‘orphan assets’ in other insurance companies.

Many thousands of people

throughout the country could be affected.

How to best dispose of ‘orphan assets’

is a source of some debate I acknowledge,

but I am not at all convinced that the regulator should have agreed

to in effect transfer well- over £1 billion

from AXA policyholders to AXA shareholders.

And I’m not at all convinced that the regulator should have agreed

to a ballot where AXA policyholders

were asked to agree a deal on the basis of

a ‘take it or leave it’ cash offer.

in which only those who voted in favour of that deal

would actually be entitled to the cash.

This is rather like Gordon Brown giving pension increases

only to those pensioners who voted Labour.

Ballots – whether of AXA policyholders, trade unionists or Florida electors – must not be open to question.but at first sight the outcome of the AXA case would seem

to contradict the Government’s intentions.

Moreover, the FSA’s stance throws doubt

on its willingness to defend the consumer interest.

This is not the only issue

in which the role of the FSA has been controversial.

The Equitable Life case is a cause of enormous concern too.

I appreciate that Equitable Life is not insolvent,

but it is in severe financial difficulties.

Many policyholders could suffer losses,

or returns below reasonable expectations.

There has clearly been a serious failure by management,

by the FSA, and quite possibly by the DTI at an earlier stage

which has allowed the situation to develop

into the crisis we see now.

Last year, Vincent Cable MP,

the Liberal Democrat Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary,

called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer

to instigate an immediate independent assessment

into possible regulatory failure by the FSA in this case

which could lead to compensation for any investors

who have been misled.

he Government has acknowledged

that the FSA has a case to answer

but responded to this by announcing

that the FSA itself would be charged with investigating

its own performance as regulator.

This is simply not good enough.

In both the AXA ‘orphan assets’ decision,

and the Equitable Life case,

the performance of the FSA as regulator

would seem to have been inadequate at best.

Many people would call it incompetent

The FSA was set up

to be champion of the consumers interests –

it should be just that.

London cannot afford a ‘paper tiger’.

It is time for the Government to

force the FSA to be more rigorous

and to take its share of responsibility

for any mistakes that have been made.

Investors and the wider public

must have confidence that it is doing its job on their behalf.

The City of London must not be over-regulated,

but must be regulated in a way also needs to must be regulated

in a proper way

so that protects and enhances London’s

excellent reputation

around the globe is maintained.

The reputation of politicians on the other hand

is probably beyond redemption.

You may be surprised to hear someone like me say that,

but I am genuinely concerned that

the public’s perception of politics

and the political class

is at an all time low.

You may have seen some press speculation recently

about the probable date of the next General Election.

Indeed, the media have

reported that an unofficial election campaign

by the three main parties is already underway.

Given that the likely date of the General Election

is the 3rd of May

I am truly depressed that the electoral “Phoney War”

seems to have begun

almost four months before anyone

is likely to walk into a polling booth.

And I am particularly angry because

this is exactly the kind of behaviour

that is putting more and more people off voting

and off participating in the electoral process.

At the last round of local elections in May 2000

voter turn-out in some parts of the country

was as low as ten per cent.

That is an horrendous figure to anyone

who cares about inclusive politics.

I am deeply, deeply worried by it.

And the other two parties are already engaging

in the usual pre-election Dutch auction

over tax and spending –

pretending that you can magically tax people

less and less

and yet spend more and more

on the things that people care about.

The public know that you don’t get

something for nothing.

This kind of debate

with both other parties striving

to reach the lowest common denominator

does a great deal to turn the public off politics

and create cynicism about the promises of politicians.

I fully intend that the Liberal Democrats will enter

into the forthcoming election battle

as the only major political party

who are prepared to be honest with people

about the cost of investing properly

in our public services:

in schools, in hospitals, in pensions and in the police.

This debate should not be characterised simply as “tax and spend”.

All Governments raise taxes

in order to spend the revenue they bring.

I want the debate to focus on

what we as a nation see as our priorities

for investing in public services

based on how we as a nation are prepared to fund them.

I believe that the British people

do want to see investment in public services in this country.

A country in which the NHS

provides decent care for all, free at the point of delivery.

A country in which schools are properly funded

and teachers properly valued.

A country in which older people share fairly in increasing prosperity.

And a country in which all in society feel free from the fear of crime.

And that investment is funded by all of us

through the tax system.

That is why I will enter the forthcoming election

promising honesty in taxation.

Telling people exactly how we would invest their money

in the services which they use,

and from which they may benefit.

In an age of political cynicism

one of the ways that these and many other policies

could best be discussed

in front of as wide an audience as possible

would have been through a debate

between the three main UK party leaders

during the election campaign itself.

As you may know, the BBC and ITV

approached Tony Blair, William Hague and myself

with a set of non-negotiable proposals

for two debates to take place between us during the

final two weeks of the General Election campaign.

I have long believed that in a television age such debates

would be an important addition to the democratic process

allowing the public to see the Party Leaders debating

outside of the juvenile environment of Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Because of this I have agreed to the broadcasters’ proposals for a debate.

William Hague has agreed also.

Unfortunately, as you may have seen in the papers,

Tony Blair has refused to take part,

arguing that the British people are not electing a President

but rather individual MPs.

This is true, and I do not want British electoral campaigns

or British politics

to become presidential in nature.

Well, I accept it is always good to see a sinner repenting.

But only a Labour spin doctor could argue

that the farce of Prime Ministers Questions

is a substitute for a serious leaders’ debate.

Mind you self-evidently debates are dangerous.

So dangerous that they have had them in the United States since 1960.

Canada since 1962.

Germany since 1969.

Holland since 1977.

Australia and New Zealand since 1984.

And South Africa since 1994.

Dangerous?

No, Tony it’s called democracy.

But I do believe that Leader’s debates

would have done a great deal to re-engage

and hopefully re-enthuse the public

ahead of election day.

And now that these debates will not take place

I think Tony Blair must be prepared

to accept much of the blame if

voter turn-out is down again at this election.

By shying-away from debating with William Hague and myself

he is doing the country and the electoral process

a great disservice.

Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate if

arguments over the Leader’s debates

to detract from the issues that will be

crucial in the forthcoming election campaign.

Because there are real reasons

why the next General Election

should concentrate on issues of greater importance

to the British people

and to the future direction of our country.

The Liberal Democrats will enter that election promising

further targeted investment in our public services.

Honesty and openness in taxation.

More decentralisation away from Westminster and Whitehall

to the nations and regions of Britain.

A sensible relationship with our European partners

with whom we, as a nation, do so much of our trade –

not least in the financial services sector.

For the Liberal Democrats 2000 was a very successful year.

In May we recorded 28% of the vote in the local elections,

the highest share of the vote

we have ever received in a national election

which enabled us to capture

previous Labour strongholds like Oldham.

And on the same night we captured

what had previously been the safe Tory parliamentary seat of Romsey

in a Westminster by-election.

I want to translate those results

into further success at the polls this year.

There is every chance for my party to do so.

Liberal Democrats are already in national government

in Scotland and Wales.

We are already in local government in town halls

up and down the United Kingdom.

We will be fighting this election hard.

I intend for my Party to take more votes and more seats

from both Labour and the Conservatives.

No-one should expect us to do any other.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 29 January 2001.

Liberty.

What’s it’s all about?

Does it matter?

Why, above all, is a party leader here this evening,

talking about an abstract political concept,

just three or four months before an election.

That could be a risky strategy,

when all the pollsters and pundits tell us,

that people are bored by politics,

and that the only chance we have of getting any message across,

is to talk about schools, hospitals and pensions,

in only the most basic terms.

Well, one of the arguments I shall make this evening,

is that schools, hospitals and pensions are issues of liberty,

and that progressive politicians have all too often lost sight of that basic case.

More of that later

But I want to start off focusing,

on one of the traditional liberty issues:

civil liberties.

When I look at the current government,

and its record on civil liberties,

I find it very difficult to attach the label progresssive to it.

Just look at Labour’s record.

Preventive detention of people with ‘severe personality disorders’.

Snooping on private e-mails.

Removing benefits from offenders,

if they don’t meet all the requirements of community service.

Mandatory drug testing of those arrested.

Denying bail to drug addicts.

Restricting the right to trial by jury.

Failing to tackle drugs afresh.

Labour’s priorities veer too much towards punitive populism.

Neither treating the causes of crime,

nor safeguarding the rights of the individual.

There is, I sometimes think, a judgement made by Labour politicians,

that they have to out-Tory the Tories on crime.

That somehow, knee-jerk reactions are the best.

policies like ending jury trials.

Or blanket curfews for kids.

That’s just a hammer to crack a nut,

And the kind of policy you would expect,

from a Conservative Home Secretary,

not an allegedly progressive one.

It’s not just the policies of the government that worry me.

It’s also the tone.

The current Home Secretary likes to lash out

at so-called ‘woolly Hampstead liberals’,

joining William Hague’s refrain

that liberals are the cause of most of Britain’s ills.

I don’t just blame Jack Straw.

I do think that Labour’s obsession with spin,

is partly to blame.

On that subject, I like the quote from the 1997 election.

It came from a Labour Party press officer.

” Later today Tony Blair will be spontaneous. Tomorrow he will be passionate.”

But the problem doesn’t just lie in Number Ten.

The New Statesman said a while back,

in an interview with David Blunkett,

that if he became Home Secretary,

he’d make Jack Straw look like a woolly liberal.

Well, if Jack Straw is a liberal,

then I’m Ann Widdecombe.

There are too many signs of the centralising, bossy and collectivist tendency

that was so much at the heart of Old Labour.

Unfortunately, it seems also be part of New Labour.

Little change there,

as far as I can see

in the basic culture of the party.

It’s a travesty of what this Labour government could have been.

A concern for liberty should not be alien to the Labour Party.

It was deeply rooted in the ethical socialism of the early part of the last century.

The early speeches of Ramsay MacDonald spoke vividly of individual freedom.

And Roy Jenkins’ record as a liberalising Home Secretary,

was an impressive one.

But the differences now,

embodied in the figures of ministers like Jack Straw,

are all too apparent.

And that’s why all this recent talk,

of electoral pacts between ourselves and Labour,

is so preposterous.

For four reasons.

First, we are fighting to defend seats against Labour

and to win some more from them.

In my own seat, Labour was in second place in 1997,

so I need no lesson in how to win against Labour.

Second, I don’t just want to win more seats at this election.

Wherever we fight, I want to win more votes for the Liberal Democrats,

so that we can get into second place where we are third,

and so that in the election after next, we can win even more seats.

Third, across the country,

we will be fighting Labour hard on civil liberties.

Highlighting the government’s illiberal policies on asylum and law and order.

It is our territory, and we are deeply disappointed with Labour’s record.

And finally,

I don’t believe that party leaders should dictate to the voters,

by restricting their choice at election time.

Only Labour, with its centralising approach,

could believe that is the right way,

or even that it’s possible.

But it’s not the Liberal Democrat way.

And it’s a basic issue of political liberty

that I think all progressives should feel strongly about.

So at this election,

there will be no pacts, no deals,

where the Liberal Democrats and Labour are concerned.

Wherever we stand,

and that will be every seat in England, Scotland and Wales,

our candidates will be fighting for every single vote.

Anything else would be betraying the cause we believe in,

and which Labour does not.

I’ve talked about civil liberties.

And I want to talk now about wider issues of liberty.

The ones that aren’t always seen as liberty issues.

Liberty is of course about government not telling you how to live your life.

But it should also mean social justice.

Nearly a hundred years ago,

The Liberal philosopher Hobhouse said,

‘the struggle for liberty … is the struggle for equality’.

He was right.

If you live in a high rise flat,

bringing up a child on your own,

or struggling on a pension,

liberty isn’t about government making you buy healthcare or education.

If you live in those conditions, liberty is about social justice.

Employment.

Decent public services.

Decent welfare support when times are hard.

A first class education system.

Whatever your income, whatever your background.

That means a key role for politics,

and a role for government.

And it is a great contrast to the Hague approach.

The Conservatives tend to equate liberty with rampant market forces.

They think that government,

especially at a European level,

is public enemy number one.

But I take the view

that liberty does not mean ‘minimum government’ for the sake of it.

It seems to me preposterous to assert that people are more free,

when government does less.

If government did nothing to provide decent health and education services,

then many people in Britain would be manifestly less free,

because they would not be able to provide these services for themselves.

For me, social justice,

protected and enhanced by government,

equals more liberty.

If progressives recognised this openly,

that would represent a major shift in progressive thought.

Traditionally, we have been hung up on the conflicts between liberty and equality,

seeing them as somehow contradictory.

But I don’t think we should see them as contradictory.

Instead, we should recognise them to be two sides of the same coin.

For guidance on how to do that, we can turn to Isaiah Berlin.

Isaiah Berlin was the first person to argue that there were actually two sorts of liberty.

Negative liberty and positive liberty.

Negative liberty, he said,

means wanting to curb authority,

leaving individuals alone to do what they want,

providing that their actions do not restrict the freedom of others.

Positive liberty was different.

It meant using political power to emancipate.

It meant groups, or the state, judging what was best for individuals.

Berlin did not oppose positive liberty entirely.

In fact, as Michael Ignatieff’s biography points out,

Berlin was, in politics, a New Deal liberal.

He was neither a conservative,

nor a laissez-faire individualist.

He accepted that poverty and ignorance were not the ideal conditions for liberty.

But Berlin did urge us to recognise the contradictions between liberties.

The conflict between negative liberty and positive liberty.

He would want us to recognise

that although we may tax somebody to create opportunities,

we may still be restricting the liberty of the taxed.

That is the heart of the conflict between positive and negative liberty.

I think this is a conflict that can help us.

Although not quite in the way Isaiah Berlin would have liked.

What we have to accept,

is that although there are conflicts between negative and positive liberty,

they are still both forms of liberty.

Both are about promoting individual freedom,

giving everybody the chance to make the most of their life.

So I think that it is now time to recast the liberty-equality debate,

into a simple liberty-liberty debate.

We have to recognise that we are not,

when we speak of investment in education,

talking about creating equality.

We are talking about creating liberty.

Yes, it is positive liberty, but it is liberty nevertheless,

and that can, I think, make it easier to pursue an agenda

which incorporates both traditional liberty issues,

and traditional equality issues.

That is where New Labour has, I believe, failed.

Although we hear a lot less about the Third Way than we used to,

it still lies at the heart of the Labour approach.

The logic goes something like this:

do something left-wing one day, and right-wing another,

or talk right and act left.

and all will be fine

You will build a Big Tent,

that everyone can enter.

But all you end up doing,

is building a Big Dome,

which has no Big Idea,

and very few people want to enter a Big Dome.

This is where, in my view, the Liberal Democrats are succeeding.

We published our general approach to this last summer,

in our pre-manifesto, Freedom in a Liberal Society.

It states quite clearly our view that there can be a modern progressive politics,

that takes traditional equality issues,

and recasts them into liberty issues.

It takes the issue of the liberty,

and places it right at the forefront of the message we will take to the country.

By doing that, I hope that we can make liberty not only the challenge for progressives, but the challenge for the country as a whole.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy on 24 September 2001.

We meet against an unimaginable backdrop.

It is hard to find words adequate to give proper voice by way of response, far less respect.

How can day-to-day vocabulary, measure up to such sheer criminality?

For me, watching those grim images on television – again, and again and again – there were all the normal, human reactions.

Disbelief. Then alarm.

Horror – as the truth sank in.

Compassion for all those people and their families, so many of whom were British.

Can you imagine that last mobile phone call from your husband, or wife or child?

The helplessness. And with it, the hopelessness. We’re here because we don’t believe in hopelessness. We actually believe in hope. But hope requires purpose. And purpose requires direction.
When I spoke again with the Prime Minister earlier today,
we were clear on a number of matters.

First, common resolve to root out terrorism wherever it may be. Second, the need to balance legislation with the interests of domestic civil rights. Third, vigilance against anyone who seeks to target and attack any of our ethnic communities. Fourth, no ruling out of a further recall of Parliament, if events require it.

Now immediate emotions inevitably begin to subside, but they will never go away. Nor should they. We Liberal Democrats must be clear about our intentions.

Resolve. There cannot be capitulation to the terrorist.

Determination. That we strike at the heart of international terrorism.

And equal determination that in combating terrorism we do not lose sight of the fact, at one at the same time, that we live – actually – in a liberal democracy, and the principles of democracy are what we’re all about. So as we gather here this week, this is one of the challenges facing us as Liberal Democrats.

One of our particular duties, is to make it clear that short-term knee-jerk responses, never provide long-term solutions.

We have to be especially vigilant against those people who would seek to make scapegoats of Muslims in Britain.

Let us be quite clear, we have no quarrel with the Muslim community and no quarrel with the Islamic faith. Last Friday, when I visited a Mosque in London, that was the message I took to our fellow citizens on all our behalves. And that message went out loud and clear from this conference hall this morning.

But let us also remember. There will be particularly difficult dilemmas ahead for our party. Those difficulties will involve a gauging between the balance of the liberty of the individual against the threat that the terrorist presents to that very liberty.

Do not underestimate the real, ongoing pressures and the public scrutiny that goes with that, which will be upon us in the times ahead. Proportionate response is not just about military measures.

Proportionate response is also about civil liberties. The scandal that is terrorism is all about civil liberties. In facing those dilemmas, we are best to remember our first principles. We subscribe to the rule of law, violated over the skyline of the United States, on September 11th.

But that subscription, as the very word implies, comes with a price tag attached. It involves realism and risk.

Realism means facing the stark truth, that the terrorist will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing. Risk is about the consequences of your response.

So let us be clear about these first principles.

Civil liberties – yes.

The rule of international law – yes.

Co-operation amongst sane-minded peoples across the globe – yes.

All underpinned by a philosophic and fundamental commitment to the integrity of the individual, and the supremacy of that individual over the power of the nation state. But recognising also that people need and are looking for security and reassurance, and that the proper role of the state is to provide that.

Now that’s where we stand. And that defines our response and our reasoning in the wake of these dreadful events. When Parliament was reconvened, I couldn’t help but cast my mind back to such a happy year as a student in the mid-West of the States.

Friendships were made there. What struck me then, what I didn’t understand properly, was the extent to which the mid-West can almost be a country which is very different
from the rest of the country, which, when you think about it, itself is a continent.

But what is so striking now is the remarkable degree of spontaneous unity right across America. A unity of understandable anger. But the fear that can flow from that can be dangerous.

That’s where a candid friend comes in. Standing shoulder to shoulder, but always there for the occasional cautionary tap on the shoulder.

The most special relationships, in my experience, are based on a combination of trust and mutual respect.

And as America’s candid friend, we are able to say: there are no blank cheques to be issued to the United States.

The way to defeat international terrorism, is through international co-operation, based on international law, clear intelligence and a measured and appropriate military response.

And let me say this where military response is concerned: we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that where our armed forces are involved, the risks to them are quantified and minimised.

We cannot shelve or abandon that requirement.

That means supporting American actions only in the knowledge that Britain will be involved in all planning and risk assessment.

All that, we owe that to our armed forces.

And let me also, incidentally, pay tribute to the BBC World Service. As ever, one of the key contributions that Britain can make to the coalition against terror and suppression is to offer accurate information and rational analysis.

But do remember. War is not the word. Nor is crusade. Resolve is.

We have got to fashion a mindset, to find that approach which begins to address the roots of such evil.

We do need to get back to those first principles.

In the face of such violation, be inviolate.

Don’t flinch.

Democracy must prevail and it will.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 5 March 2005 to the party’s Spring Conference.

Conference,

We Liberal Democrats are ready for a General Election.

And we are looking forward to it.

We have a strong message and a powerful case to put forward.

In so many ways the story of this parliament, now coming to an end, has been the way the Liberal Democrats have emerged as the real opposition to Tony Blair’s Labour Government.

The Real Opposition to an illegal war in Iraq.

The Real Opposition to Labour’s authoritarian instincts.

The Real Opposition against student top-up fees, against poverty pensions, against the Council Tax, against false choice in our public services.

We have been principled.
We have stood up for the people of Britain.
We have not wavered when the going got tough.

We have shown our resolve as a national opposition party.
As a result we have grown in strength and in support.

At this General Election – we will be the Real Alternative.
We will be the party that people turn to.
People want a credible, principled political party which offers a different vision of what Britain can be.

They want a real alternative to Labour.
At this General Election the Liberal Democrats will be that Real Alternative.

The main issue currently before parliament – is an issue and a set of principles alongside it which go to the very heart of our democracy.

And it shows just how important it is to have a real alternative in Britain.

I am talking of course of the proposed control orders being introduced by the Home Secretary.

The Liberal Democrats – for the past three years – have been principled and persistent critics of the situation at Belmarsh Prison.

For us it is utterly unacceptable for individuals to be incarcerated – facing indefinite detention – without charge and without trial.

That it is not the Liberal Democrat way.
And that is not the British way.

And that’s why the Law Lords declared the Government’s policy illegal.

So the government were duty-bound to respond.
And respond they did with their ill-fated proposals for house arrest.

3 weeks ago, at Prime Minister’s Questions, I raised with Tony Blair our central concern.

It must be a judge – never a politician – who decides whether someone is to be locked up.

Mark Oaten and I sustained that key concern at the Downing Street discussions which then followed.

And we welcomed the degree of undoubted movement on the Government’s part which had taken place in the intervening period.

Welcome movement – but by no means enough.

Fundamental objections remained.

And those concerns still remain.

Now, as this legislation is before the House of Lords, let us be crystal clear about the ongoing Liberal Democrat position.

There is an onus here on the politicians – irrespective of party – to seek a consensus where responding responsibly to what I acknowledge is both the threat and the reality of international terrorism.

We are willing to try and find a solution which delivers proper security with a respect for human rights.
We are not however about to set off down a path which leads inexorably to a surrender of principles.
Anything but.

That is the spirit in which we have engaged on these matters.
We have a real alternative which will maintain our security and protect our liberties:-
And these will continue to be our guiding principles.

1. Prosecution should always be the first option.

2. Decisions over detention must be judicial and not in the first instance political.

3. The standard of proof must be of the highest possible order.

4. Defendants must have access to defence lawyers and to see the evidence against them.

A sensible Government would have come up with proposals based on these principles in the first place.

Without these safeguards Liberal Democrats in Parliament will not support this Bill.

All too often with this government, when presented with a genuine problem the instinctive response is an authoritarian one.
Undermining trial by jury, house arrest, compulsory Identity Cards

That is not the Liberal Democrat way.
That is not the British way.

This issue is not the only one where our party has been well tested in this parliament.

Take of course the issue of Iraq.

With regard to the war itself, our views of course are well known.
We took that stand in Parliament against the war.
The Conservatives backed Tony Blair.

Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on the basis of the supposed threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

Mere weeks before the war the Prime Minister was still telling Parliament “I detest his regime?but even now, he could save it.”

Now, because it has been shown that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the Prime Minister says that the removal of Saddam justifies the war in itself.
Not what he was saying just before it.

And today – if he is so confident of his case – why will he not allow the Attorney General’s legal advice to be published?

The Prime Minister wants us to move on – but we cannot until we know the full facts.

He should publish – and if necessary be damned.

Of course Britain should honour its legal and moral responsibilities with regard to the situation in Iraq.
But we need to focus on a proper exit strategy – as we warned at the outset.
That should mean a phased withdrawal of British troops to coincide with the end of the United Nations mandate this year.

It is vital to apply your principles with consistency – at home and abroad.

And nowhere is that responsibility more required of politicians than when it comes to discussion of the issues concerning immigration and asylum.

I believe the duty here for politicians is to begin with a straightforward statement of personal belief.

And this is mine.

I believe that our country is a richer, more vibrant society precisely because it is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

Let that be the starting point for any debate over immigration and asylum.

And let us not confuse the two in people’s minds either.

On immigration we have no problem over identifying quotas for skilled shortages in our society.

But we would do so on the basis of an independent evaluation of the needs of the British economy – not the prejudices of politicians.

Where would the National Health Service be without the numbers of migrant workers – doctors and nurses – on our wards?

On asylum, let us not go down the route of declaring artificial limits.

This country has a proud history of opening its doors to generations of people fleeing personal persecution, civil unrest and war.

We must never surrender that track record.

So my message here is clear.

Where immigration and asylum issues are concerned, the challenge is for the politicians to make the systems work in the best long-term interests of the country.

But never to pander and play to people’s fears.

In recent weeks, much of the political debate has centred on what the parties plan to put in their election manifestos – and rightly so.

But if you take the big issues of this Parliament – Iraq, the Hutton and Butler inquiries, anti-terrorist legislation, top up fees, foundation hospitals – these were scarcely mentioned during the campaign four years ago.
They largely fall into the category – which Harold McMillan once described as ‘events, dear boy, events.’

Manifestos will obviously matter, but voters will simultaneously be making a more fundamental judgement;
They will be assessing how the different parties might deal with those ‘events’ in the next four years;
And seeking solutions which reflect their personal hopes and fears.

How will they judge the Conservatives?
Their record in this parliament has been pathetic.
They have flip-flopped over the big issues of the day.
Iraq, Hutton, Butler, top-up fees, ID cards?I could go on.
When called upon to make a judgement – in the heat of the moment – the Conservatives have consistently made the wrong one – then tried to back-track when they see political advantage.
Poor judgement and opportunism.
You won’t win elections like that because people won’t trust you with Government.

And Labour?
What a squandering of the good will which greeted Tony Blair in 1997!
What an abuse of public trust!
Will voters really forgive being misled on Iraq?
Or the broken promises on tax?
Or top up fees?
Or the instinctive authoritarianism?

And what about the dismal failure to take a lead on Europe?

Which leaves us – the Liberal Democrats.  The Real Alternative.

Throughout the course of this parliament, week on week, issue after issue, we have acted in accordance with our principles.

We argue sincerely for what we believe is in the best interests of our country.

For us politics isn’t about gimmicky pledge cards with vacuous statements.
It’s about real solutions to real problems.
It’s about being straightforward about how you will deliver.
And it’s about being straightforward also about how much it will all cost.

Throughout this parliament, I have insisted that our balance sheet must add up.

And on tax, we seek to be both bold and fair.

Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world.
We have world class businesses and a world class workforce.
So why are 2 million of our pensioners living below the poverty line?
And why are the poorest in our society paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest?

There is another way – that is what being the real alternative is all about.

Being bold doesn’t mean making promises we can’t keep.

Boldness requires us to make the case for taxation.  Why? Because people know you can’t get something for nothing.
And boldness means making the case for tax reform, so that it is fair.

At the last election Labour promised not to put up income tax. What did they do? They raised National Insurance.

The Conservatives are currently suggesting that they can cut income tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, council tax, savings tax, small business tax, environmental taxes AND increase public spending all at the same time.
Oh – and cut the national debt while they are at it.
No one really believes them. Candy floss economics.

And even if you do look at the small print of their plans it shows the tax burden will actually rise under the Conservatives – by £24 billion.
So much for straight-talking there.
In contrast, what we propose is credible.

Anyone who earns over £100,000 would pay 50p in the pound on every pound earned above £100,000.
According to government figures, that would raise £5.2 billion a year.
What would we use that sum for?
1. We would abolish top-up and tuition fees
2. We would provide free personal care for the elderly, just as we have delivered in Scotland
3. We would scrap the Council tax and hold down the rate of local taxes.

Now this is targeted taxation for targeted spending commitments.

And for those who predict gloom and doom, the end of civilisation as we know it – remind them, this is still a lower rate of top tax than was the case for the majority of the period that Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister of this country.

And, strange to record, the sun kept rising in the east and setting in the west.

What’s more, this tax change will affect just 1% of the wealthiest income tax payers in the country.
So by definition 99% of people will not be paying more.
But the benefits will be for 100% of people.
Now that is a real alternative.

As for tax reform – a fair tax system is one which is based on the principle of people’s ability to pay.

Council tax is fundamentally unfair.  It bears no relationship to earnings and means that the poorest in our society pay more from their income than do the richest.  That cannot be right.

So we would scrap the Council Tax and replace it with a local income tax.
We would do it through the Inland Revenue which is cheaper to administer.
As confirmed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies last week about half of people would pay less.  A quarter would be unaffected.  And a quarter would pay a bit more.
A typical family would be £450 a year better off.
And over half of all pensioners, would pay no local tax at all.
Now that is the real alternative.

Being in Government is all about priorities.
What you choose to spend tax payer’s money on – and what you choose not too.

Being the real alternative means spending public money differently.

We would raise £5 billion a year by scrapping departments like the DTI and ODPM and transferring key functions elsewhere.
We would scrap the next stage of Eurofighter, the baby bonds and the compulsory Identity Cards scheme.
Now these are tough choices.
But look at what we would deliver with that money

10,000 more police of the streets – cutting crime and the fear of crime.

A Citizen’s Pension for the over 75s – Over £100 a month extra on the basic state pension, millions of pensioners off means testing, and an end to the scandalous discrimination in the pensions system against women.

An end to the hidden NHS waiting lists – quick diagnosis so treatment is not delayed.

Free eye tests and dental checks.

Lower class sizes for our youngest children – because children taught well in their early years have a far better chance of successful and rewarding lives.

Now that is the Real Alternative –
Costed, affordable polices to make Britain better, fairer, safer.
The balance sheet is balanced; the costs add up.
It’s a matter of priority.
And I think it’s a good deal.
And what’s more – I think the people of Britain will think it is a good deal.

All of this will be underpinned by a Green thread running through our manifesto.

The environment is central to our vision.

A Britain in which sustainable living is a reality so that we minimise the impact of the way we live on the world around us.

A Britain that looks beyond the Kyoto treaty to the next stage of the battle to limit climate change; standing up to the conspiracy theorists and those in denial over the threat of global warming.

You know – a month ago I challenged Tony Blair and Michael Howard about just this issue because I think the seriousness of the threat transcends party colours.

I wanted the three parties to come together to agree that the science is real and the threat is real.

To pledge ourselves to pursue new and stronger international goals on climate change.

And to make sure Britain has its own house in order by agreeing a series of long-term baseline targets for our own environment.

Sensible, consensual politics to deal with a long-term threat that faces all of us now, and the generations to come.

But such an initiative simply does not fit in with Tony Blair or Michael Howard’s idea of politics.

So again at this election, the Liberal Democrats will be the Real Alternative on the environment.

So far this campaign has had all the hallmarks of the kind of spin that turns people off.

Take the latest row over cancelled hospital operations.

The slanging match between Labour and the Conservatives – as they both scrabble for headlines – demeans our politics.

What people want are positive solutions to sustain and strengthen our National Health Service.
Right now they deserve better than they are getting.

What they seek is good schools and hospitals – run efficiently.
They want proper public provision for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
They want straight talk from politicians and fairness.
They don’t want to be patronised with token promises.

And they don’t want politicians always interfering.
People want to get on with their own lives.
They want to take their own decisions in and about their own neighbourhoods and communities.

So this election will be about more than just manifesto promises.

Our party has been the real opposition in this parliament.
If you voted Conservative in 2001, yet opposed the war in Iraq.
If you don’t want compulsory Identity Cards cards.
If you are suffering under the Council Tax.
If you are worried about the environment.
What good did it do you voting Conservative?
Your vote was wasted.

Because today, the Conservatives are out of the race in Scotland and Wales, and most of urban Britain.
While they are fading, we are growing.

The challenge for our party throughout this period, and my aim as your leader, has been to show that the Liberal Democrats are credible; that we are the real alternative.

When people grow tired of the old parties they turn to us to see what we can do.
This is what has been happening in Liverpool and Newcastle – big cities run by the Liberal Democrats.
And Liberal Democrat Ministers in Scotland.

Up and down the country the Liberal Democrats exercise real power and real responsibility.

As we enter this general election people now have a much clearer idea of what we’re about.

They do see in us a real alternative on offer.

And a real alternative that’s on their side.

Where the big issues are concerned.

Axing the council tax.

Abolishing student tuition fees.

Guaranteeing free personal care for the elderly.

Tackling pension unfairness – especially for women.

Pursuing positive engagement in Europe – and the wider world.

With real action to promote the environment.

Two years ago one million people took to the streets of Britain to try to make politicians listen –
They wanted to send a message to Tony Blair – don’t go to war in Iraq.
When I am told that people in Britain don’t care about politics,
I think about the people I marched alongside that day.

People of a different political persuasion from me and people of no political persuasion.

They were fed up with the way the Prime Minister was behaving;
Fed up with the way both the old parties – Labour and the Tories – were standing shoulder to shoulder in defence of George Bush.

What they needed was a real alternative;
A party which was listening to their concerns;
A party which was prepared to stand up and say so;
The party which said no to the Prime Minister.

I am proud that we were the real alternative then.
I am proud that we have continued to stand apart from the other two parties on important issues of principle.
I am proud that when it comes to tackling unfairness in this country,
the Liberal Democrats put that top of the agenda.

We enter this election as a truly independent political party.
We will campaign through this election as an independent political party.
And we will emerge in the next House of Commons as an independent political party.

That way we will do best – by ourselves and by the country.

More votes, more seats – beyond that no glass ceilings to our ambitions.

Now that’s the real alternative in this election.

And it’s called the Liberal Democrats.

Below is the text of a speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2002 TUC annual conference.

It gives me great pleasure to be the first leader of the Liberal Democrats to be invited to address Congress, although it’s by no means the first time that I’ve been in attendance.

This is, of course, a day of commemoration. I have my own indelible memory of visiting Ground Zero not long after September 11th. I had the privilege of meeting the members of the emergency services who had been there that day, risked their lives and seen so many of their colleagues and others forfeit theirs. It was a day which saw unimaginable horror but also unimaginable courage which will never be forgotten.

Two years ago, John Monks became the first TUC General Secretary to address a Liberal Democrat annual conference. So this speech, if you like, is a return match. A significant proportion of trades union members now regularly vote Liberal Democrat. So good, constructive dialogue is important and I’m grateful to the TUC for keeping us well briefed on issues of mutual concern.

The fruits of our cooperation have been seen at Westminster. We’ve continued our long campaign alongside the nurses’ unions against the disgracefully low pay which has led so many people to leave that vital profession.

We’ve supported the teachers in their attempts to reduce the bureaucracy which has demoralized their profession so much.

In industry, we backed the demands which were successfully made by a number of unions for more flexible working. That’s especially important to women.

And we’ve also campaigned alongside you for Britain to adopt the European directive on Information and Consultation. Personally I thought it was a scandal that, when Vauxhall decided to shut a plant down, the first the workforce heard about it was on the radio.

We’re strongly in favour too of tougher action on health and safety.

And we share your anxieties about company pensions. Some employers have arbitrarily curtailed pension entitlements in an outrageous way. Liberal Democrats believe that members of pension schemes should have much clearer rights and much better legal protection.

Such attention to detail is extremely important. But so is the big picture. There’s an emerging consensus between us – from Europe to environmental responsibility, from employee rights to worker participation, from public services to the welfare state.

I’m a lifelong believer in trade unionism. When I was given a job as a shelf-stacker as a teenager, I immediately joined the shop-workers union USDAW. And from my first days as an MP – facing the onslaught of Thatcherism – I was convinced that strong trades unions were healthy for society.

And that strength derived from being accountable to and representative of their individual members. And such strength gave greater legitimacy to the vital role of modern, progressive trades unionism in the national agenda of democratic governance .

In those days we were way behind too much of continental Europe in this respect.

So I was delighted when Jacques Delors as Commission President addressed this Congress. That was a real turning-point. Remember how infuriated Mrs. Thatcher was? Satisfaction enough in itself for many of us.

But there was also great long-term benefit to all the progressive forces across the British body politic. It began to help shift the rhetoric – and the real agenda followed on.

There’s a pleasing sense of historical continuity here. The earliest trades union members were Liberals; Liberals in government pioneered the state pension; it was a Liberal, Beveridge, drawing on the work of the trade unions, who went on to lay down the intellectual foundations of the welfare state, enacted by the Attlee government.

Our party is strongly attached to the ideal of freedom. But that doesn’t mean simply leaving everything to the market.

As Beveridge said himself: ‘Liberty means more than freedom from the arbitrary power of Governments. It means freedom from economic servitude to Want and Squalor and other social evils.’

We Liberal Democrats believe in dialogue. We believe in cooperation with both sides of industry and between both sides of industry. And we believe in the language of cooperation. We reject the language of confrontation.

Of course we’re not going to agree automatically with everything you say.

But we’ll listen. You won’t catch Liberal Democrats describing trade unionists as wreckers.

And I believe that the momentum of public opinion is swinging towards both of us –

Liberal Democrats and trade unionists alike.

When John addressed our conference two years ago he spoke tellingly about different approaches to capitalism. He rejected – and we do too – what he called ‘the deregulated wild-west devil take the hindmost style of the US.’

Two years on and the American model is looking distinctly shop-soiled and tarnished.

Slowly, but surely, the more socially-orientated European approach is coming to be appreciated. Not least when it involves a degree of social and environmental responsibility.

Consider these words:-

‘In business, the warts on the face of capitalism – every Enron story, every bit of creative accounting, every shoddy or overpriced product, every little exploitation of an employee or a supplier, every unjustified increase in executive remuneration, every bit of damage to the environment – each one of these has a cumulative, corrosive effect.

‘A company that simply dances to the fickle tunes of the financial markets does itself no good – nor the wider interests of business, nor the cause of capitalism.’

Karl Marx? Arthur Scargill? Tony Benn?

No, in fact I’m quoting from this year’s personal valedictory address by the retiring President of the CBI, Sir Iain Vallance. Incidentally, Sir Iain has subsequently

joined the Liberal Democrats.

It seems that Sir Edward Heath’s ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’ is still with us.

But it’s not mission impossible to transform its appearance.

Of course we believe in markets. Nobody’s talking about a return to old fashioned state run bureaucracies. But the European approach to markets is preferable to the American model in almost every way. It treats workers decently. It protects their rights. It delivers quality public services. It’s better at long-term planning. And it makes for a stronger and more stable economy.

It would be better still for Britain to join the euro – at the right exchange rate. We look to the Government to give a lead.

But I’m not convinced that Ministers sufficiently grasp the broader merits of Europe.

Take the public services. Britain has fallen woefully behind our European partners when it comes to the standard of our hospitals, schools and transport system.

We Liberal Democrats – like you in the TUC – called for the Government to put in the investment needed much earlier and faster than they have.

But now at last they’ve done what we asked them to do. So it’s become a question of how the money’s best spent.

I don’t say that everything should be done through the public sector. I have no ideological hang-ups between public and private. What I do say is that there shouldn’t be an automatic American-style assumption that the private sector is always better.

So let’s retain all our collective, critical faculties over the next few years over the funding and the delivery of the public services.

I welcome the extra investment the Government has belatedly promised for public services.

But I am concerned about the fairness and transparency by which the sums involved are being raised. I fear that Gordon Brown’s extra billions for the NHS will be squandered unless we reform the tax system to make sure the taxpayer gets value for money. That’s why I shall strongly support a proposal to be put to our party conference later this month to take health funding out of general taxation.

Our proposal is to turn National Insurance into National Health Insurance. That would give people a cast-iron guarantee that the money raised for health is actually spent on the NHS – not sucked into the Treasury.

Earmarking National Insurance – perhaps to be renamed the NHS Contribution – can easily be achieved because it raises almost exactly the amount of money that needs to be spent on the NHS. What’s more, it’s set to rise above inflation in years to come. This way, we’ll guarantee extra funding for health in the long-term, regardless of the Chancellor’s short-term calculations at budget time.

Far too many decisions over public services are taken behind closed doors by the man – and, all too often, it still remains the man – in Whitehall. So the second part of our reform plan for health – and indeed for education too – is for a major shift in power away from Whitehall to each locality in Britain.

I want to see far more decisions taken far closer to the patients, the passengers and the pupils. Far more power for locally and regionally elected politicians who understand best the needs of their areas. And far more say too for the dedicated staff at all levels in health and education.

That way the extra resources stand a far better chance of getting through to the front line rather than being swallowed-up by bureaucrats in quango-land. The Liberal Democrats and the TUC are never going to be in each other’s pockets. From our financial point of view, chance would be a fine thing!

But just as we have to build a party that’s in no-one else’s pocket, largely by digging into our own, so the progressive forces in our society can only stand to mutual benefit by a principled process of cooperation.

Thank you for your invitation today. I hope that this contribution assists towards that highly desirable social and political aspiration.