Author: admin

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on February 2nd 2002.

It is a pleasure to be here in Ghana today – part of a four-day visit I am making to West Africa, including Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Senegal. I am accompanied by Clare Short, who will be well known to many of you as the UK’s International Development Secretary.

Yesterday, I spoke to the Nigerian Assembly and today it is my pleasure and privilege to have the opportunity of speaking to your Parliament. Right across the African continent, countries are emerging from military rule and dictatorship. You are rightly proud of your own democratic institutions, including the elections that took place just over a year ago which saw a peaceful change of government. The strength and vitality of this assembly is proof of the strength and health of your young democracy.

The theme of my visit this week is partnership – the necessity and the possibility of a greatly strengthened partnership between reforming African governments and the world’s richer countries. A partnership based on shared responsibility and mutual interest. A partnership in which both sides commit to the policy reforms required for Africa to secure poverty reduction and development. I believe that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) creates an unprecedented opportunity for progress.

It is clear that Africans themselves must drive the process of reform. If we have learned anything in development over the last decade it is that development strategies imposed from the outside, in the absence of local leadership and commitment, will fail.

But you and I also know that poor countries need support if they are to promote development and consolidate their democratic institutions. Today, I want to focus on this – on our responsibilities to you. The efforts we can make to support your efforts.

There are three dimensions to this.

First, we need to be clear about the purpose of our development co-operation.

There are too many mixed motives in aid and development. Indeed one of the reasons that many people in the West are cynical about aid and development is because a lot of aid has been misused over the years, feeding the elites and corrupt rulers like Mobutu, rather then helping the poor in developing countries.

We need a very different approach. At the UN Millennium Assembly the governments of the world have endorsed a set of Millennium Development Targets. These include halving the proportion of the world’s population living in poverty, universal primary education, a reduction by two-thirds in child mortality, and a cut of three-quarters in maternal mortality – all to be achieved by 2015.

These are the world’s agreed development goals. While there has been progress in recent years, the efforts of the international community are still falling well short of their potential. Too much of global aid is still used to sweeten commercial contracts or tied to the purchase of goods from the donor country. If we are going to make faster progress in development, we need to strengthen the international focus on achieving the Millennium development goals.

Second – if we are to achieve this progress – we need a fundamental conceptual shift in our approach to aid. Not aid as a hand-out but aid as a hand-up, to help people to help themselves. Not aid to create dependence but to create sustainable independence, so that the relationship between the developed and the developing world is not one of donor and passive recipient but one of equal partners in building prosperity for all. This is aid as investment in our collective economic and political security.

Over the years, a great deal of aid has sapped rather than strengthened the capacity of the government locally. This is the very opposite of what is needed. We need investment to help countries put in place more effective states, capable of generating higher levels of economic growth, creating the resources to fund better health, education and public services. In many developing countries institutions are weak, including systems of financial management, increasing the risk of corruption. Our new approach to partnership in development is to provide technical assistance and financial resources to enable you to build capable states.

This is why NEPAD is such an important initiative. It is a real chance – the best chance in a generation – to do development differently, and more effectively. You will understand that there is often concern amongst the publics of developed countries about the way in which development resources are used. This is not a lack of compassion. There is huge compassion and a willingness to tackle poverty and injustice across the world. But there is often scepticism that resources really get to those who need them.

The reforms that NEPAD is making, and that you are making, respond to this concern. It will ensure that our development efforts are more effective. It will also help us to gain support for development across the world.

The UK and other progressive development agencies are now increasingly allocating their aid resources in line with this new approach. As you know, this is also very much the thinking behind the new Poverty Reduction Strategy process, linked to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC). Of the 24 countries that have qualified for HIPC debt relief, 20 are African, freeing up $1.2 billion this year to spend on health, education and other services. I am pleased that Ghana has opted for HIPC, and I hope that within the next month you will have reached Decision Point, and begin to get the benefits of debt relief.

The UK has a £60 million development programme with Ghana. We are working with your Government on health and education, water, roads and bridges, and governance reform. I believe that on health in particular you are at the cutting edge of the new approach to development – with the UK and other donors pooling their resources in support of your own nationally-agreed health strategy. I hope that before too long, the whole of the donor community can go a step further – allocating all of their development resources in support of your Poverty Reduction Strategy. The UK is already doing this in Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique. And I believe this approach is the way forward for development as a whole.

Third – and this is critical – we need to recognise that the modern development agenda goes far wider than resource transfers, to embrace issues of trade and investment, conflict, governance and the environment. We need to look at all our policies in these areas to see what reforms are necessary to better assist the poorest countries in their development. Let me say something about two of these issues – trade and conflict.

On trade, I know that Ghana has a particular interest in securing improved trading opportunities.

Developed countries retain significant barriers to trade, particularly in agriculture. Access to EU agricultural markets is still restricted by the Common Agricultural Policy, including tariffs and seasonal levies. And although the market is open to tropical African agriculture and commodities, such as coffee and cocoa, tariffs of up to 300 per cent exist on some products. As I said in my speech in Nigeria yesterday, developed countries must practice what they preach, and cut these trade barriers.

My other priority is conflict, a subject we have been discussing this morning We have published a paper today, setting out some proposals for the G8. Over the years, Ghana has played a crucial role in UN peacekeeping, including in Sierra Leone, and you have been an important stabilising force in the region. And of course in Kofi Annan you have an outstanding representative of your country leading the reform agenda in the UN, including its role in conflict prevention and resolution.

I believe that the developed countries, particularly the G8, need to do more. Yesterday, I announced the establishment of a special envoy for Sudan. We need similar energy and commitment to drive forward on the Lusaka peace process in the DRC. And we need to provide practical support for Africans to tackle conflict on the continent.

This is a big agenda. I believe that it has never been more timely or necessary to forge such a partnership. The NEPAD process creates real potential on your side. On our side, through the G8 and in the wider international community there is a willingness and determination to work with you in new ways.

Real advance is possible. Let’s agree today to work together to make it happen.

Below is the text of a speech made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the Confederation of Indian Industry in Bangalore, India, on Saturday 5th January 2002.

I’m glad to see today such an impressive turnout of both British and Indian companies and so many representatives of key Indian business organisations at this Indo-British Partnership Summit.

I pay especial tribute to both Narayana Murthy and David Jefferies, Co-Chairmen of the Partnership which has proved such a success over the last nine years.

But the partnership between our nations goes much further than that. It has strong roots in a long shared history. You can see that history every day on the streets of both modern India and modern Britain.

Today, as well as our business and trade links, we are joining together in the fight against terrorism. I want to express our total solidarity with you in the face of recent terrorist outrages in India.

There can be no room in any civilised society for organisations such as Lashkar e Toiba and Jaish Mohammed – groups banned by the British government some time ago. The appalling attacks on India’s Parliament of 13 December and on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on 1 October demonstrate more clearly than ever the threat such fanatics pose not just to your democracy, but to all democracies – and to civilised values in the whole world.

Of course, people are entitled to pursue their political views by legitimate means. But the indiscriminate and deliberate murder of civilians to cause chaos and mutilation defiles any political cause. The 11 September attacks in America have changed attitudes towards terrorism. The action against the Al Qa’ida network in Afghanistan has shown international determination. Al Qa’ida failed in their effort to break the West and its economies. They are now themselves broken in Afghanistan.

I am very proud of the role that Britain has played since September 11. Diplomatically, in the UN, and in the alliances we have built to good effect as we have sought to maintain and strengthen the international case against terrorism. On the humanitarian front, where our own Department for International Development has a deservedly high reputation, and where Governments and aid agencies have frankly exceeded all expectations in the help they have managed to get to those who need it most inside Afghanistan. And of course militarily, where Britain has played its part both in offensive operations against the Taliban and the Al Qa’ida network, and where we now lead the International Security Assistance Force helping the new interim administration in Kabul.

I am proud of our role not just because it is the right thing to do, and because we have been able to make a contribution, but also because in today’s globally inter-dependent world, foreign policy and domestic policy are part of the same thing. Dealing with international terrorism abroad is not just right in itself. It is vital to our economy, our jobs, our stability and security.

KASHMIR

Of course, there is much focus at the moment on the issue of Kashmir and the acts of terrorism connected with it. This will feature heavily in my discussions over the coming days here and in Pakistan. But one thing is clear. Only politics not terror can solve issues like this. And the starting point of any dialogue must be the total and absolute rejection of actions such as those of 1 October and 13 December. I view an attack on your Parliament with every bit as much outrage as I would an attack on the Parliament in which I sit. It was an attack on democracy itself. Terrorism is terrorism wherever it occurs, whoever are its victims.

BRITAIN AND INDIA – WORKING TOGETHER

Today, inevitably, I speak against the background of September 11 and the tension here in this sub-continent. But I want to set even these events in a wider context: how Britain and India work together, with others, to confront terrorism; but also how we build support for the policies and values that promote peace and justice and mitigate against extremism and terror, in all nations everywhere.

For terrorism is not new. Fanaticism is not new. What is new is the combination of terrorism, fanaticism and the technological capability to wreak vast and inhumane devastation, whether by acts of terror, weapons of mass destruction, or other means. And even without either the terrorist or the fanatic, the challenges we face of environmental degradation, poverty and the uneven spread of globalisation are more than enough to occupy us.

The dangers are clear. Sometimes the opportunities are less so. Yet the possibilities of technological and scientific advance, particularly now in the new field of genetics, are immense. And the world has recovered from its 20th century infatuation with fundamentalist political ideology, though religious fundamentalism remains a potent threat.

For most politicians, ready to listen and learn from an analysis of the developments of the last few years, the basic rules of what works and what doesn’t, what advances a nation and what holds it back, are increasing plain.

In any country I visit, from the mighty USA to still impoverished Bangladesh, the basic rules are there to be followed. It’s not always easy to follow them, of course; but it is relatively easy to discern them. Let me set them out; and then let us see how Britain and India can work jointly to help achieve them.

AN OPEN ECONOMY

First, any successful economy needs to conform to certain basics. It should be an open economy, willing to let capital and goods move freely. It needs financial and monetary discipline – the markets and investors swiftly punish the profligate. It needs to encourage business and enterprise – to create an enabling climate for entrepreneurs. A few years ago, people might have stopped there. But now we can add confidently: the successful economy also must invest heavily in human capital, technology and infrastructure. Education is a top economic as well as social priority. High levels of unemployment and social exclusion do not just disfigure society, they waste the national resource of human talent. That is why both Britain and India place such emphasis on it today, backed by businesses that know that without the skills, the economy cannot progress. This is the role of the enabling state. These rules are tough though. They require nations to open markets and that can be painful. And they require political leaders to fund investment where benefits may not be fully realised within the electoral cycle.

GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY

Secondly, good governance and democracy are not just right in themselves, they are, at least at a certain juncture, critical to political and economic progress. These include not just regard to proper elections, the absence of corruption, respect for human rights. They also include well-functioning commercial, fiscal and legal systems. People need to know the rule of law is not an empty phrase. They need to know that taxes will be collected and litigation fought over, in a fair and open system. It is hugely to India’s credit that, with all its difficulties and vast population, it provides such governance. Increasingly in the field of development assistance, donor nations are realising that help with a proper system of government or law is at least as crucial, sometimes more so, than cash.

A SOCIAL CONTRACT

Thirdly, the welfare state of the future is based on a social contract between citizens. The relationship cannot simply be one of give by the state and take by the recipient. It must encompass rights and duties. We have a very generous programme to help unemployment in Britain. But we insist that opportunities given are matched by a responsibility to make the most of them or state benefit can be withdrawn. And part of this social contract concerns criminal behaviour. The young child in the village in Bangladesh who told me that when he grew up he wanted to be a lawyer so that he could ‘hang the criminals’ may have taken it a little far! But he was articulating a heartfelt anger in communities the world over at the misery and arbitrary tragedy that crime provokes. There are of course social causes of crime. Tackling them – the poverty, poor housing, lack of education – is part of that social contract. But the causes can’t excuse the criminal. Citizens need protection and they should have it.

GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE

Fourth, my constant theme, before September 11 and increasingly since that fateful day, is global interdependence.

Long before September 11, Afghanistan was a failed state, exporting terrorism around the world, living off the drugs trade, the source of 90 per cent of the heroin on British streets; and millions of its people stateless refugees, seeking asylum not only in the immediate region but also in Europe. Finally, it erupted into shocking evil on the streets of America.

This interdependence is being intensified by a number of factors. Global trade has grown twenty fold since 1947, the year in which India became independent and the GATT was formed. Global finance has grown six fold in the last ten years. Today’s economies and markets are heavily swayed by that intangible essential, confidence. Just a few years ago, the East Asian financial crisis nearly provoked a global slowdown. Tensions in the Middle East can impact on the price of oil. Post September 11 there was an immediate effect on the world economy.

Confidence is, by its very nature, directly affected by political events. Those that promote stability increase confidence. Those that tend to instability diminish it. And it can show up, quite quickly, on the jobs, investment and hence living standards of communities in countries like Britain, far from the original source of instability.

Add to that the information revolution. Its consequences are not only economic. It provides, immediately and across the globe, news, views, information that can excite and influence opinions. Again, after 11 September, the battle was not just military – there was a battle for hearts and minds. Would action in Afghanistan be seen as anti-terrorism or anti-Muslim? Had the international coalition been weaker, had the false propaganda that it was anti-Muslim been widely accepted, the whole train of events could have been quite different and adversely so.

Then there is migration and travel. Some interesting facts: 25 per cent of the US population today is Hispanic; there are 4.7 million Muslims in France, 2.6 million in Germany; 1.3 million Indians in the UK, almost 4 million people of Asian origin. The city with the second largest Greek population is not in Greece but Australia. There are over 300 languages spoken in London schools today. The tensions in such migration are very familiar to us. People rightly seek order and discipline in how it occurs. But that it will occur in an ever more intense fashion is frankly beyond doubt.

In consequence of this, politics itself is globalising. If the WTO succeeds, nations prosper. If the problems of global warming are tackled, every nation’s environment is helped. If the global financial system is properly ordered, our economies prosper. If international terrorism is defeated, we are all safer. Very few of these problems can be addressed effectively other than by common action. Hence the need to make alliances to secure it.

So alliances between nations become a vital part of a nation’s self-interest and standing, its ability to secure the advances it needs.

CLARIFYING A NATION’S POSITION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Which brings me to the fifth rule of politics we can discern today. In this interdependent world, nations need to define their place in it. Other nations need to know what any particular nation stands for, where it is located in the multiplicity of alliances and interests around it.

Here both our nations are in a process of change.

India’s success today is rooted in its long history of civilisation and strong tradition of democracy, grown out of a rich patchwork of ethnicity, religion and language. It is this combination of stability and diversity which gives India such powerful potential.

Over the last decade, more than ever before, India has been realising its potential. The green revolution set the stage, giving India self-sufficiency in food. By opening up its economy in the early 1990s, India released its creative potential, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world – soon set to join the top ten – much of it based in cutting edge technologies like IT and biotechnology. And India’s culture too has impacted worldwide. Bollywood films are seen all over the world. Writers like Arundhati Roy and Gita Mehta have as strong a following in the UK as in India.

So India is strong internally, vibrant culturally and economically, and influential internationally. Its traditions of freedom and democracy make India an obvious partner for us. Its diversity and energy put it in a prime position to benefit from today’s globalising world.

For Britain, there is both challenge and opportunity. The days of Empire are long gone. Europe has been at peace for half a century. Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world but our land mass and population inevitably constrain us. We are not a superpower, but we can act as a pivotal partner, acting with others to make sense of this global interdependence and make it a force for good, for our own nation and the wider world. In so doing, I believe we have found a modern foreign policy role for Britain.

In part this is by virtue of our history. Our past gives us huge, perhaps unparalleled connections with many different regions of the world. We are strong allies of the US. We are part of the European Union. Our ties with the Commonwealth, with India and other parts of this sub-continent, are visibly strengthening. Similarly, our relations with the Middle East, with Russia and China, are all areas where we are enjoying a closer friendship than for many years. Japan already rightly regards us as a leading partner for it in Europe.

Our armed forces in their professionalism and skill give us reach and influence abroad. It is generally accepted that our development assistance programmes, massively increased since 1997, give us an opening to help partner countries achieve their goals. The initiative on Africa is one prime example.

The opportunity therefore is obvious. It shouldn’t be exaggerated. I stress the role is as partner. The challenge, however, is to throw ourselves into this role with confidence, to discard isolationism or retreating into nostalgia. Whatever the merits of membership of the Euro for Britain, the proposition that Britain should be an involved, constructive, leading partner in Europe, seems to me indisputable. It is the key alliance right on our doorstep. We are in it. We aren’t going to leave it. So let us make the most of it, with confidence.

Likewise elsewhere, as here in India, we should engage without hesitation – with humility about the limits of what we can do, but with conviction that much can indeed be done together.

THE SPEED OF GLOBAL CHANGE

Finally, a rule that is a warning.

One consequence of all this economic, political and, above all, technological change is that the change itself moves so fast today. The opportunities are there to be seized. But time doesn’t wait for the hesitant. Moments come in which new directions can be struck, but they pass. The pace, in particular, of the information revolution, and soon the revolution of the human genome, requires in business and in politics a perpetual alertness and willingness to adapt. Nations can be left behind. Businesses, even whole industries, can become obsolete. And we have to look ahead. Let me give one example that I think it is vital.

We have had a wake-up call about religious fundamentalism and fanaticism. There are many reasons why the Al Qa’ida network developed. But one reason that cannot be ducked is fundamentalism. We need a twin track approach. One, within the Moslem world, is to take on the fanatics, the extremists who warp the true message of Islam, which is caring and decent. That can only be done by the true voice of Islam itself; it can’t be imposed from outside. And it must deal with the fanaticism head-on; the schools that teach it, those who preach it, the political extremism that feeds on it. It is immensely encouraging that there are real signs that many clerics and political leaders in the Moslem world are now reclaiming the true values and spirit of that great faith.

Simultaneously, we all need to build a bridge of understanding between faiths. There is too much ignorance, too much prejudice, too little tolerance and all those things are dangerous in today’s world. Understanding the other person’s point of view does not shut out the storm but it gives us shelter under which we can discuss and debate and plan ways forward, with mutual respect rather than fear as our guide.

There is so much here for Britain and India to work on together. A new century. A new partnership. A shared future.

India’s role in peacekeeping from Bosnia to Sierra Leone is just one example of the true international leadership your country has shown the world. India is now a natural contender for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. We will work with you to achieve it.

India knows better than most the terrible risks posed by climate change, especially to some of its low-lying coastal areas. The agreement in Marrakech last November showed that we make progress. Now we need to make a success of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September. India and Britain should co-ordinate closely on our approach.

Nearly a quarter of the world’s population live on less than one US dollar a day. This year nearly 11 million children will die from poverty-related diseases. And 120 million children worldwide are denied the right to basic schooling.

Both India and the UK are jointly committed to the UN Millennium Development Goals, including that of halving, by 2015, the proportion of the world’s population living in abject poverty. Despite India’s economic progress, there are still some 300 million people here who are very poor. So much remains to be done.

The next couple of years will see a major increase in the UK’s bilateral development programme in India, rising from £175 million in the current financial year to £300 million in 2003/04. We intend to increase this further in years to come. Our funding is allocated according to a strategy agreed with the Government of India, and includes spending on health and education and on improving, and getting access to, services for those who need them most.

This month we expect to see the signing of agreements for £98 million of UK government support for polio eradication in India and £123 million for HIV/AIDS relief. In addition, £32 million has been agreed for rebuilding primary schools damaged in the Orissa supercyclone.

Ultimately, the key to reducing poverty is economic growth and policies that help the poor. The lifeblood of the global economy is trade. Since the end of the Uruguay Round in 1994, developing countries’ trade has grown at twice the rate of other countries. That is good for you and good for us.

But not all have benefited equally. Our common challenge now, with the start of a new WTO trade round in Doha last November, is to ensure that globalisation spreads the benefits of economic growth throughout the world and reduces poverty.

The UK is committed to pressing for an EU negotiating position which promotes development. This should include opening markets in the developed world through substantial cuts in high tariffs and subsidies which distort trade. And developing countries also have much to gain by opening their own markets to trade with each other. Again, let us work together on this.

Educational links between the UK and India are flourishing. We are on target for our goal of doubling the numbers of Indians studying in the UK. And I can announce that as a result of the initiative to attract private sector funding for more Chevening scholarships, we will be increasing funding of the India programme to £2 million a year.

We enjoy just as strong links in science. In Delhi on Monday I will open the British Council Science Festival, the largest gathering of top-level British scientists ever outside Britain. We also look forward to better networking between British and Indian scientists, including a substantial number of new scientific scholarships.

And the UK and India are already strong partners for trade and investment. The UK is India’s second largest trading partner. Already there is £5 billion of trade between us. I am confident that India will, in the early part of this century, join the world’s top ten economies.

Since the Indo British Partnership was formed in 1993, UK-India bilateral trade in goods and services has grown by more than two-thirds, and more than 1500 new Indo-British joint ventures have been approved. There has been significant investment by British firms in India, while in the UK some 250 Indian companies are now also well-established investors.

To encourage such activity, the UK Government has relaxed procedures for work permit holders, especially in high-tech industries. And we have simplified processes for allowing innovators and entrepreneurs to set up business in the UK.

The CBI and the CII intend to hold a major economic summit in London in July 2002 involving senior CEOs from both countries, in part to look at the major challenges we face together.

So this is a big, even heady agenda for us to develop. For reasons that don’t need stating, from time to time since independence relations between Britain and India have, let me put it diplomatically, occasionally been a little scratchy. Not so today. Today relations are strong and confident and the deep affection and fascination people in Britain have always had for India has never waned. History, culture, shared interests and values and now those of Indian origin living in Britain, valued and contributing enormously to our society, bind us together. India is changing, finding its place in a new world; Britain likewise. We have much to offer each other. Our new partnership for a better and safer world awaits. I extend to you our respect, solidarity and friendship in making it a reality.

Below is the text of the speech which was meant to be delivered by Tony Blair to the TUC Conference on 11th September 2001, but which was cancelled due to the terrorist acts in the United States.

I know Congress has paid warm tribute to Jimmy Knapp this week. But I want to add my own words today.

He was a man of huge integrity. He was a good and candid friend of the Labour Party. Within the Labour and trade union movement, he is missed today and will be deeply, deeply missed for many years to come.

A word on asylum, which you, Bill, raised in your speech yesterday, I agree totally with you that this issue must never be exploited,

The lives and future life chances of those fleeing torture and persecution are far too important to play politics with and Bill Morris and others are right to remind us of that.

But, asylum is rightly an issue of huge national concern. It is not limited to Britain. Across Europe there are large numbers of people on the move. In the first six months of this year in France applications for asylum rose 20 % whilst falling 10 % here, Look at the US, the problems in Australia, in Canada, This issue is global.

But we have a clear responsibility here in Britain to make sure our system is not abused. Already in the past few years, we have tightened the rules, increased immigration staff and brought in measures to curb the horrific trade in illegal immigrants.

Over the next few weeks, we will announce a further series of measures as we and others in Europe come under renewed pressure from migration.

But in truth, there is now a need across Europe for wholesale reform of the procedures and process for asylum claims. We should always remain open to genuine asylum claims. But they must be decided by a system with proper rules and fair procedures not in an abused system that leads to the injustice of the survival of the fittest.

As for the TUC, there is so much for you to be proud of this year.

You have launched the Partnership Institute, a truly groundbreaking initiative which can help revolutionise industrial relations in this country.

You have introduced a new stakeholder pension scheme with the Prudential, which is set to benefit half a million people.

You have shown your commitment to tackling racism with the work of your Stephen Lawrence task group setting challenging targets for eliminating institutional racism within union ranks – an example to other institutions.

The New Unionism Project is developing new ways of reaching out and recruiting, 14,000 new members in the last year have been covered by new voluntary agreements.

But I would single out the work of individual unions and the TUC in the whole field of education and lifelong learning. The Government will be placing union learning representatives on a statutory basis to take this workplace revolution further.

Thank you also for the support and understanding you have shown in our management of the economy, As you and your members know, we now face a more difficult economic climate. US and European growth has slowed. In the US and much of Europe, unemployment is rising. Japan remains in stagnation. In today’s world, the fate of the large economies is intimately interconnected, No nation stands alone, able to insulate itself entirely from any cold winds from abroad.

Britain is bound to feel the draught. We are, in many ways, better protected than most. Underlying inflation is the lowest in Europe. Interest rates lower than for thirty years. Unemployment the lowest of any major European country. Yet as Friday’s manufacturing output figures illustrate, there are real problems facing us, especially in that sector. I know the pain much of manufacturing is experiencing. The pound-to-Euro rate has made life very tough indeed, Now with export markets shrinking, that pain is worse. In the UK, as round the world, jobs are being shed even from the most seemingly secure of companies.

We will be increasing the support we give to employees made redundant and working with you to provide the re-skilling and retraining where we can.

There is no point in offering false hope. And I am aware of Keynes riposte to talk of long-termism – ‘in the long run, we’re all dead.’ But there are three key things affecting our long-term strength which we must hold to.

The first is prudent economic management. Bank of England independence, sound financial policy: they have been the bedrock of stability for the UK over the past four years. They must and will remain.

The second is work we are pursuing with you now, in improving productivity. In some sectors, we still lag 45% behind the US and 20% behind France. That is why the investment in education, skills, science and technology is so vital,

The third is to continue to play our part in Europe and to be part of the single currency if the economic conditions are met.

On Europe I want to make it clear. This Government believes Britain’s proper place is at the centre of Europe as a leading partner in European development. There is nothing more damaging or destructive to the true national interest than anti European isolationism of today’s Conservative Party.

Three million jobs depend on our being part of Europe; nearly sixty per cent of our trade; we negotiate together in international trade and commerce.

It is the most integrated regional bloc of nations the world has seen. It now often works together on issues of common foreign and defence policy.

Tell me what other nation anywhere, faced with such a strategic alliance right on its doorstep, at the crux of international politics, would isolate itself from that alliance, not out of accident but design? It would be an absurd denial of our own self interest. It’s not standing up for Britain. It’s sending Britain down a road to nowhere.

And, of course, Europe needs reform; of course, it will do things we don’t agree with, at times; but aren’t we better in there, with confidence in ourselves and an ability to win debates, than sat on the sidelines as irrelevant critics, affecting nothing?

From next January there will be a single currency circulating in twelve out of the fifteen EU countries. Sweden is considering joining. Denmark rejected membership but remains with its currency tied to the Euro. All those people who said it would never happen now content themselves with saying it will be a disaster. I believe they’re wrong. And a successful Euro is in our national interest. So provided the economic conditions are met, it is right that Britain joins.

We are working in partnership with you on Europe and it was in partnership with you that we introduced basic fair rights at work. I know you would have wanted us to go further. But after the first ever statutory minimum wage, the Social Chapter, the right to union recognition, when people ask ‘what has the Labour Government ever done for us’, I think we are entitled to say: quite a lot,

And of course now we look to ways of building on that record: as well as the review of current legislation, extending maternity pay from 18 to 26 weeks; rights to parental leave; new information and consultation rights to workers: and equal rights for part time workers. Again all achievable in partnership together,

The trade unions we prospering again, better respected, more creative, still with work to do but in better shape than for decades. Why? Because you have changed with the times and you have embraced partnership as the way forward.

Partnership with you and between you and employers is a reality, And, incidentally, this is in no small measure due to the leadership, intelligence and perseverance of your General Secretary, John Monks.

People want fairness at work; they understand that there are employers who treat employees unfairly; but basically they prefer to regard their employers as partners not enemies. Partnership is not a denial of trade union interests. It is their modern expression. Reading the TUC pamphlet on attitudes to trade unions and the sense of this is clear, The threats to trade unions are either in poor service to members or a return m old-style political syndicalism. The opportunity is in high quality service and partnership.

The impact of what we have done together is enormous. The minimum wage gave one and a half million people a pay rise. Over three million people got paid holidays. So far almost 200 new Union recognition deals have been struck, most of them voluntarily.

Union membership is growing for the first time in over 20 years.

And the opponents of these things? Those who claimed they would violate the British economy are forced to claim they support them after all.

That is the measure of the shift in British politics.

7 June confirmed it.

The Party that had opposed the minimum wage defeated heavily.

The Party that campaigned on xenophobic anti-Europeanism defeated heavily.

The Party that advocated cutting public spending trounced out of sight,

For the first time in our political life, in the battle between investment in public services and short-term tax cuts, public services won.

That is a big achievement. A big shift, A big challenge ahead,

For, we may have won the battle. We haven’t won the war.

Because those we defeated are re-grouping around exactly the same ultra-Thatcherite agenda.

Either they will have a leader whose policies are anathema to his Party; or a leader whose policies are anathema to the public.

In any event, the Conservative Party is not going to change. Not yet.

So battle will have to be joined again, And we will win, not by changing the basic reasons why New Labour has been successful but by deepening them, and explaining how they are the modern expression of our values, just as partnership is the modern expression of yours.

In 1987, after the third election defeat, people said Labour could never win again. Ten years later we won a landslide. In June, we won again with the largest second term majority in British political history. How did we win’?

People never doubted, in my view, even in the 1980s that Labour’s core values social justice, opportunity for all – were right. That’s why it was always nonsense that after 1987 we couldn’t win again. What they doubted was whether we understood how those values should be applied in the modern world.

Our goals today – jobs, economic stability to help hardworking families, a reduction of poverty, high quality public services – would be recognisable to any Labour leader in history. The values have not changed and will not change. They are based on the core belief in society, in community, in solidarity, the idea that we help each other as well as ourselves; and that this, not some laissez-faire selfish individualism is the way to greater prosperity and a more fair and just society.

But just as you are doing these values need application, to a new and modern world of global markets, technological revolution, a consumer age, of instant communication, choice and change. This is the world we must make our way in.

The challenge of this world is the need constantly to adapt to the pace of change.

The opportunity is that today: developing every person’s potential to the full, treating them as of equal worth, goes hand in hand with economic success.

Fairness and enterprise go together. So in our first term, we were pro-business, cut corporation tax, but also introduced a minimum wage.

We got rid of the appalling legacy of national debt, ran the economy better than the Tories, but we also took one million children out of poverty, increased old age pensions and cut youth unemployment by three quarters.

Now we must show how it is possible to sustain it, why Thatcherism has had its day, why modern social democracy is the way forward. In a sense we seek to combine American economic dynamism with European social solidarity, without the inequity of the one or the rigidity of the other.

But it isn’t just a question of money. The systems need fundamental reform,

The principles of reform are clear,

1. A national framework of standards and accountability.

2. Within that framework, devolution of power to the local level with the ability to innovate and develop new services in the hands of local leaders.

3. Better and more flexible rewards and conditions of employment for front line staff.

4. More choice for the pupil, patient or customer and the ability if provision is poor, to have an alternative provider.

As for the involvement of the private sector, I have a sharp sense of deja vu, in this my 8th year as Party Leader. Wherever change is proposed, there is a familiar pattern. First opponents of change construct an Aunt Sally grossly misrepresenting it; then a great campaign is mounted against the Aunt Sally; then we defend ourselves; then those who created the Aunt Sally, ask us why we keep talking about it. Then after the change goes through, people wonder what the fuss was about.

So let us get a few things straight. Nobody is talking about privatising the NHS or schools. Nobody. Nobody has said the private sector is a panacea to sort out our public services. Nobody,

There are great examples of public service and poor examples. There are excellent private sector companies and poor ones. There are areas where the private sector has worked well; and areas where, as with the railways, clearly it hasn’t.

Round the world and certainly in Europe, people are changing and reforming public services. Sometimes the private or voluntary sectors play a role, sometimes they don’t.

The key test is: improvement of the public service, We can argue about the new PFI hospitals or GP premises, the largest re-building programme in the NHS since the War. But the patients that will be treated in the new Bishop Auckland hospital or the new GP premises in West Comforth in my constituency, will be NHS patients treated in the NHS. Likewise the pupils in the new City Academies will be state school pupils.

So where use of the private sector makes sense in the provision of a better public service, we will use it. Where it doesn’t, we won’t. The areas we propose to have a role for the private sector are set out with crystal clarity in the NHS plan; the Education White Paper; and the 10 year transport plan. Should those proposals change or be added to, we will discuss it with you. But the blunt fact is that our health and education services are run by publicly accountable authorities and overwhelmingly delivered by public servants. That is not for narrow ideological reasons but because we know what would be lost if we undermined the fundamental values that motivate staff, underpin those services and on which they are held accountable to the community, and that we will not do.

One further point where the private sector is used it should not be at the expense of proper working conditions for the staff. Which is precisely why we are proposing to strengthen the TUPE regulations so as to give workers better protection.

However this is only one part of a far larger reform programme.

We need proper systems of inspection of accountability right across public services. We need to let schools, PCTs [Health: Primary Care Trusts], BCUs [Police: basic command units] develop and innovate, not have one size fits all driven from the centre. We need not just more teachers, but more classroom assistants and ICT specialists in our schools. We need pay and conditions to be more flexible to retain good teachers. In the NHS the traditional roles of nurses, doctors and consultants need change. Some of the perverse incentives need to be stripped out of the system.

The way public servants are employed, the inflexibility of their working arrangements, particularly for women with family pressures, need radical change.

There is a massive under utilisation of the potential of new technology in our public services, And where possible we need the users of services to know they can choose different providers. If a service fails, we need to be able to change its provision.

The reform programme to improve public services is every bit as crucial to the future of Britain as changing Clause IV was to the future of the Labour Party, except of course infinitely more important in its impact on the lives of the people we serve.

Be under no illusion. If we fail in this task, the Conservative Party stands ready with an alternative:

Let the public services wither;

Let those that can afford to, opt out;

And let what remains be there for those that cannot afford to buy better.

That’s what reducing public spending to 35 % of GDP, as Mr Duncan Smith proposes, means.

So my focus now, and the focus of the government from top to bottom, is to deliver better public services for the people of this country.

It won’t be easy, expectations are high. The legacy of years of neglect and underinvestment is strong.

But my determination to deliver is absolute.

And why? Because of the basic belief that has driven me all my political life; that everyone, every man, every woman, every child, deserves the chance to make the most of themselves within a strong and cohesive society. Public services, and the ethos of public service, are vital to making that happen.

We are all in politics, or in public service, because we believe it can make a difference for the better. Because we believe that we are not just atomised individuals fighting for ourselves and our families, but part of a society held together by basic beliefs and values and aspirations.

I believe education should be the passion of any government because I believe every child is of equal worth, Every child deserves a decent education and our country is a better and stronger country if they get it. And many of the problems we face today stem from the fact that for too many decades this country failed too many children by thinking we only had to educate an elite.

I believe in the NHS because we are all of equal worth, every person should be treated with dignity and respect and where people are in fear or in pain, we owe it to them to relieve that fear and pain, without them having to worry about paying for it to be done.

These are basic articles of faith for us. It is why we put schools and hospitals first. And what 7 June showed is that they are basic beliefs which go with the grain of the basic beliefs and values of the British people.

So with their backing, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver better schools, better hospitals, to step up the fight on crime, to sort out our transport system, to restore confidence not just in our public services, but in the very concept of public service.

Why do I want so passionately for every school to be a good school? Not just because every child deserves to be able to get on. But because unless we make the most of the talents of every child, we are simply pouring our country’s greatest asset – the potential of our people – down a drain.

Why do I want to get health spending here up to the European average? Not because the NHS is some relic museum piece that we want to save as a monument to a great reforming Labour government, but because a country that believes in fairness knows that the central principle of the NHS – healthcare available to all regardless of ability to pay – is as right for today as it was for 1945.

Why am I so determined to push through the changes to the criminal justice system, slid to modernise the way our police forces work? Not because I have some arcane interest in the intricacies of reform, but because I know that the people most affected by crime and the fear of crime are decent people living in hard-pressed communities, and I am in politics to give them a better chance of living in security.

So let us start from agreement that these are our motives, yours and mine, Let us not misrepresent our positions for the sake of a headline or an invitation to the TV studio. And let us hear no more false charges about privatising schools and hospitals when we are set to spend this year more money on them than ever before, are employing more people in them and their pay is rising faster than the private sector, for the first time ia years,

It is precisely because of our commitment to public services that we need to make sure that the money is used to improve them. Because in the end it is the pupil, the patient, the passenger, the victim of crime, who comes first. They are my boss. They are your boss, and we should both of us never forget it.

I know too that nothing that we plan for our public services will be delivered without the support and the professionalism of the people who work in them.

I believe in public service. I believe in public servants. I know how strongly public servants believe in the public service ethos.

The change we need in public services can only be achieved with, not in spite of, our public servants. Of course, no-one can have a veto over reform. Of course, the user of public services comes first. The vast bulk of public servants accept this. They, like us, only want to get it right. So I offer a partnership for change. There are people now showing how it can be done. Public servants doing a brilliant job. Let’s build on their success and let no outdated ideology, or misguided Government bureaucracy or vested interests, public or private, stand in their way.

Change is never easy. But I tell you: reform is not the enemy of public service in Britain; the status quo is.

That is our joint responsibility. It is our joint goal – to give this country improved public services. We offer a partnership for change and reform. Work with us and in the spirit of solidarity, we will succeed.

Below is the text of the modified speech given by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the TUC Conference on 11th September 2001.

Bill, Congress, as Bill has just informed you there have been the most terrible, shocking events taking place in the United States of America within the last hour or so, including two hi-jacked planes being flown deliberately into the World Trade Centre. I am afraid we can only imagine the terror and the carnage there and the many, many innocent people who will have lost their lives. I know that you would want to join with me in sending the deepest condolences to President Bush and to the American people on behalf of the British people at these terrible events.

This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life and we, the democracies of this world, are going to have to come together to fight it together and eradicate this evil completely from our world.

Delegates, I hope you will understand that I do not believe it would be appropriate to carry on the speech that I was going to give to you today. I know I have issued copies of the speech and we will make sure that all delegates get copies of the speech, but I think it inappropriate to give that speech now here. I will obviously want to carry on the discussions that we have had about the issues that concern us.

I will now return to London and once again I thank you for your indulgence here. I am very, very sorry it has turned out the way that it has but I know that, as I say, you would want to join with me in offering our deepest sympathy to the American people and our absolute shock and outrage at what has happened.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at the EU/Balkan Summit in Zagreb on 24th November 2000.

We Europeans – all of us gathered here today – have waited a long time to come together in this group and talk in good faith about the way forward. When the former Yugoslavia began to break up, the European Union argued for the politics of co-operation and compromise as the only responsible way forward. We got instead the politics of extremism and intolerance.

The human cost has been horrific. Tens of thousands of our fellow Europeans killed, often in unspeakable massacres. Many people still missing. Hundreds of thousands made homeless – even now far too many people can still not return home and rebuild their lives. Piles of bodies in Bosnia unidentified to this day.

These horrors have dishonoured all of us as Europeans. This Summit sends a strong, clear message. We can do better than this. There is only one way forward – the way adopted by the rest of Europe. What does that mean in practice? To quote President Kostunica, it means the rule of law.

It means that the will of one man can never again triumph over the will of the people; that a whole country can never again become a presidential fiefdom. It means that borders are opportunities not problems; that they never again become military frontlines or barriers to trade and co-operation. It means that diversity is strength; and that societies root out ethnic, religious and racial discrimination wherever they find it.

Above all, it means responsibility, and responsible politicians. As I look around today, I can only marvel at what a difference democracy makes. New hope. New faces. People for years consigned to the margins by intolerance and conflict. People who stood up to the dictatorships that were tearing their society apart. Today, the future belongs to them.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people of Serbia. We all feared that Milosevic’s downfall would take place in a tragedy of bloodshed. And yet the BuIldozer Revolution succeeded not through violence, but through the dignified uprising of a whole people. Milosevic’s fall has paved the way for reconciliation, stability and prosperity throughout the whole region.

When Prime Minister Racan of Croatia visited London earlier this year he talked of a new, critical mass for co-operation across the region. He was absolutely right, as subsequent events have so dramatically shown. This is why this Summit today is so important. It is our task, in the European Union, to hold out the hand of friendship and partnership to the new democracies of the former Yugoslavia. Each country must decide for itself how best to make progress. No country should be held back by slower neighbours.

You are all European countries. We will judge you by the same European standards. That means settling disputes by negotiation. That means proper treatment for minorities and creating the conditions for the return of refugees. President Kostunica has made an impressive start. President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan have transformed Croatia through their courageous decisions. They have shown that there is a route to Europe. Others should make sure that they take it too.

The British position in all this is clear. The political framework represented by the former Yugoslavia is finished. We have no interest in seeing it recreated. Our only interest is to see the new states that have emerged from the old framework working with each other and with us according to modern European standards.

A lot is already happening. We have made major progress in breaking down the trade barriers between South East Europe and the European Union. But there’s a lot more to do. We want to see this Summit leading to concrete action. A region-wide approach to refugee return. Co-operation between all our countries in the common fight against organised crime, illegal immigration and drugs. A concerted offensive against corruption and discrimination.

The European Union will help. But we are looking for further action from the countries of the region on economic reform. Trade liberalisation by the European Union should be matched by regional free trade agreements.

During his campaign President Kostunica spoke movingly of the dignity of his people. There is an important message for all of us. None of us can promote the dignity of our own people by denying other people their dignity. All Europe’s citizens must feel safe and welcome in the country they live in.

The threat we face is a retreat into narrow-minded nationalism which in the name of misguided patriotism takes our countries backward. When people attack the EU, they ask: what is the good of it? I say to them: look at this meeting and see the purpose and achievement of the EU.

The 15 member states of the EU – countries that in the lifetime of my father were at war with one another – now working in union, with 50 years of peace and prosperity behind us. And now, holding out the prospect of bringing the same peace and prosperity to the Eastern and Central European nations and even to the Balkan Countries.

The very word ‘Balkan’ has for centuries tragically been synonymous with destruction and racial conflict. Yet today, the vision of a united Europe, secure, free and prosperous, offers for the first time the chance of a new history for the region. Let no-one say nothing ever changes. Europe, the present EU and the EU of the future, is the standing example that the past need not repeat itself. All this is possible, provided an enlightened patriotism, which sees co-operation and partnership as strength not weakness, replaces the fear and prejudices of that narrow nationalism.

This is the common goal we proclaim today: an historic commitment to enhancing and enlarging the European family. To achieve for the Balkans, the security and prosperity that the EU has brought to Western Europe. To build a new Europe that rejects discrimination and narrow﷓minded nationalism and bases itself instead on responsibility, dignity, and democracy.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the 1999 TUC Conference.

Hector, my Lord – in fact my Lords actually looking along the platform there – it is a delight to be with you today and to be here again at Congress, and I am particularly flattered and privileged to be the warm-up act for the poet laureate. (Laughter) In fact, I am so flattered and so privileged I have written you a little poem, which I am going to read to you:

Every year, this time of year I come to the TUC and every year the press report, there’ll be a row between you and me.

They say I’ll come and beat a drum, unleash the annual cry,

“Change your ways, clean up your act, modernise or die”.

“Well, modernised you have”, I say, New Labour, new unions too,

both for the future, not the past, for the many not the few.

So the link between us changes, you’ve changed and so have we.

You’re welcome now in No.10 but no beer today, just tea.

And amid the change there’s bound to be a call for the link to end.

What staggers me is the call should come from the left-wing firebrand Ken.

Ken, I thought your job was to put out the fires not start them, and maybe that is the way we should keep it! So now you have got my poem, you have got Andrew Motion’s later and tonight you can composite the two of them.

Congress, it is a real pleasure to be with you because there are huge and important challenges that we face and it is those that I want to set out in my speech to you today. But before I do that I also want to deal with what is the criticism or the attack that is sometimes mounted on us as a New Labour Government, and it is really summarised in the phrase, “What has New Labour done for us?” If you take out the “new”, that cry has been made within our ranks whenever there has been a Labour Government for the 100 years of our history.

For example, I came across a quote the other day from Walter Citrine, no less, who said in the 1940s, “I can’t remember a single occasion when Attlee has ever helped us since he has taken office”, and we all remember some of the speeches made in the Labour Government of the 1970s, or the 1960s, or even the 1920s.

So what has this New Labour Government done for the country, for the workers of the country, for your members? – A statutory national minimum wage, lifting the pay of 2 million workers, the first ever under the Labour Government; the right for unions, where their members vote for it, to be recognised by employers for the first time ever in our history; halving the qualifying period for unfair dismissal; raising the compensation limits back to their real value of 20 years ago; an end to check-off; paid holiday for the first time ever; the Social Chapter signed; parental leave so that people can balance work and family responsibilities. These are things that the New Labour Government has done for people in this country.

The New Deal for the unemployed: 250,000 on the programme, almost 100,000 young people into employment who were previously unemployed; youth unemployment halved; long-term unemployment down to its lowest level since the early 1970s and no one I have ever talked to on the New Deal calls it a skivvy scheme.

Or the working families tax credit, lifting the living standards of 2 million lower and middle income families; or the biggest ever rise in child benefit this April; or this November £100 extra to every pensioner household to help tide our pensioners over the winter months. Those are achievements that any Labour Government and any Labour Party can be proud of.

More than that – the £800 million John Prescott is putting into the poorest estates in the country; capital receipts after years of lying idle freed up for use by local councils; Section 11 money restored to help ethnic minorities with the English language; the abolition of charges for eye tests for the over 60s; a 10p tax rate for the low paid; cutting class sizes for 5, 6 and 7 year olds; replacing nursery vouchers with guaranteed nursery places; £40 billion extra spending on schools and hospitals; ending the ban on unions at GCHQ. All these things has a Labour Government done and, of course, there is much, much more to do. Hospitals still need to be modernised, schools that are run down to be changed, sink estates still sink estates, pensioners still living in poverty.

We know all these things remain to be done, but we should remind ourselves of two things. First, we are working hard as a Government every moment of every working day to put right what is still to be done and we will not rest until we’ve done it. We have made a start but we know there is so much more to do. Second, every bit of that progress – every bit of it – has been opposed root and branch by today’s Conservative Party, every bit of it delayed in the House of Lords by Tory hereditary peers, every last line of it fought over by the ever-more extreme sect that is now the Tory Party in the House of Commons.

That is the choice, not between this New Labour Government and some fantasy Government where no hard decisions are ever taken and everything is put right overnight. The choice is between a New Labour Government, trying our best to put right 20 years of Conservative Government, and a Conservative Party that is worse than they were before and if they ever got the chance would reverse every bit of progress and change we have made in the last two years, be in no doubt about that whatever.

There is another thing: for the first time in 20 years, yes, trade union leaders come to Downing Street. They are consulted, they are listened to, just as the CBI are. No favours but fairness, equality – exactly what we promised. Yes, we are New Labour. You run the unions, we run the Government and we will never confuse the two again. Yes, we are not going back to the old days of secondary action, mass pickets and all the rest, but don’t let anyone pretend that this is not a Labour Government delivering for ordinary working people in this country because we are and we need your help to do it. The moment we ever go down that road of betrayal, we all know the destination as well. This is what will happen if we ever listen to it, not a left-wing Labour Government but a right-wing Tory Government and that is not what this country needs.

It is necessary to say this because whenever the myth of “What has the Government done for us, what has New Labour done for us?” is raised, we have to dispel it, otherwise our supporters are told the myth but not the reality. I know that remarks that are made are often misinterpreted. You don’t have to tell me – I have got the scars in my back to prove it!

But actually I know that the vast majority of you here today don’t share the sentiment of betrayal. You do recognise the change that we have brought about. Yes, you would like us to go quicker and further, and there will inevitably be disagreements, but I believe in many ways we have today a better, clearer relationship than ever before between trade unions and Labour Party, between trade unions and Government. We share many of the same goals and values, but we are not in each other’s pockets. We have both matured. We have both changed, and for good.

Because when we are attacked as having ‘sold out’, it is largely not because of what we have done or what we are, but because of what we are not. We are not as a Government, or as a Labour Party today, anti-business or anti-wealth. We enjoy good relations with business. We are in favour of wealth creation. We celebrate British entrepreneurial success. Many successful business people support New Labour, and we are proud of it.

The real criticism is that we are not out there jabbing our finger at the ‘bosses’, engaged in old-fashioned class-war rhetoric and all the rest of what used to be standard stuff for conference speeches (and occasionally still is) and it is for good reason. Business and employees, your members, aren’t two nations divided. That is old-style thinking, that is the thinking of the past. Business and employees, your members, work best when they work together for their common interests, when they’ve got one direction and one purpose. So I make no apology for saying that New Labour does strongly support business, but it is absurd to suggest that supporting business means somehow we don’t support employment or we don’t support employees or we don’t support trade unions. When we back business, we are supporting employees and employment. When we support employees and employment, we are backing business.

On the Working Time Directive, for instance, the Government is accused by the TUC of listening to the CBI. Let me answer that charge by pleading guilty. Yes, we did talk to the CBI. The Government is accused by the CBI of talking to the TUC. Let me answer that charge too by pleading guilty. Yes, we did talk to the TUC. Curiously enough, we talked to both TUC and CBI, and to lots of others too. That is because we are, and should be, a Government that listens, a Government which includes all sides in the argument. But it is a Government too which ultimately must make the final decision, not a decision for one side or a decision for the other – those are, indeed, the sterile ways of the past – but a Government that takes decisions for the whole country. I will say that here today at the TUC and I will say that in November at the CBI conference, because taking decisions for the whole country is what we have been about since May 1997, and it is what we will continue to do now.

You, in your way, are doing precisely the same. Of course you will resist bad employment practices, of course, in certain circumstances, there is going to be conflict but your emphasis today is on partnership with your employers, recognising the common interest you both have in producing quality goods or delivering quality services. We have both been – TUC and Labour – politically liberated and as a result we both do a better job. We have actually done more as a Labour Government in two years than virtually any of our predecessors, and the trade union Movement’s standing today is higher than it has been for decades.

That political liberation was necessary, not necessary simply to win but necessary in a far more profound sense, necessary to achieve our basic aims and values. For you, the old-style confrontation harmed your ability to represent your members and harmed your ability to recruit because, though day in, day out, trade unions were doing a thoroughly responsible job, though in fact, not in myth, most unions were preventing strikes not calling them, though on the ground away from the media profile employers and unions were actually co-operating, because the profile was different, the perception based on some reality of a politically charged, highly confrontational trade union Movement, it did nothing but damage. Now the perception and reality are different and, as a result, this union Movement today is once again recruiting.

When the TUC and CBI discussed how the new laws on recognition would work, I was struck by how you were both clear that the mere presence of the law would encourage voluntary recognition. We can already see this happening, and it is clear that unions are helping to make it happen. There is a huge change in industrial relations. That partnership message that you have spearheaded is actually spreading. The days of mass meetings in car parks and readiness to strike have gone for good, but that does not mean that employers should ride roughshod over their staff. Modern organisations have to succeed in today’s competitive-orientated society. Your insight is that they will do that best when they take their staff with them, when they work with their staff, when they treat their staff as partners in the enterprise and that is the appeal of that partnership message.

Sceptical employers – and there are a few – should just look at the many successful companies who say that the partnership they have with their staff is not just good for employees but benefits their business through good and bad times. As I said in your TUC partnership report, “Britain works best when business and unions work together”. So that is a huge change that you have brought about.

The same was true for us as a Labour Party. Though, in fact, Labour Governments were often clearing up an appalling financial mess inherited from Tory Governments, we were perceived, it was the common myth, you will remember finding it on the doorstep from time to time, that we were somehow financially irresponsible and we would expend masses of our political credibility, political energy, doing things we felt we had to for reasons of ideology which obscured the true aims of social justice that we really care about.

Take the New Deal: it is the biggest ever programme spending money, £3.6 billion, getting people who have languished on the dole for months and years back into work. It is being done, however, with the support and active participation of employers. It is helping get welfare bills down but, more important, it is giving real hope and opportunity to thousands previously denied it. It is social justice in action and isn’t it a far better way to do it with employers helping us, with the country behind us? When we introduced the minimum wage, isn’t it a good thing that we should be proud of, that now today many employers in the country actually support it?

In May I addressed a joint TUC-CBI conference on work and industrial relations. I think it was not just constructive and serious, it was a ground-breaking conference. What has happened is that at long last our belief in social justice has become allied to modernity. In history that is, in fact, what has always allowed people from the centre and centre-left political persuasion to advance. We have always advanced when the belief in justice has been allied to a commitment to the future, to progress, and that is the challenge we have risen to.

But – and this is my message to you today – this challenge never stops. The real point I want to make is that we now face a bigger challenge in this country than ever before. We can rise to it but not if we under-estimate its scale or its scope, and that challenge is the challenge of the new economy. The economic world around us is changing so rapidly, the pace of technological advance is so fundamental, the revolution in communications and business practice so pervasive we cannot as a country sit still. We cannot rest on our laurels. Our country needs us as a government to be fully alive to the threats and opportunities of a future that is upon us, and your members need you to help equip them and help them cope with this massive economic change, with this new economy.

I want to see trade unions as partners in this change, not as enemies but as champions even of this change. Together – Government, people, business, trade unions – we have to address the challenge of this new economy, and I say to you in all seriousness this challenge of the new economy is the fundamental issue of our times. It does not grab the headlines but it will make the history.

Yesterday when I was in Cambridge I saw the huge potential of the Internet and electronic commerce to transform business, and not just business but the public sector too. Today, all right, it is only a minority of people who are using it, but in years to come, as a matter of course, people will shop, they will buy goods and services of every description using this technology. They will look for jobs, they will book government services. They will use government services through the new technology. Industries will alter dramatically. Unskilled low-pay jobs will go. It is why, to take controversial examples, running the Post Office in the same way, or failure to reform the way we pay teachers or organise the Health Service isn’t on. Without change we will, as a country, decline.

There are opportunities, of course, in this new technology revolution too. We can get better ways of working, of combining modern family life with modern working. You know better than me bringing up children as well as making up the family income, as well as caring for elderly relatives or the disabled, all at the same time is today’s reality for millions of women and men, and it can be hell. We have to use the changes that are coming to find new and better ways of working to improve people’s lives, but it all requires change and modernisation.

To succeed in this competitive global economy, our economy needs to be stable, knowledge-driven, skilled, flexible, creative, collaborative and inclusive. Our vision, the vision we have got to unite the whole of this country behind, is of Britain as a knowledge-driven economy competing on the basis of skills and talent and ability, not low wages and poor working conditions. There is no future for Britain as a low-wage, sweat shop economy – none. Anybody who fails to realise it, like today’s Conservative Party, does not actually understand the new world that is upon us.

It is an enormous task. It is why we cannot waste time on outdated ideology, on old-fashioned attitudes or practices. It is why every ounce of our political energy and our political credibility has to go on carrying out this task.

It is why we gave the Bank of England independence in monetary policy. It is why we have set tough new spending rules. It is why we have introduced what amounts to a revolution in British economic management. We have done that in these first two years and the result? – We have the lowest interest rates for over 30 years, the lowest level of inflation for over 30 years, our budget is now moving into surplus. We can afford to spend now, but wisely and in a way that can be sustained over a number of years, but I promise you, if we had not had those first two tough years, if we had not taken the measures, some of which were unpopular, like petrol tax rises and all the rest, to sort out the huge debt we inherited, we could never have achieved the position of economic strength we have today.

Already we have people trying to drag us back into the past. The Tories, who oppose Bank of England independence, who accused us of putting the country into recession last year and have had to eat their words, are now already spending what they call Gordon Brown’s war chest. I tell you, start back on that road and we’ll end up where the Tories put us – boom and bust. In today’s global financial markets, prudence is the only course and we are going to stick to it.

I say this to you: New Labour, not the Tories, is the Party of economic competence in Britain today and I am proud that we have achieved that record for ourselves, proud of it and proud of what it can do for our country.

Stable economic management is here to stay, but it is the foundation. On that foundation we then build the knowledge economy and that is the reason why we focus relentlessly on education. Yes, it needs more money. We are putting in £19 billion extra in the next three years. But it does need reform and modernisation too – school standards raised; basic literacy and numeracy in primary schools achieved; comprehensives that take account of pupils’ different abilities; poor teachers rooted out; teachers pay linked to performance; bad education authorities no longer running children’s education; more school leavers at university; all schools connected up to the Internet and using the new technology; increasing the number of computer literate people (including myself); learning for life; and a £1.4 billion investment in science and engineering already paying dividends is what the New Labour Government has committed to science and research.

These changes are necessary. It is why we need a flexible labour market. It is why we need to remove unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. It is why we need to change and have changed capital gains rules to help small businesses and stimulate more venture capital.

It is why, in my view, we must remain fully engaged with change in Europe, now a vast single market of 360 million people. We must be leading partners in shaping the Europe of the future, sensible and positive about the single currency whilst maintaining the economic conditions for British participation, and we must leave behind us for ever the disastrous isolation of the Conservative years to which today’s Conservative Party wants to return us.

We must achieve all these things and it is why we need you, the trade unions, to be at the forefront of this change, driving it on, making sure it works for your members, delivering that partnership. We will give the help and support that we can. It is why we gave £5 million to form the new trade union Partnership Fund, why David Blunkett is making available an additional £2 million to establish a Union Learning Fund. To represent the employees of the future we need trade union officials who understand that future and the challenges it presents.

Following our conference in May, I would like to propose a joint Government-CBI-TUC Conference specifically on the knowledge economy early next year, where we think through the consequences of this technological revolution and what it means for us in our working lives.

Your own Millennial Challenge shows you in pretty stark terms that union membership isn’t there as much as it should be in the growth areas of employment. John Monks said yesterday that he was ambitious for unions to be as relevant to the jobs of the future as you were at the birth of trade unionism to jobs in the mines, mills and factories of industrial Britain. He is right. You can seize the opportunity to be part of the modern economy and the modern Britain I want to see created. That is the vision of which you can be a part – an economy and a country which has at its heart success and achievement but social justice too; an economy which sees no gap but the vital connection between competitiveness and compassion; an economy which praises entrepreneurship and promotes opportunity for everyone; an economy and a country which wants to see business do well with employment growing and one which wants to see help for those who need it and the way clear for those who can make it and do well; an economy and a country which can compete in the modern world and which can ensure that as many as possible are ready and able to contribute to that modern world.

A hundred years ago, at the turn of the century, the Labour Representation Committee was formed, and at the 1906 general election a fledgling Labour Party, 29 MPs, was elected to Parliament. At the heart of this historic partnership between trades unions and Labour Members of Parliament was a passionate desire to end the squalor of long hours and low pay, dangerous working conditions, to put an end to slum housing, poor health care, inadequate education. We have achieved so much with successive Labour Governments and with the unsung work of countless volunteers working for the Labour Movement.

That spirit of the beginning of this century, the spirit of fairness and of justice, and the anger at waste and the lives of unfilled potential, those values and that spirit drive us still. But I have to say to you, in all frankness, it should not have taken us, should it, 98 years to achieve a national minimum wage? It should not have taken us that long to achieve many of the basic rights that we now have and that is why we must all be even more ambitious for the next century, and that means making the next century one that is not dominated by the Conservative Party. That is our ambition because this century has been. If you look back on this century, three-quarters of it has been dominated by Conservative Governments and we ourselves spent 18 long years in opposition whilst the Conservatives did whatever they liked to our country in Government.

So if you think from time to time I get a bit too restless to make sure we win a second term of a Labour Government, if from time to time you think I am a bit too hard in knocking down those who I think are being irresponsible and wrecking our chances of achieving that second Labour Government I tell you, a Labour Government is always better for this country than a Tory Government.

I remember the very worst thing about those 18 years. It was sitting there, day in, day out, in the House of Commons, winning the argument, losing every vote and ending up being completely and totally powerless to prevent the decimation of parts of our country, to prevent 3 million unemployed growing up and being taken as a matter of course, powerless to prevent the poll tax, powerless to prevent every single part of rights being taken away from working people, powerless to prevent a two-nation Britain growing up around us.

So when we look at what we have done in our two years, I believe we have a lot to be proud of, but I am not so naive as to think we can transform the whole of the world in one term of a Labour Government. We need more than one term to succeed in doing the things our country needs. So I will carry on working for that second term. It is why our Government is unremitting in its determination to renew our economy, our institutions, to match the breakneck speed of change in the world about us, and it is why I repeat unashamedly to you that that challenge of change to you here in the trade union Movement, as to us in the Labour Party in Government, is not something with a beginning and an end. It is a relentless process of modernisation with a timeless purpose of releasing the energies and enriching the lives of all the people that we represent.

We have come a long way but our memories should not be too short. Three years ago we were still under a Conservative Government. Three years ago we were setting out a programme that was a New Labour programme and people supported it. Some people supported it, like me, because they believed in it; other people supported it because they realised it was a way of winning an election. What I say to you is that is no longer good enough. It is important we all believe in this because what New Labour is is very simple: it is Labour values applied to the modern world. It is the values of community and fairness and social justice and opportunity for all – all the things that brought me into the Labour Party, that brought many of you into the trade union Movement, but it is just always allied to progress and to the future.

These challenges we can meet together. The fact that we have a dialogue together is a good thing today. The fact that I come down here today and there isn’t some great sense of impending crisis – at least not until I have given one – is a good thing. The fact that you can just tell from the way that people regard our relationship today that it is a good thing. Yes, you will make your demands that we should go further and do more, of course you will, and that is your job. You are the trade union Movement there to represent your members and it is right that you put pressure on us to do more and to achieve. But it is right also that we remember how far we have come and how important it is that we carry on doing the right things for our people. Yes, there will be times when I have to say “No” when you would like me to say “Yes” and when I might like to say “Yes”.

People who come into my room, day in and day out, it does not matter who it is, the one thing they always have in common is they always want money from the Government. The other thing they have in common is that all the causes are just causes and the problem is you can’t say “Yes” to everybody, and that is what Government is about. But for the first time, at least in my adult political life, we have got a Government that will listen, that will let people in the door. So, yes, I agree £100 for the pensioners is not enough, many of them want more – quite right too – but it is £100 more than they ever got under a Tory Government and people should not forget that.

There are lots of people who want more for the minimum wage and I agree it would be nice to pay everyone everything you want, fine, but never forget you have only got a minimum wage because you have got a Labour Government and a Tory Government would take it back off you again.

The other day I wrote an article. I had been to this marvellous new Health Service facility where we spent all this money giving the very best care that possibly is there for all elective surgery and people were only having to wait two months and they were getting booked appointments and you got the hospital surgery done at the very time you wanted it, and I got all these letters in from people saying, “That’s marvellous, when can I have it?” I say to them, “You will have it, we will get round to doing it in every part of the country but we have to start somewhere”.

When David Blunkett is starting his education revolution and raising the standards for 11-year-olds and putting an extra £1.5 billion in school buildings, yes, there are still other school buildings that need changing, but at least we are starting and at least we have got our hearts in the right place and at least the policies are coming there that will ultimately deliver the changes we need.

So what I say to you is what I always say to the Labour Party and, in a sense, what I say to the people of this country. This is a Government that is on your side. We will get there, we are getting there. We have made changes that no Government before us, Labour or Tory, has ever done, in our two years of office, but we are going to do it this time in a way that lasts. We are not going to be having two years of giving people everything they want and then three years of retrenching. We are not having any more irresponsible financial policies pursued and then finding we don’t have the money to pay the bills and we are going to chop away the spending in the years to come.

This is a New Labour Party and it is a New Labour Party for one very simple reason, that the 21st century, if I have anything to do with it, is going to be the century of the progressives again, of those who believe in social justice. It is not going to be another Conservative century for this country.

As ever, it has been a delight to be with you; as ever, you probably have not enjoyed everything I have had to say; but, as ever, remember that I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party and to be a Labour Prime Minister. If I am ever tough on the things that I believe Labour has to do, it is for the very simple reason that I want a Labour Government that succeeds not in the impotence of shouting about what Tory governments do, but in the sense of having principles and being able to do something about them.

When I talk about the new economy and the knowledge‑driven society I know it is not as interesting as giving the usual lines on what we are going to do about this and that and all the rest of it (and you know the little pattern that you get when everyone knows you are going to applaud and all the rest of it, sometimes anyway!) but it is important too. When we hold that conference next year, TUC and the CBI, you should really get engaged with it and take the debate out to your members. The technology that is developing now in our country is going to transform the world. We have to have our values intact and secure but apply them to the modern world. If we do that, then I (or someone else) will be turning up as Labour Prime Minister to address you for many years to come.

Despite all the changes and all the interesting people that now address the TUC, I think you would prefer to have us than others.

The below speech was made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on Sunday 8th February 1998 to the Local Government Conference.

Let me begin by letting you in on a secret. My official visit to the US was originally envisaged as being longer than the three days I have just enjoyed there.

But when the dates for the visit were pencilled in, there was another engagement already there in ink – this one. If its Sunday, it must be Scarborough.

International issues, obviously, matter enormously and occupy a very large part of any Prime Ministers time, and I will say a little on that in a moment.

But this Prime Minister and this Government will never forget who elected us and why – the British people, because they want us to improve their standard of living and the quality of their lives and to deliver better services to them.

First though, Iraq. The UK, like everyone else, wants the current crisis resolved by diplomatic means. But we have to be realistic about the nature of the man we are dealing with. Saddam Hussein has lied and cheated at every turn. He is a man without moral scruple.

We want a diplomatic solution but this is a dictator developing an arsenal from which the Weapons Inspectors have already uncovered 38,000 chemical weapons, a vast biological warfare plant, 48 Scud missiles and attempts at nuclear capability. This is a dictator who has sufficient chemical weapons to wipe out the worlds population. Simply, he cannot be allowed to prevent these inspectors doing their job. These Weapons of mass Destruction must be destroyed for the future peace of the world.

Second, Northern Ireland.

I am delighted that the President has indicated he wants to make a return visit in the hope he can give further impetus to a process that could end in lasting peace and prosperity for Northern Ireland.

His message to me, and the message he delivers to the Parties and the Talks, is that the peaceful democratic path is the only way forward, that the chances for peace are real, and what we must not squander the opportunity before us. His message too was that anyone who returns to violence will find no friends in the White House or anywhere else in the US administration. I say to the political parties in Northern Ireland today: put the past behind you, leave the ancient enmities aside and embrace a future of peace. Do it for the future. Do it for the children – they deserve better.

I was also able to use the visit to advertise Britain, the dynamic, modern country we are building, to a wider audience. And I told them, as I tell you, that it will take time to turn Britain round.

Two tough years may not be the most politically exciting slogan. But we came to power precisely because we were honest about the changes we have to make to the Party, and we were tough and determined in seeing them through.

Britain renewed as a dynamic economy and a modern civic society.

We can and will do it. The gains will be immense. But only if we face up to the tough choices we have to take.

That goes for local Government too.

The best of local government is brilliant.

And the vast majority of councillors do a good job, often in very difficult circumstances. But our aim, as ever, must be to do better.

At the heart of our vision for local Government is leadership. Strong clear leadership that gives pride to villages, towns and cities all over Britain.

Strong clear leadership that gets local people, businesses, public agencies and voluntary and community groups working to a common agenda and pulling in the same direction, as we tackle drug abuse, poor health, crime, failing schools.

I picked up the paper the other morning and read, BEECHAM IN MEGA PLAN TO BE WORLD LEADER.

However, I need not have worried. When I read on I saw that the article was about Smith Kline Beecham not Jeremy Hugh Beecham.

But leadership is important and I pay tribute to Jeremys leadership.

And if local government is play its full and proper leadership in local communities then it has to change. It has to modernise.

We are modernising our party. We are modernising government. We are modernising Britain. We must modernise local government.

Tomorrow John Prescott and Hilary Armstrong will announce a new approach to improving local democracy.

Today I want to set out how local government can play its full part in the process. We want local government to work with us in achieving this new vision.

But to do that, local government needs to change. And to recognise why change is needed.

It needs a clear sense of direction.

It needs to improve its role as the key local co-ordinator.

And it needs to make sure that the quality of services it provides for people is always as good as the best.

I want to see change in four important areas.

Firstly, I want to see a new legitimacy in local government.

The claims of local councils to speak and act for local people are too often weakened by their poor base of popular support.

Local councillors are not sufficiently representative of the mix of local people.

Nearly half are over 55. Just one in 10 is under 40. Only a quarter are women. People from ethnic minorities are under-represented.

At the same time, Britain is at the bottom of the European league table on the proportion of people who vote in local elections.

Participation levels in council elections average 40 per cent, and are often as low as 25 per cent. Especially in inner city areas.

Boosting those may mean adopting some new techniques.

Steps like postal voting. Citizens panels. Polling stations in shopping centres and supermarkets. Community forums. Elections every year. Electronic voting. Voting at weekends. Referendums.

Local people need new local ways to have their say. I want every local authority to set itself targets for improving voter turnout, and strengthening local participation. And to meet them.

Secondly, new ways of working.

Many councillors are hugely diligent, spending many hours on council business. I want to thank them here and now for all their work on behalf of their local communities.

But as the Audit Commission said last year, endless committee meetings place too much of a burden on local councillors.

Recent survey figures suggest that councillors spend almost 100 hours a month on civic business – two thirds of it on meetings. Thats more that half a normal working week.

And the more time councillors spend on committees, the less time they can give to doing what is their most important job – representing people.

Seventy per cent of councillors feel that representational work is their most important job. But they spend an average of less than a third of their time on it.

How many people in your area even know the name of the leader of the council? Let alone the chair of education. Very few.

Leadership in local government, as in national government, needs to be clear. Visible.

So in London were going to propose doing just that – by having a referendum on introducing an elected mayor.

And not just in London – the bill sponsored by Lord Hunt will allow the idea to be piloted in other areas.

Elected executive mayors. Dynamic. Influential. With real power. Getting things done for people.

That will allow the leaders of our major towns and cities to be influential figures on the national stage. As they deserve to be. As they are in other countries.

Now I know some councillors are concerned about this. I know some of you may be worried about what role it will leave for you.

Your role will be vital. And it will be clearer.

Instead of spending your time in fruitless meetings, you will be able to scrutinise in detail what council leaders are doing.

And not wasting time in meetings will mean youll be able to spend more time in your local communities. Listening to people. Absorbing their views. And then taking them forward into your council.

Nothing is yet set in stone. John Prescott will tomorrow set out some options about how in practice the idea of mayors would work.

He will as well be exploring further our proposal that a number of councillors in each area should be elected every year.

Thirdly, new disciplines.

The vast majority of councillors are decent and honest.

But we know there have been problems in some councils. We know there have been cases where actions have been unacceptable.

I intend to tackle them. Head on.

Councillors and officials who are incompetent, or worse still corrupt, not only undermine their own claims to leadership – but tarnish the reputation of local government as a whole.

I will not allow the behaviour of a few to undermine the reputation of the many.

The Audit Commission. OFSTED. The Social Service Inspectorate. They all show that there are some councils failing to deliver acceptable standards of service.

Weve seen too often the sad and sometimes savage results of council incompetence.

Failure which may blight the chances of a child receiving a decent education.

Or even worse. Failure which can result in harm to the elderly. Or the abuse of children.

CCT did not address the problem. And it will go.

But dont for a moment think our drive for Best Value in councils will be a soft option. It wont be.

If authorities cannot – or will not – take the load, we will have powers to intervene. We want you to succeed. But we will be ready if you fail.

But worse still than any council incompetence is council corruption.

Council corruption is unacceptable. Not on. Not in any circumstances. Not for any reason.

We will publish proposals, based on Lord Nolans report on conduct in local government, for a new framework of standards in local authorities.

Every council will have to introduce its own code of conduct, based on a national model.

And every council in its code will need to include provision for the investigation of all serious allegations of malpractice.

Any investigations will be independent. They will be swift. They will be searching. And their findings will be put into place.

I know corruption is not widespread. But one case is too many. On corruption, its one strike – and youre out.

Finally, new powers.

We want local authorities to change. We want them to embrace this programme of change.

Where councils do so, they will see an effect. They will see their own powers, and their own status, enhanced and improved.

The Government will want to see evidence of change. Of local authorities modernising themselves.

I see little point in giving extra powers and functions to councils which are not dealing adequately with the powers they already have.

But equally, theres no reason why councils which are performing well should be held back by those who arent.

Increased responsibility. Increased rights. Rights and responsibilities going together – in councils, and across the Government.

That is the message, the clear message, to local authorities. I say to you that if you accept these challenges, if you take part in the process of reform, than at national Government level, you will not find us wanting.

You will be able to play a full part in the process of modernisation New Labour has been elected to enact.

Thats the message. Change – and get involved. Change – and work with us. Change – and be a part of it.

Modern government – national and local – for a modern Britain.

So with the country, if we explain why we are taking the decisions we take, if we are honest about what we can and cannot do, we will keep the people with us.

I want to say two things to you about your Government. First, whatever the day to day news agenda that knocks us this way or that, we will remain forever focused on the big picture. An end to boom and bust, rising living standards, schools, hospitals, crime. Thats what we were elected for. That is what we will do, and no amount of hype or heat from the media will deflect us.

Second, I know the frustration you feel in wanting change quicker. I feel it too. You want more money on schools, hospitals and transport. You dont like interest rates going up. You could probably do with some more money on local Government, you think!

But let me tell you something. Since the war the British economy has gone from boom to bust. Twice in the past twenty years alone, Conservative Governments have sent the economy up only to have it come crashing down. In the early 90s we had mortgage rates at 15% for a year and the largest borrowing in British peacetime history. In a boom and bust economy, one year the money would be there for health or other services. The next it would be gone. No stability. No capacity to think long-term.

One of the myths of the election was that we inherited an economy where everything was in good shape. Not true. Inflation was back. The budget deficit was too high. We were heading for the old boom and bust cycle. I am determined this time we will beat boom and bust.

That is why we have given the Bank of England independence in setting interest rates. That is why we have cut the budget deficit. Within three years I want that deficit gone. If we avoid boom and bust, we can enjoy rising growth, more investment and more resources to spend where we want to spend them. But it cant be done without the tough choices on interest rates and spending now.

On welfare reform, more tough choices. People in need are not going to suffer. We want to help them. But we have to end the situation where there are 3.5 million households of working age with nobody working in them. It is not good for them. It is not good for the country. It cannot be afforded and that is why welfare to work is right and we will carry it through with the rest of welfare reform.

Schools and hospitals. Yes more money, but tough choices too. We are getting extra money in and will get more in if we get the economy right. But they need reform – LEAs, schools, teachers, parents and Government – we all have a responsibility to root out failure, to raise standards and to pursue excellence. Ive said we will build the best education system in the 21st Century and I mean it.

But again, it takes time. There will be two tough years. But if we see it through, we will reap the benefit.

A stable economy with no boom and bust. An education system showing real improvement in results and standards. An NHS that is cutting waiting lists and improving patient service. Juvenile crime cut. The most comprehensive programme of constitutional reform this century delivered. Britain strong again in Europe and the world.

The below speech was made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on foreign affairs on Tuesday 15th December 1998.

I have said before that though Britain will never be the mightiest nation on earth, we can be pivotal.

It means building on the strengths of our history; it means building new alliances; developing new influence; charting a new course for British foreign policy.

It means realising once and for all that Britain does not have to choose between being strong with the US, or strong with Europe; it means having the confidence to see that Britain can be both. Indeed, that Britain must be both; that we are stronger with the US because of our strength in Europe; that we are stronger in Europe because of our strength with the US.

When I launched recently the debate on a new role for Europe in defence, there was an instant rush to judgement in some parts that this would lead to a weakening of the transatlantic alliance. On the contrary, this has been welcomed in the US, by the Administration and others.

As that debate unfolds, and I welcome the support expressed in Vienna at the weekend for our initiative with the French, then it is one in which I will ensure the Americans are fully engaged.

Britain’s relationship with the US has been fundamental to our foreign policy throughout this century. Twice the US have come to our help to preserve democracy and freedom in Europe. We battled together throughout the Cold War. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in NATO. We were at the core of the successful coalition in the Gulf War. We remain absolutely together in our analysis of the continuing dangers posed by Saddam Hussein and our determination not to allow him Weapons of Mass Destruction, on which Richard Butler is due to report to the Security Council in the next day or so.

In the economic field, Americans and British have defended free and open markets around the world, and the establishment of a rule-based international trade system. We do not always see eye to eye – most recently on bananas – but our underlying principles are the same. The links between our two economies extend into all areas – two-way trade is expected to be £50 billion this year. Including services, the US is easily Britain’s largest export market. Britain is the main direct investor in the US with almost $150 billion, providing employment for almost one million Americans. 40% of US investment in the EU comes to Britain.

All this is underpinned by deep-rooted commitment to political pluralism and freedom, by the myriad personal and cultural ties between the British and American peoples, and by two societies comfortable with each other. We remain very distinct and different countries in so many ways, as anyone who knows both can readily testify. But people travelling in both directions find a warmth and a welcome, and an ease of communication, that make them feel instantly at home.

I value this closeness, and the richness of its bindings. It is language, history, shared values, friendship. It is much more than sentimentality. A hard-headed assessment of the value of good relations with the one remaining superpower would lead us to good relations anyway. But I also believe America at its best is a powerful force for good in the world; one of a few countries willing and able to stand up for what it believes. It is right for us to be close and for that relationship to work for the fundamental principles we both believe in.

But to say that does not for one second negate the importance of Britain being a strong and leading player in Europe.

I made very clear, before the election, that a new Government would mean a new approach in Europe. The last Government, despite what I believe were the best intentions of the last Prime Minister, allowed Britain to be taken to the margins of Europe.

We are in the European Union because it is the right place to be. And as we are in, it is time we started winning arguments, rather than running away from them.

The logical conclusion of the Euro-sceptic approach that says everything that comes out of Europe is bad; that says Europe is something that is done to us, rather than something that we can shape; is to get out of Europe altogether. That would at least be an honest intellectual position. But it would be a disaster for British jobs, British trade, British influence in the world.

Far better is to be in there, engage in the arguments, and win the arguments.

There are two forms of Euro-scepticism. The first, for which I have no time, looks at anything that happens in Europe as an excuse to be anti-European. It was a minority sport in the last Government. It is where, sadly, the majority in today’s Conservative Party seems to be.

The second, more intelligent scepticism, realises Europe is of vital importance to Britain, but is anxious about the direction Europe is taking. It fears, if I am again being frank, that because centre and centre left governments are now in the ascendancy in Europe, there will be a return of old Labour.

But again, people should have confidence in their own arguments. I have always believed that over time, the right arguments win in politics.

Enterprise and fairness. That is what we stand for. That is the argument we promote.

My vision for New Labour is to become, as the Liberal Party was in the 19th Century, a broad coalition of those who believe in progress and justice, not a narrow class-based politics, but a Party founded on clear values, whose means of implementation change with the generations.

Enterprise and fairness together. The third way; and those of you who report beyond these shores know that it is striking a chord right around Europe. It is a reflection of the lack of confidence I referred to that the extent of the debate on the third way generated around Europe is barely covered here at home.

We won with the landslide we secured not just because the last Government was discredited but because we combined policies of economic rigour, fiscal and monetary stability, with the insight that the market alone cannot deliver social justice; but that the answer lay not in tax and spend policies, but in an agenda that tackles youth and long-term unemployment, as we are doing through the New Deal, that promotes education, lifelong learning, a skills revolution; that invests in small businesses, technology and infrastructure.

Again, the unintelligent scepticism warned that because the new Government planned to sign the Social Chapter, we would put at risk hundreds of thousands of jobs, up to one million, some Tories said. But with Britain as part of the Social Chapter, there has been no new legislation put through at all. Another scare story bites the dust.

The Employment Chapter of the Amsterdam Treaty was another example. Dire warnings about the business-threatening regulatory approach were issued. What happened? We and others argued our case for the economic reform agenda, and we won that argument.

The unintelligent scepticism saw the beef ban as an excuse to declare war on the rest of Europe. Where did it get us? Nowhere. No nearer getting the ban lifted. No nearer getting help for farmers.

We called off the war, stepped up the diplomacy, spelled out the facts, patiently, robustly, built up the alliances, and got the ban lifted.

In advance of Vienna, alliances had to be built – on employment and economic reform issues with the Spanish, on tax with the Germans, on social policy with the Swedes, on defence with the French, on duty free goods with the French, the Germans and others. We built those alliances, we engaged in those arguments, and we protected and promoted our national interests.

And today I read, in the front page headlines of one of our broadsheets, that being positive and constructive in Europe, amounts to me issuing orders to the Government to “bat for Brussels.” So that when I say to the Government – get close to our allies in Europe, I am somehow batting for Brussels. I see it as batting for Britain.

I will pursue this new approach in Europe not because it is in Europe’s interests but because it is in Britain’s interests.

We have deluded ourselves for too long with the false choice between the US and Europe. We live in a global economy, and an interdependent world. Nations must maximise their influence wherever they can. To be a country of our size and population, and to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power, a leading player in NATO, a leading player in the Commonwealth, gives us huge advantages which we must exploit to the full.

Our membership of the EU gives us huge advantages too, and we must exploit those to the full as well. It requires a new maturity in our relations with Europe. This new Government will deliver that new maturity, and Britain will be the winner from it.

The speech below was made by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in his constituency of Sedgefield on Friday 14th November 1997.

I am delighted to be back in my constituency at such an exciting and important event. Sedgefield is one of the pioneers of the sustainable communities’ project.

Britain will never be a modern, forward-looking country if it is a place whose beauty, character, air, rivers, are polluted, defaced, and contaminated.

To be modern is to be green. It is about seeking new solutions to new environmental challenges. Not just so that future generations have a planet that is still inhabitable but so that all of us going about our lives today can improve our quality of life. And it is about working with business to ensure that our companies and industry are able to take advantage of the huge opportunities that markets for new technologies offer. Many businesses already recognise that this agenda is an opportunity not a threat.

It is also about recognising that we will only succeed if we work together. Individuals, business, communities and government must all act if we are to meet these new challenges. Communities such as Sedgefield are taking the lead.

Today we have all seen examples of people and communities who have decided to take effective and practical action to change their lifestyles so that they benefit and the environment benefits. I am particularly pleased that so many different businesses and organisations have been involved, from Northumbrian Water, to the library, from Fujitsu to local schools, working together in partnership. I hope that many more local communities will take up the challenge.

And I welcome Going for Green’s “Eco-Cal” initiative – a computer based tool to help people measure how green their lifestyle is. It encourages people to recycle, to walk more, to turn their thermostats down, to wash their car with a bucket not a hose.

It will help all of us save money on our energy bills, improve the quality of our local environment-in short how to live a more sustainable lifestyle.

Small changes can collectively make a big difference to energy use. There are so many simple things that can be done when you realise the waste that occurs in our daily lives;

Every nine months households generate enough waste to fill Lake Windermere.

A third of household waste is packaging.

Hosing a car for ten minutes uses almost 100 litres of water.

Leaving a computer screen on all night uses enough power to print 800 pages of A4 paper.

Lighting an empty office overnight is equivalent to making 1,000 cups of coffee.

What these facts show is that working towards a greener country doesn’t require a PhD in bio-chemistry merely a degree of common sense and thought.

Well over half of all journeys are less than 5 miles and if we did more of them on foot or by bike rather than by car we would save ourselves money, avoid causing pollution and make ourselves a bit healthier – in short improve our quality of life.

Our job as a government is to encourage local action of this sort but also to take a lead ourselves.

Since May 1 we have done just that.

In a few short months we have:

Set tough targets on leakage for water companies to meet.

Given £3m to the Iwokrama rainforest in Guyana.

Published a White paper on international development committing Britain to sustainable development.

But I want to do more. I want to tackle head on the serious and growing pressures on the country’s transport systems.

We cannot carry on as we are. We know the problem. Congestion in our cities is increasing. At times there is complete log-gam. Pollution, noise, personal frustration, road rage, as well as extra costs and inconvenience is the result.

That is why we are undertaking a fundamental review of transport policy so that we have an integrated transport policy that makes public transport a real and attractive alternative.

Of course many people will always want to use their car. Often their livelihood depends on it. That is why we must take advantage of new technological advances to ensure that we minimise the adverse environmental impact of car use.

Firstly we will provide £5m of grant funding to be matched by industry funds to help industry and academia work together to develop vehicles that are more environmental friendly through the foresight Vehicle Link programme.

I want us to find new ways of making car use greener.

So I have asked Ian McAllister of Fords, president of the society of Motor Manufacturers, to join with Gavin Strang in setting up a partnership between government and the private sector to find ways of making it easier for the public to switch to greener vehicles, more fuel efficient vehicles.

I want people to be able to make real choices, and choosing an environmentally friendly car should be a real cost-effective alternative. We need new attitudes, so that more drivers think green.

We are also taking action on air quality.

Our first step will be to put in place a National Air Quality Strategy. We will give local authorities the tools they need to assess air quality and devise strategies to deal with problem areas. Local authorities in seven areas are going to be given the powers to carry out roadside checks on vehicles to make sure that all vehicles are up to standard. If this is successful it will be extended throughout the country.

Second, we are going to make information about air quality easier to understand, so that people will be able to judge us on the progress we make.

And we will also use the opportunity of our Presidency in the EU next year to make progress on reaching agreements to ensure that cars, vans and lorries sold throughout the EU minimise their emissions.

This government’s lead is not just about what we can do in Britain but how we can influence the international community.

The government is convinced of the need to tackle the factors which contribute to climate change. Many of you will be aware that Sir Robert May, the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser published a report in October which showed the evidence is now clear.

At current trends carbon dioxide will be present in the atmosphere at twice pre-industrial levels by the middle of the next century and still rising. The IPPC predict this would mean an average global temperature rise of about 2.5° by the end of the next century. This could lead to a rise in sea levels of up to 50cm on average causing widespread flooding of low lying coastal areas.

It is a global problem and needs a global solution. The Kyoto conference in December is an opportunity to show that we and other developed countries are serious about taking this challenge on. We are in the forefront of efforts to secure a successful outcome at Kyoto. John Prescott has done sterling work in the negotiations so far and will continue to play a key role in the next few weeks to press for progress. We are urging all developed countries to agree to take on serious targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

I do not underestimate the challenges that we face in securing a meaningful agreement. But I also say that we should not underestimate the potential threat that climate change poses and it is vital that developed countries take the lead in reducing emissions.

The message of today is that local action by individuals and national action by government can work together to make sure that progress today does not mean a degraded environment tomorrow.

Britain is the country of Constable and Turner; of rural dreams and seaside holidays; of the Lake District and spectacular coastlines; the prettiest villages and the most vibrant cities.

To be modern is to make our historic love of the countryside and of nature a modern day commitment to protect and sustain our environment. In Sedgefield today and Kyoto in December we see two ways in which we, the British people, can made an important start.

The below speech was made to the CBI Conference at Birmingham on Tuesday 11th November 1997 by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Two years ago when I last addressed the CBI’s National conference, I promised a new partnership between New Labour and business. Six months into office, we have laid the foundations of that partnership.

There are business people bringing their experience and expertise by serving in Government, on Advisory Groups, leading task forces, all contributing to the success of Government policy. But there is also great commitment and enthusiasm, right across the Government, for gorging links with the business community. That this is the approach of a Labour government is of historic importance. It demonstrates we are entering a new era in British politics.

I have described my approach to the development of government economic and industrial policy as the pursuit of a third Way between the laissez-faire of the last 20 years, and the model of statist and corporatist policies that used to be fashionable on the left. Neither of these approaches, new Right or old Left, fits the modern world.

The third way recognises a new and different role for Government. Not as director but as enabling of wealth generation. Not trying to run industry or protect it from proper competition; but stepping in, where the market fails, to equip business and industry to compete better in that market. And the market today is global. Technology, travel, communication, financial services are shrinking the world.

It will require us, as a nation, constantly to adapt and change. The third way is to try to construct a partnership between Government and business to help us cope with change and success in the face of its challenge.

Margaret Beckett set out this morning the progress she’s made on building a partnership between the DTI and business to promote competitiveness. Yesterday Gordon spoke of the measures we have taken to secure long-term stability. Later this month in the pre-budget report he will make it clear that removing barriers to growth is central to the task he has set himself at the Treasury.

And beyond those departments throughout the new Government there is the understanding that creating the conditions for growth, enterprise and competitiveness is a job for all of us in Government.

Britain has world-class industries and world-class firms. We have real strengths and outstanding successes. Inward investors from around the world have found Britain a good place to do business.

All this is to be praised and admired. But we should also acknowledge that often the performance of our firms and industries does not match the standards of the best at home and abroad.

Today the DTI has published a report benchmarking the |UK economy – comparing our performance with our competitors. It shows that, while there are British firms competing effectively with the world’s best, many are not. The message is clear: we need to redouble our efforts to match the standards set by the best companies in the world. And ‘benchmarking’ – seeking out and implementing best practice – can be a powerful tool for improving performance. It’s a message everyone in the country and industry needs to heed. Raising performance to match the best in the world is the challenge for modern business in Britain. This is why I warmly welcome the launch of the CBI’s ‘Fit for the Future’ initiative to promote best practice. I wish it success.

But important though these initiatives are, they have little prospect of success unless firmly set within a framework of economic policy to build strength for the long-term. I am an unrepentant long-termist. There aren’t quick fixes to get economic success. Politicians who promise them are not telling the truth.

What we can do, though, is to be clear about our direction and purpose as a nation.

Yesterday at the Mansion House in London, I set out the five priorities of a modern foreign policy for Britain. Today let me set out the basic principles of a modern economic policy for Britain.

It rests on one key belief: to succeed, today, Britain must be the world’s No 1 creative economy. We will win by brains or not at all. We will compete on enterprise and talent or fail.

The partnership I advocate is not some cosy old consensus. It is a hard-headed look at what Government and business need to do together to reach that goal.

These are the principles.

First, we must end Britain’s affliction of boom and bust economies and run a well-managed, tight economic ship. Interest rate decisions taken on the basis of politics are bad decisions which is why we gave the Bank of England independence to make these decisions. I know it’s hard to have interest rate rises and consequent pressure on the pound as we choke off inflation that was back in the system. It was hard, too, to ensure that the July Budget got our public finances on a more stable footing so that we eliminated the structural budget deficit. But I believe passionately that we were right in both cases. Better to have interest rate rises now – still at 7 per cent – than to go back to the early ’90s when they were at 15 per cent for a year. Better to have cut the deficit now than to carry on paying out now just in debt interest payments more than we spend on schools.

Our aim is to rid this country of the vicious cycle of boom and bust that has plagued us for so long. Families, entrepreneurs, all of us feel recession and fear economic instability. It threatens our business, it threatens our job, it makes our mortgage harder to pay, it means we work harder for less reward. That is why the Chancellor and I are determined to take the tough decisions now to ensure long term stability. I want every business to have the security to plan its expansion, every family the stability to pay the mortgage and afford a holiday, every entrepreneur the security to take the risks that are needed to set up new enterprises.

I have promised sound public finances and monetary policy and I will deliver them.

Second, the absolute number one priority for our domestic policy is education. I won’t rehearse the argument. You know it and agree. This Government is making the most concerted effort to tackle poor standards in schools since the war. We have set ourselves some pretty rigorous targets of achievement. I am determined to get there. If we reform student finance – another hard decision, but right – we can also end the cap on student numbers and get resources back into the science and research base of our universities. There can be no first class education system without first rank universities.

Third, we are beginning the process of welfare reform, to encourage work, education and savings. I congratulate business on what it is doing to help us with the programme to tackle long-term youth unemployment. I don’t believe any youngster should leave school and go on the dole. There should be work and skills available and a responsibility to take the opportunities offered. The Green Paper will say more on how we make the tax and benefits system more work-friendly. We are working now on how we reform pension provision for the long-term.

You may say: what’s this got to do with business? I say: everything. Because we cannot carry on spending more and more on social failure. We need to use the talents of the unemployed, not waste them; and encourage work and savings precisely to enforce long-term stability. That is why welfare reform is an essential part of our business strategy.

Fourth, we must keep on looking at how we stimulate enterprise and initiative. The world of work is different today. Many more will work in different ways, in their own business or at home. We will keep a flexible labour market. Even where you may have doubts about certain parts of policy – a minimum wage or trade union representation – remember: that we are consulting business every step of the way; and that taken altogether, the entire changes proposed would still leave us with a labour market considerably less regulated than that of the USA. But flexibility is about more than a light tough on regulation. It is also about helping small businesses, as we are doing. Lifting their burden as with the reduction in corporation tax and especially small businesses corporation tax to its lowest ever level. It is about technology and how we train people to use it.

It is about competition. Who would have thought eighteen years ago a Competition Bill would have been in the first Queen’s Speech of a new Labour Government?

Fifth, we must work with you to renew the country’s infrastructure, especially its transport system.

Sixth, we must get the best out of our membership of the EU for Britain.

On a single currency, I would simply say this. It is important for Britain that the single currency succeeds. Whether we are in or out. If the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous in favour of going in, we want Britain to be part of a successful single currency. And we want business to prepare for that eventuality and make a practical reality of it, as only business can.

To join too early would imply a massive monetary relaxation in the UK at a time when our economy is near the peak of the cycle. There would be a risk of setting off a short-lived inflationary boom that it would then require a long period of recession to overcome. That is precisely the economics of boom and bust which this government was elected to bring to an end. That is why joining this Parliament is unrealistic.

But we must now prepare so that as the point of decision comes, it will be taken on the basis of a clear and unambiguous assessment of Britain’s economic interests. We will put the national economic interest first, and there will be a referendum of the people on the decision.

We have made a pledge to our partners that we will do all we can to ensure a successful start to the single currency in our EU presidency. Our role will be constructive and engaged.

But we will also work hard to ensure that the single currency is set up on a sound footing. We must become Europe’s reformers. Monetary union is a unique and ambitious project. To make it work Europe will need to demonstrate a new adaptability and flexibility. We shall work for that. We will fight hard for a modern and flexible labour market in Europe; and I believe the forthcoming Jobs Summit in Luxembourg will show we are starting to make progress.

Making a reality of the single market is a key priority. Legislation that has been agreed in Brussels needs to be properly applied in Member States. The single market is far from complete and too many distortions in the form of state aids and the rest remain.

David Simon has taken the lead in Government on this issue, he has been working closely with the Commission on the Single Market Action Plan and he will make sure we pursue this vigorously during our EU Presidency next year.

We will fight strenuously for reform of the EU Budget.

I don’t want Britain to become constructive in Europe just by giving in to whatever is proposed by any other European country or the Commission. I want us to be able to persuade for the case for change. But we cannot persuade unless people believe our objectives are rooted in commonsense and reason, not narrow chauvinism.

These objectives – the six principles – are clear and right. With your support they are achievable.

It means setting aside many of the dogmas of the past from left and right. But that is no bad thing. For countries to succeed today, their political leaders must liberate themselves from the old ideologies that plunged the 20th Century into such strife and folly.

Britain is uniquely placed. There is fresh confidence and optimism: fresh understanding of the joys of our history but also the great prospects of our future. There is a new sense of national purpose. Our direction is clear. Help us to get there. For the first time in a generation, I am confident it can be done. So, together, let us do it.