Category: Speeches

  • Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on the Middle East

    Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on the Middle East

    The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2026.

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.

    “A whole civilisation will die tonight”—

    words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.

    Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.

    Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?

    The Prime Minister

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.

    In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.

    In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.

    In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.

  • Wes Streeting – 2026 Comments on Health Service Workers who Worked During Strike of Doctors

    Wes Streeting – 2026 Comments on Health Service Workers who Worked During Strike of Doctors

    The comments made by Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 13 April 2026.

    I want to personally thank all the NHS staff who once again worked round the clock during the BMA’s latest round of strikes to keep the show on the road.

    One of the things I am proud of is during previous rounds of resident doctors strikes we’ve maintained 95% of planned care, improvements in A&E and emergency response times. However, I wish we were not putting so much on the shoulders of other NHS staff or spending £300 million on this strike.

    That money would have been better spent implementing this offer to improve resident doctors’ pay and career opportunities.

    Resident doctors had a 28.9% pay rise in the first weeks of this government. There’s a deal on the table for an average 4.9% pay rise for this year which increases to 7.1% for some of the lowest paid doctors.

    We have also prioritised UK graduates for training places and that’s reduced competition for those places from 4 to 1 to less than 2 to 1.

    My door is open – as it always has been. I am asking the resident doctors committee to meet me so we can resolve this dispute and put an end to these needless cycles of disruption.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on the Middle East

    Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on the Middle East

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2026.

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now.

    The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age.

    A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation.

    Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters.

    Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences.

    Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again.

    We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles.

    We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.

    I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further.

    I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?

    The Prime Minister

    I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.

    Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.

    The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that

    “it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”

    and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.

    The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Statement on the Middle East

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Statement on the Middle East

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2026.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf, the evolving situation in the middle east and the implications for Britain’s security.

    Before I do that, I want to put on the record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today’s report is harrowing. It is difficult to read and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause the families it affects. Our thoughts are with them today. The Home Secretary will respond to the report in full after this statement.

    Last week I visited the Gulf and was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the US-Iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, in this House, for their courage and their service. I am sure the whole House will join me in those thanks.

    While in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, and the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. In recent days, I have also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all those conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times. We should not forget that the nature of Iran’s response—the indiscriminate attack upon countries that never sought this conflict and the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure, with civilian casualties—is abhorrent. It has clearly shocked the region and all of us.

    We must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future, because while the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal, we call for Lebanon to be included, urgently, in the ceasefire. Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear that Israel’s strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.

    We also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation. That applies to the running sore that is the strait of Hormuz, shamefully exploited by Iran. All the leaders I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored—no conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world’s economy to ransom. The impact of Iran’s behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage that is visible on every petrol forecourt in this country.

    My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That is why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war. It is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the middle east—because that is squarely in our national interest. Clearly, that is not a straightforward task, and it will take time. I have met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it is safe to do so. That is why we are working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait.

    I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. The summit will be focused on two things: first, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened; secondly, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. Let me be very clear: this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation once the conflict ends. Our shared aim is a co-ordinated, independent, multinational plan. This is the moment for clear and calm leadership and, notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part.

    Let me return to the impact of the conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant and that they will last longer than the conflict itself. We continue to monitor the effects. I remind the House that energy bills went down on 1 April and that whatever happens in the middle east, those bills will stay down until July. We are investing more than £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September—all because of the decisions this Government took at the Budget.

    However, there is a wider point. We cannot stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience; Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now. From the 2008 financial crash, through austerity, Brexit, covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo—a status quo that manifestly failed working people, who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated.

    This time, Britain’s response must and will be different to reflect the changing world we live in. That starts with our economic security: during this conflict alone, we have capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers’ rights and ended the two-child limit, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. Looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies, because Brexit did deep damage to the economy, and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.

    It continues with our energy security. I say once again that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, we do not set the global price for oil and gas. Households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control pushing up their energy bills. I stand with them on that. We will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy-independent, because that is the only way we will get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills.

    Finally, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have, with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen, of which this party in government was a founding member: the NATO alliance. It also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent’s defence more robustly, and deepening our partnerships, as we have done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde and Turkish Typhoons in Lancashire. Not only is that creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but it is enhancing the way that our armed forces can collaborate with our allies.

    As the middle east conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this statement to the House.

  • George Leo Thomas – 2026 Comments on the Attacks made on the Pope by Donald Trump

    George Leo Thomas – 2026 Comments on the Attacks made on the Pope by Donald Trump

    The comments made by George Leo Thomas, the Archbishop of Las Vegas, on 12 April 2026.

    I am grateful to God for sending us Pope Leo XIV, who is willing to speak truth to power just when we need him the most.

    Pope Leo is calling for dialogue over diatribe, prayer over politics, and diplomacy above destruction.

    We know that he will be unfazed by the President’s ad hominem attacks and sophomoric rhetoric.

    He is doing what every spiritual leader is called to do — to pray for peace, to call for the protection of helpless civilians, and to plead for world leaders to end mass destruction and armed conflict in every part of the world.

    God bless you, Pope Leo.

    We stand with you in prayer and offer you our loving support.

  • Alistair Carns – 2026 Speech at the London Defence Conference

    Alistair Carns – 2026 Speech at the London Defence Conference

    The speech made by Alistair Carns, the Defence Minister, on 11 April 2026.

    First of all, I’d just like to say thank you to the London Defence Conference, but also all of you individually. Saturday afternoon, and you’re all here showing an interest in taking part in defence and security, which is a huge, a huge effort, both professionally and personally, above and beyond the call. So thank you very much for being here.

    I’m due to give the closing address and interestingly, I’ve just got back from Cyprus and Ukraine. Now they’re two very different places, but both tell you the same thing: the world has changed.

    In Ukraine, you see a war evolving in real time. Drones everywhere. The kill chain is now compressed. Front lines that are no longer fixed.

    But you also see something else. A country under sustained attack with thousands of drones and missiles hitting cities night after night, energy infrastructure targeted, families living with constant uncertainty.

    And Russia is not just fighting a war in Ukraine. It is adapting learning, and it’s exporting what it learns. Working with Iran, it’s sharing technology, enabling attacks on our allies.

    We’re seeing that play out in real time, every hour of every day, and we’re seeing the oil price spike to Russia’s benefit.

    So we welcome the ceasefire, and we strongly encourage rapid progress towards a substantive negotiated settlement.

    But in the meantime, Russia has continued its step up strikes on Ukraine, relentlessly and indeed at scale, with around 7000 attacks a day on the front line, and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone, trying to break the country’s will and cohesion as much as its capability.

    And yet, despite all of that, Ukraine still stands. Its economy is under strain. Its infrastructure has been hit repeatedly. Millions have been displaced, and still people go to work, still services operate, still the country fights on. That is resilience.

    It’s not a concept, but as a lived reality, and it should make us all pause for thought. Because if we think resilience is something we can switch on in a crisis. You, I, we are collectively wrong. It has to be built in advance.

    Now I spent 24 years in uniform, and towards end of that time, it was already clear what was going on. You could see warfare changing. You could see the pace of adaptation increasing.

    I watched the 2023 counter offensive on the Zaporizhzhia front, which was fought with courage and determination, stall against 90,000 double stacked anti tank mines and 600,000 anti personnel mines.

    Watching casualties in their thousands, and I saw a lack of resource drive innovation at a pace that was both unstoppable and extraordinary. The kind of innovation that only happens when a nation is under existential pressure, when survival overtakes everything else and for the industry partners out there, when winning overtakes the requirement to make profit.

    And at the same time, you can see we were not moving fast enough. Too often, we were preparing for the last war, not the next one.

    And I came to a simple view, if we did not change a pace, we would fall behind, and that is one of the reasons I indeed am stood here today.

    Drone and uncrewed systems now dominate the battlefield. It’d be remiss of me at the London Defence Conference not to delve into some detail, especially the audience we have here today.

    Now, data, in my mind, is the new gun power, fuelling kill webs and targeting systems across the front line in Ukraine. Now, large conflicts are often measured in statistics, and in some cases, we’re falling into the same trap in Ukraine as a whole.

    But industry is now producing millions of drones. More than 90% of all casualties are linked to drone warfare. 85% of those systems are made in Ukraine.

    Russia is trying to out manufacture Ukraine 7 million drones a year. Just think about the just think about the size and the shape, 7 million drones.

    Now, let me put these figures into a little bit of perspective, because I think it’s useful. Tactics are one thing, but industry and common economics are another.

    On the way back from Ukraine, I was sat in a plane, sort of dabbling with statistics and maths, which is dangerous being an ex Marine, but the rough analysis starts to show the scale of change that we have to go through.

    In Ukraine, one drone equates to a lethality of 22 artillery rounds. Lethality in action, 22 artillery rounds. Now, if you scale that logic up and think not only about the kill chain, but the supply chain behind it, the implications are profound, even more significant beyond the front line, perhaps behind it.

    At the height of the counter offensive, which I mentioned earlier, in 2023 Ukraine, was far between 16 and 18,000 rounds a day in artillery. That’s about 900 tons of metal every day flying through the air.

    An overly simplistic calculation suggests you would need around 57 truckloads of your average truck a day just to move the shells for one day.

    Now, some people will be sceptical about one drone to 22 artillery round stats, and that’s fair enough. Equivalence is never exact, and there are a lot of factors at play, so let me have it. Let’s be fair to some of those individuals.

    At one to 11, you would need 1637 drones to generate the equivalent battlefield effect. That’s two truckloads, not 57. Now for the military people amongst us, think of the logistics behind that. Follow that logic across every part of the battlefield, and you begin to grasp the scale of the challenge that is now required, not tomorrow, but now.

    So what? There are still those who say we will fight differently, that Ukraine offers, in some cases, false lessons, that fifth and sixth generation capability will prevail. In some cases, they’re right, but I would argue they’re also wrong. We will have no choice but to adapt. But it’s not either, either or. It’s a blend. It’s a high, low mix.

    We must continue to learn, but increasingly we must begin to act. My simple vignette and simple maths demonstrate the impact innovation has on logistics.

    But what does that mean for every other factor in the battlefield, our industry, our innovation moves, our supply chains, they all need to see the new reality and adapt now.

    If Ukraine is the teacher that has taught us economics of modern warfare, Iran is the headmaster that’s just hit us with the ruler and told us to listen.

    The economics of warfare matter, and we must learn and act now and act together. The consequences of ignoring these lessons will be grievous.

    In the future, if Russia looks over a NATO, a JEF or an allied border and sees a force that has not adapted to the lessons of Ukraine, it will not see deterrence.

    It will see opportunity. Deterring a country that has taken over a million casualties, more casualties in America took in the entire Second World War, is a challenge, and I’m unsure that we collectively can comprehend what that means.

    Part of that is not viewing resilience just about military capability, something Ukraine has learned, but defining how a country understands its strength.

    Indeed, resilience is much more multifaceted. And we often talk about defence – bombs, bullets, ships, planes – but the reality is the economy, the NHS and education, we often talk about being separate. Well, they are not.

    You can spend billions on defence, but if families are struggling in the economy is under strain, you’re kidding yourself about how strong this country really is.

    And here I speak as a lad from Aberdeen who joined up pretty much straight out of school with a mum who fought hard to bring me and my brothers and sisters up in some pretty bleak times.

    Understanding that is part of what defines me as a politician and my approach to leadership as a Minister in the Ministry of Defense.

    Because strength is not just what sits on the front line. It’s what sits behind it, and indeed underneath it.

    And what this period is exposing us is that parts of that underlying system are more fragile than we’ve been prepared to admit.

    If families are one bill away from trouble, the country is not stable. And in a more volatile energy environment, those pressures can increase quickly.

    If the NHS is not working, people cannot work. If families come under pressure, growth slows. If young people do not have real roots into skills at work, we weaken over time.

    Ukraine shows us the other side of that equation, a country under immense pressure, where the cost of living has surged, where infrastructure has been damaged, and yet where resilience holds.

    We should not assume we would respond in the same way, unless we build that resilience now.

    So when we talk about readiness, we need to think more broadly. Yes, it’s about capable Armed Forces, and of course, supporting Ukraine with 4.5 billion in military assistance over the last year. On NATO’s eastern flank, in the high north and, of course, across the Middle East.

    But readiness today and resilience today is about how quickly we can also adapt, how quickly you can learn, and whether you can scale when it matters.

    And I keep coming back to Ukraine, because there are so many lessons, drones account for the largest proportion of battlefield effects.

    The first time since the First World War, artillery has been overtaken as the major contributor to casualties, where relatively cheap systems can destroy high value exquisite targets, where innovation cycles are measured in weeks, not months, definitely not years.

    This is not niche capability. This is the future of warfare. This is why we’re investing 4 billion in uncrewed systems, why we’re building an integrated targeting network, and why we’re working directly with Ukraine.

    Because readiness is not just what you buy, it’s how fast you learn. The battle space now includes infrastructure, energy networks, data communication, supply chains and the digital layer that sits across it.

    And what we’re seeing now is that disruption is one part of the system does not stay contained. It moves, it compounds and it takes time to work through.

    And in some cases, the second order effects of disruption are more far more consequential than the initial shock. Damage to production, processing and transport infrastructure does not resolve quickly, even when the immediate crisis passes, the effect continues to be felt.

    Too often we assume systems will snap back nice and quickly, back to where they were. Well they rarely do, which means resilience is not just about absorbing the first shock, it’s about sustaining through what follows next.

    That has implications for how we think about energy security, about domestic capability, and about how much risk we’re prepared to carry on critical parts of the system.

    Industry and capital and the state cannot do this alone. We need private capital at scale to build capability and capacity to drive innovation and to accelerate delivery.

    Because in the end, wars are not won on paper. They’re won by what you can produce and indeed how quickly you can produce it.

    Now there’s one thing worse than working with allies, and that’s working without them, and our alliances remain decisive.

    Russia remains the primary threat to European security, further underlined by the Defence Secretary on Thursday who exposed just their latest hostile naval activity.

    And we have to be clear, the war in Ukraine, the tactics used by Iran are separate. They are connected through shared technology, through shared and aligned interests, and through pressure they place on our economics and energy systems.

    Our response is clear. It’s NATO first, but not NATO only. We lead with allies across Europe, across the JEF and beyond, because readiness is a collective.

    And for those of you here from the United States, let me say this, the UK and US relationship is not measured in commentary.

    It is measured in what we do and what we have done, in the depth of our integration, in the intelligence and operations we have shared, and indeed in our history, in the capabilities we developed together, and in the access and support we provide from the North Atlantic to the systems that underpin the very foundations of modern warfare.

    Friends can disagree. We’ve been here before: Vietnam, the Falklands. In reality is our cooperation is continuous. It’s deeply embedded across our economy, our industry, our culture and our militaries, and it will take more than a year or two to pull that apart. The answer is, united, we are stronger. That’s the reality.

    And finally, but perhaps the most important point: people.

    You can have the best equipment in the world, but if people do not feel valued, you will not get the best out of them. That’s why pay matters. Housing matters.

    Families matter because readiness is about sustaining a force, not just generating one. And we’re seeing the results: recruitment up, outflow down.

    Because if you want a ready force, you have to build a country that supports it. So let me finish, perhaps where I started.

    Our people are ready. They are capable. They are delivering.

    But readiness is not a fixed state. It is something you build, and you have to rebuild it continuously over time. It runs through everything we do in our Armed Forces, yes, but just as much in our economy, our infrastructure and indeed, the resilience of our society.

    You can spend billions in defence, but if the country underneath is not strong, it will not hold.

    Our job in this government is to build both and a country that is secure and a country that is strong enough to sustain the security. That is what readiness and resilience really mean.

    And if we get this wrong, if we fail, we increase the chances of war. Let’s be absolutely clear, we increase the chances of conflict by not being ready, and we will, if we don’t get it right, find ourselves on the wrong side of history. Thank you.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2026 Comments on Péter Magyar’s Victory in Hungarian Elections

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2026 Comments on Péter Magyar’s Victory in Hungarian Elections

    The comments made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 12 April 2026.

    Hungary has chosen Europe.

    Europe has always chosen Hungary.

    A country reclaims its European path.

    The Union grows stronger.

    Hungary has chosen Europe.

    Europe has always chosen Hungary.

    A country returns to its European path.

    The Union grows stronger.

  • Ed Davey – 2026 Comments on JD Vance

    Ed Davey – 2026 Comments on JD Vance

    The comments made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 12 April 2026.

    Has anyone noticed that wherever JD Vance goes, he just makes a mess.

    In Munich he insulted European allies. In Greenland he turned everyone against Trump. And now he’s helped Viktor Orbán lose re-election.

    Maybe better to spend more time on the couch Vice President?

  • Alastair Campbell – 2026 Comments on Péter Magyar’s Victory in Hungary

    Alastair Campbell – 2026 Comments on Péter Magyar’s Victory in Hungary

    The comments made by Alastair Campbell on 12 April 2026.

    What fantastic news from Hungary. Proof that if you stand up to it right wing kleptocratic populist authoritarianism can be beaten. Orban will now flee somewhere with his wealth. But this is more than a bad night for him. It is a bad night for Putin who as in Moldova spent a fortune trying to rig it. It is a bad night for Trump. It is a bad night for Vance and Rubio who believed that their mere presence in Budapest would swing the vote Orban’s way. They helped Magyar!

    It is a bad night for Farage the AfD and Le Pen because it shows that when their brand of politics is exposed to serious opposition and scrutiny it collapses. Magyar is far from the perfect leader but my God he deserves all the congratulations coming his way for ousting Orban and showing how it can be done. He now has the tough job of dismantling the corrupt systems and bodies installed over 16 years. The people of Hungary deserve our thanks for showing these people can be beaten. And Zelensky now deserves far greater support from Europe.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2026 Mansion House Speech

    Yvette Cooper – 2026 Mansion House Speech

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in London on 9 April 2026.

    Here this evening we’ve had a chance to talk together at a very turbulent time. At a time when I’ve had the privilege of being the Foreign Secretary for seven months, months that feel as though time has really sped up, at a time when there are conflicts and crises happening all over the world.

    A time when these are not just remote events in distant lands, but upheavals that reverberate here at home, impacting directly on the cost of living for families right across the UK.

    So I want to reflect a bit tonight on how UK foreign policy needs to respond to the scale and the pace of the turbulence that affects us all.

    But let me start first with the current crisis in the Middle East. Because the news on Tuesday night that a ceasefire agreement had been reached between the US, Israel and Iran was very welcome.

    A vital step to delivering some security and stability for the region, to get international shipping moving again, the global economy moving again, and to easing the pressures on the cost of living here at home. But there is so much work still to do.

    We took a very different view from the United States and Israel at the start of this conflict. When their action got underway, we faced a choice, and we considered those issues carefully: the need for a clear plan, the risks of escalation, the potential economic consequences, and the lawful basis for any action.

    And we made the choice not to provide support for the initial strikes or to get drawn into offensive action.

    That was the decision Prime Minister Keir Starmer took – calm and clear and guided by UK interests and UK values.

    A different party in power with a different Prime Minister in Downing Street might have taken a different decision. And governments are judged by the decisions they make and the instincts that guide them in moments of grave crisis.

    And so, in those crucial hours on the morning of the 28th February, when other parties were demanding to know why we were not taking part in the strikes on Iran, this government stayed calm and held firm.

    Because we have learned the lessons from the recent past, especially from Iraq, and no matter what the pressure from other parties or other countries, we do not believe it is right to outsource our foreign policy to anyone.

    That is what the British public should rightly expect of their leaders, to take independent decisions according to the UK national interest and UK values.

    And so, we have not engaged in offensive action, but what we have done is provide defensive support to our partners in the Gulf who faced reckless Iranian attacks.

    That is why British jets have been in the skies defending countries who played no role in this conflict and where hundreds of thousands of British citizens live and visit.

    I want to pay tribute to our RAF pilots and UK service personnel for all they are doing to keep people safe.

    We provided basing support to the US against the Iranian ballistic missile launchers that were pointed at the Gulf and at international shipping in the Strait.

    And alongside that international defensive action in our national interest, here at home we’ve worked to support UK households under pressure, including cuts to energy bills and extending the freeze on fuel duty, to provide reassurance and security at a difficult time.

    And we have been working internationally, both for a swift resolution of the conflict and for a plan for what comes after.

    While we were not involved in the start of this conflict, we will work together to support a sustainable end to it.

    Most important of all for us, that means the restoration of freedom of navigation, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and getting the global economy moving once more.

    Because the attacks on international shipping in the Gulf, the effective closure of the Strait has been deeply damaging for the world – blocking fertilizer for Africa, liquified natural gas for Asia, and jet fuel for the world.

    The trading routes for Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Oman, all hijacked by Iran so that they can hold the global economy hostage.

    But this is an international shipping route. It’s a transit route for the high seas. No country can close those routes, and it goes against the fundamental principles of the law of the sea.

    And here in Britain, the importance of this runs deep in our history, because we’re an island nation, a maritime economy. 95% of our trade is carried by sea. 40% of our food is imported.

    And it was Victorian Britain that pioneered the freedom of the seas, the maritime law that made piracy a crime of universal jurisdiction.

    And today we know, more than ever, that freedom of navigation is the underpinning of global trade, and it matters for every sea, every ocean, every strait, every country has a stake in this. Every industry is affected by it.

    So that is why last week, I convened more than 40 nations from every continent across the globe, all adamant that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz must be restored.

    It’s why today I met with the International Maritime Organization to discuss what the first steps should be now the ceasefire is in place. And it’s why we are supporting and promoting their practical proposals to start moving the ships that are stranded in the Strait and the 20,000 stranded seafarers. It is both a humanitarian and an economic first step.

    And then we need the full and unconditional reopening of the Strait as a central part, not just of the current ceasefire, but the long-term future for the region. Because the fundamental freedoms of the seas must not be unilaterally withdrawn or sold off to individual bidders.

    And nor can there be any place for tolls on an international waterway. Freedom of navigation means navigation must be free.

    The international consensus that Britain helped build more than 100 years ago in support of maritime freedoms, we will champion again now.

    So there is so much more work to do to build a sustainable settlement which delivers security for the region. And let me be clear, it must include Lebanon.

    The escalation of airstrikes in Lebanon by Israel yesterday was deeply damaging, with the humanitarian consequences of this conflict, with hundreds of thousands of people displaced, hundreds of people killed.

    But also, for the security prospects for the region and for the people of Lebanon and the people of Israel too, we will not achieve a durable peace settlement in the Middle East, if in Lebanon, the crisis endures.

    Regional stability and security also requires that Iran must no longer pose a threat to international shipping or to its neighbours. And we’ve long been clear Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

    And we’ve got no illusion about the nature of the Iranian regime, as we saw earlier this year in its brutal repression of its own people and the threats projected through its proxies around the world, including Hezbollah.

    An Iran that is contained is an Iran that can no longer hurt our interests, allies or prosperity or people, so where threats remain, the goal must be to move from conflict to containment with coordinated international action and diplomacy to prevent rearmament supply chains.

    And we also won’t forget that regional security requires progress on the Gaza ceasefire and the 20-point plan, an end to annexation threats and settler violence in the West Bank, and a realistic political horizon for the two-state solution. That is the only way to ensure security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

    Events in the Middle East weigh heavily on us, and it might be tempting or even comforting to think that the Iran crisis is a once in a generation shock.

    But this is the third time in six years that international events have sent economic tidal waves around the globe, hitting Britain’s shores. The COVID pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine, and now the Iran conflict.

    Instability and volatility are becoming increasingly chronic, and turbulence is now the new normal. National security and economic prosperity have become increasingly intertwined.

    The new reality we face did not begin with the war in Iran, nor will it end with a reopened Strait, and I think for too long, the UK clung to the prevailing security assumptions of the last two decades.

    Our country had planned for a post-Cold War peace dividend. Instead, we have an aggressive expansionist Russia that menaces our continent.

    Successive governments hoped that well managed economic globalisation would expand trade, reduce conflict, and a rising tide would lift all boats. Instead, we’ve seen instability, inequality and rising protectionism threaten economic security.

    We’ve got rapid technological change creating amazing new opportunities, but also new uncertainties and vulnerabilities, with undiversified supply chains exploited for economic coercion and the interdependence that has helped make us prosperous being weaponized against us.

    We’ve seen in China’s rise the most consequential economic transformation of the last century.

    And all of this amidst the US changing its priorities and focus with far reaching implications for European responsibility for our own defence.

    So these assumptions about benign international security, about stable globalisation, about predictable international partnerships, may have been well intentioned, but UK governments were too slow to adapt as the world changed.

    Stability and security were taken for granted, and there was too much complacency about the resilience of our alliances, international institutions, and the UK’s role within them.

    Which meant there were short term decisions taken over the last 15 years that corroded some of our strength and resilience; an era of complacency in which defence spending was heavily cut. And in the words of a former Conservative Defence Secretary, key capabilities hollowed out.

    The energy transition was hobbled, and previous governments were careless about economic security, capabilities and the state of our partnerships, including Europe and with NATO.

    We will not do that anymore.

    And so that is why, since this Labour Government came to office, our foreign policy is increasingly focused on ensuring that Britain can thrive amidst this scale of upheaval and change.

    It’s embodied in this Prime Minister’s calm and steady approach, putting security, both national security and economic security, much more centrally at the heart of our approach.

    We are guided by our values and our national interests, but we are not outsourcing foreign policy decisions to anyone else.

    And in place of complacency, a new determined diplomacy, renewing and adapting existing partnerships and building agile alliances too.

    Because it is the work that we do abroad, the partnerships that we build across the world, that make us stronger here at home.

    So first, that means renewing our focus on national security and overseeing the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, because hard power is so important, and Europe is long overdue in taking on greater responsibility for its own defence.

    And that’s why we’ve made the historic commitment to spend 5% of our GDP on national security by 2035, honouring our commitment to be a leader in NATO, and our commitment to stand with Ukraine and push back against Russia, our commitment to defend Gulf allies under attack, modernising our approach to hybrid threats.

    And second, just as the Chancellor has put economic stability at the heart of our domestic policy, I’m strengthening the focus on economic resilience alongside trade in our foreign policy.

    Because economic security is the underpinning of prosperity in turbulent times.

    So yes, we’re strengthening national capabilities like tech, R&D, and finance, sustaining and strengthening our steel industry with a landmark strategy and a goal that 50% of steel used in the UK is made in the UK. And internationally, working to secure the critical minerals that the UK needs.

    And most ambitiously, working alongside allies to transform our long-term energy security, unleashing new nuclear and turbo-charging renewables. Because for a century, global energy has been based on concentrated resources, production cartels and geographic choke points

    But renewable energy cannot get stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. It cannot be controlled by one or two countries.

    This is a historic opportunity to reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, and to seize the opportunities to lead and drive that transition globally, so no choke point can hold us back.

    But thirdly, it means being confident about the values that guide us.

    Now be that our humanitarian values, that mean we’re providing £15m extra during this Middle East crisis to support displaced civilians in Lebanon or supporting energy infrastructure renewal in Ukraine.

    Or our respect for the rule of law, for the values that underpin the United Nations Charter, for the friendships and alliances we build and the commitments we make in the volatile global context with rising challenges from great power politics.

    It might be tempting to think that international law and the role of international frameworks are out of date, and that in championing them, we somehow cherish rules over national interests.

    Well, I reject that view, because we’re not just defending the status quo.

    Frameworks of international rules have to be able to adapt to a fast-changing world, just as we’ve argued for changes to the way that the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted to address challenges on migration.

    The role that rules-based frameworks play is vital, and respect for the rule of law is a core British value that supports our national interest, underpins our economic stability, makes us a reliable place for international investment, while the whole world spins around us and underpins our security and prosperity.

    It’s in Britain’s interests to be a dependable power, a country that keeps its word, a stable base for investment and a partner of choice.

    And in order to deliver on our security, our prosperity and our values, in place of complacency we need determined diplomacy that pursues those diverse partnerships and agile alliances, continuing to recognize the vital role NATO plays, but also that Europe needs to contribute more.

    Strengthening our partnership with European neighbours: a landmark bilateral treaty with Germany, deeper nuclear security cooperation with France, stronger migration cooperation with Italy, stronger naval cooperation with Norway, and with the EU, a closer relationship, not just on security and defence, but on better trade terms too.

    And all this, while sustaining our deep and indispensable US alliance. A strong alliance that goes back many decades, embedded through strong security and defence partnerships, including through the Five Eyes, that keep people on both sides of the Atlantic safe.

    And because strong allies are honest with each other, that includes being able at times to disagree.

    But as part of that, it means too moving forward to find new forms of multilateralism. New flexible groups of countries where our interests are aligned, the Joint Expeditionary Force on defence, the Calais group on migration, working with major European players through the E3 or E4 groups, the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine, or the work we’re doing with the US and the Quad countries to secure a ceasefire in Sudan – the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st Century.

    So more than ever before, these fast-moving events across the world are continually and directly affecting our lives, our prosperity and our security at home. And our foreign policy needs to keep up with the change and the upheaval, but also to keep calm in that fast-changing world.

    To be confident in our values, purposeful in our interests, strong in our focus on security, as the bedrock on which all else is built, and agile in the alliances we build and renew for the future.

    Those partnerships we build abroad make us stronger at home. That’s my mission as Foreign Secretary, and I look forward to working with all of you to deliver it.

    Thank you.