Category: Speeches

Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech on Defence Thinking

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Royal College of Defence Studies on 4 February 2016.

It’s good to see so many of you here today and I’m proud to know that we have some 50 nations represented in this room.

Today is a chance for me to give you an insight into our UK defence thinking at present.

But it’s also an opportunity to pick your brains.

Great challenges require great military minds

…and when we have so many brilliant brains in the room

…we can’t fail to come up with some solutions.

Challenges

Let me return to the challenges we’re facing.

As our National Security Strategy identified not long ago.

…the world is becoming more dangerous and uncertain

…with the interconnected threats we’re facing

…increasing in scale, diversity and complexity

Our strategy identified a number of issues likely to preoccupy us in the coming decade

…increasing terrorism, exemplified by Daesh

…the resurgence of state based threats, such as Putin’s Russia

…and the rise of technology, especially cyber

…which as the attacks on TV stations and banks in recent months show…poses a very real threat.

Taken together these dangers are destabilising the rules based order and undermining our security and prosperity.

In the past few months we’ve been also reminded of other interrelated issues putting our system under further strain.

Rogue nations like north Korea are testing nuclear weapons

…and a huge migration is spilling into the Med

…and testing Europe’s commitment to free movement

Response

In response to these challenges the UK government set out a comprehensive strategy with overriding national security objectives:

– protecting our people

– projecting our global influence

– promoting our prosperity

To deliver those priorities we’ve chosen to invest in bigger, bolder defence

…spending 2%, to grow our budget year on year

…and using an augmented £178 billion equipment plan

…to fit out a larger joint expeditionary force backed up

…with new carriers, more F35 earlier, maritime patrol vessels, successor submarines and Ajax Armoured Vehicle.

I’m sure you’re up to speed on the contents of our National Security Strategy.

So let me make 3 points about our approach

Active

First, it’s about being more active.

We need to be able to respond to multiple threats on many concurrent fronts.

Last year we took part in more than 20 operations in 19 countries.

This year we’re maintaining that operational energy.

UK’s Typhoons will be back in eastern Europe for the third time

…policing Baltic skies

We’ll be intensifying our efforts in NATO exercises

… sending more than 1,000 troops

…to support Exercises Anaconda and Swift Response

…based in Poland and the Baltic states

We’re playing a major role in defeating Daesh.

And following the decisive Parliamentary vote, our planes are now striking the terrorists.

In Syria as well as Iraq.

We’re also leading the coalition’s strategic communications work as well

…exposing the evil nature of the extremists

At the same time we’re doubling UN peacekeeping effort.

At Christmas I was in Nigeria meeting our forces helping the government it is fight against Boko Haram.

Integrated

Secondly, our approach is about becoming more integrated.

At a time of increasing demands

…when the threats facing us as a country transcend departmental boundaries

…we’ve recognised the need to take a “whole government” response

…co-ordinating effort across Whitehall departments

That’s why we conduct not strategic defence reviews but strategic defence and security reviews.

…combining our National Security Strategy

And it’s why we now have bodies such as the National Security Council

…providing collective strategic leadership across Whitehall

…on national security and crisis issues

Our integrated approach isn’t just illustrated by new structures

…but by our response on the ground

Look at the way we dealt with Ebola in Sierra Leone.

Our armed forces built treatment centres

…that were staffed by NHS volunteers

…delivering life saving care.

While staff from our development department and FCO

…alongside our charities

…got out into the villages

…to educate local people about prevention.

Significantly, this work and our Afghanistan operation made increasing use of stabilisation units

…combining civilian and military effort to build stability overseas

In fact, we’ve come to the view that defence and development are two sides of the same coin.

You can’t tackle extremism without tackling the instability that feeds it.

Which is why we’re the only major country in the world not just meeting the NATO target.

…but spending at least 0.7% on development

And we’re now applying our integrated template to the policy arena.

This year we’re creating a number of new policy making and delivery Joint Units.

…bringing together diplomatic and defence expertise to develop and implement UK policy for NATO and for EU Common Security and Defence Policy

…joining up defence and the FCO to formulate UK policy on UN peacekeeping missions

…and consolidating our approach to arms and counter proliferation into a single place…here at MOD.

Battle of ideas

But perhaps the most interesting area where this joined up approach is being employed

…is in the battle of ideas

Today we’re seeing countries and religions

…who feel they have been denied their due place in the world

…becoming increasing assertive

…looking to redraw the map and aggressively impose their views

So our security depends as much on winning the argument as it does on winning the fight.

That requires unity of purpose

…and a total cross government response

This is precisely how we’re now tackling Islamist extremism.

We’re not just looking to target the terrorists

…shut down their online presence

…stop their financial support

…and prevent their fighters crossing our borders

We’re looking to call out their extremist narrative

…supporting reforming voices within the Muslim community to put a moderate perspective

…stopping the apologists from painting this as a clash between Islam and the west

…and preventing the fusion of religion and politics…followed by the swift slide into radicalisation

But we’re also looking to do something else.

We’re looking to make our case

…as a proud nation with much to offer the world

A nation that offers its citizens

…freedom from discrimination

…religious tolerance

…and opportunity for all…whatever your class, creed or colour

Challenges

Yet we face a significant barrier in getting our messages across.

Our enemies

…unencumbered by truth

…are able to use social media

…using other cyber tools to instantly pump out their malignant messages

…to distort evidence in a Babel of voices

…while we are hampered by our need to check every fact

So we’re having to develop better strategic communication that allow us to deliver a faster truth.

Taken together our new integrated approach is revolutionising defence and government.

My military colleagues are now having to get used to the sensation of feeling somewhat less independent.

On the other they’re revelling in getting a seat at a bigger table

…guaranteeing them greater influence

National resilience planning is one such area.

Instead of just being called out when the storm hits

…military planners are being embedded in key government departments

…so their vital expertise is plugged into the contingency solution

International

My third point continues the theme of integration.

But it is about integration at an international level with allies and partners.

We can’t deliver our national security goals and tackle global threats without their support.

So the UK is now looking to become international-by-design

…and work far more closely with our allies and partners.

NATO

You’ll see us…in the coming year…doing even more to modernise NATO…the cornerstone of our defence

At the last NATO summit I attended in Wales

…Barack Obama and David Cameron called on the alliance

… to address the lack of investment…

…danger of equipment obsolescence

…and need for faster response

Since then seven nations have pledged to increase their spending and put together rapid reaction force

…with the UK setting the pace

…committing to 2%

… and leading the Spearhead Force in 2017.

But as we look ahead to the Warsaw conference in a few months’ time

… big challenges remain

We need to galvanise the alliance

Not only do we need it to live up to the commitments made at the last summit.

Not only must we provide a strong response to Russia

… and decide how NATO can respond to threats on its Southern flank.

But we have to make sure NATO continues to evolve and adapt, military, politically and institutionally, so it’s capable of dealing with whatever is thrown at it.

In particular, we have the grander…no less vital task… of reinventing deterrence for the 21st century.

Making sure it can deal with

…not just with traditional military aggression but the hybrid challenge…of war waged through proxies

…and cyber attack, which blurs the line between military and civilian

EU

The UK isn’t just committed to NATO.

We’re pressing for a more coherent European security architecture

…that sees the EU and NATO properly coordinated

…with both playing to their strengths

We’ve seen the effect EU economic sanctions have had on Russia

…and the security co-operation that followed in the wake of Paris

We’ve also seen the EU and NATO make good progress on strategic communications and countering the hybrid warfare threat.

But we must sure this new found sense of coherence continues

Worldwide footprint

Besides upping our impetus on the multi-lateral front

…we’re also expanding our worldwide footprint to ensure we can continue having a global impact

When the problems arise we need to be able to react quickly.

That’s why we’re leading on the Joint Expeditionary Force.

… with our Baltic, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian friends

…allowing us to rapidly deploy a specialist force in the event of crisis.

And our fleet of foot will also be significantly enhanced through our UK/France Combined Joint Expeditionary Force which stands up this year.

Meanwhile, our partnership with the US and Germany… in the Transatlantic Capability Enhancement and Training initiative (TACET) which will improve our understanding of the situation in the east and again improve our ability to respond.

Projecting power is one thing.

But we also need to be able to project the influence that can spot trouble down the track

…and head it off before crisis turns to chaos

We’re working hard right across the world.

We’re building a naval base in Bahrain to magnify the support we can provide across the Gulf.

We’re doing more in Asia, getting more out of our forces in Brunei working with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand to improve our 5 powers defence arrangement and engaging regional allies such as Japan and India

We’re reinforcing our on-going engagement with south American defence partners.

And we’re now creating British Defence Staffs in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa

…giving us an enduring footprint across those regions.

Conclusion: questions

But talk of defence diplomacy brings me back to you.

If there’s one thing more important than money or kit to international work

…it’s dialogue.

Only by sitting down together

…discussing the issues we face…in an academic forum such as this

…can we hope to come up with some collective solutions

So in a break with the traditions of a speech

…which require you to ask me questions at the end

…I’d like to pose you a few questions first.

Developing some of themes I’ve discussed.

How can we develop a 21st century deterrence posture with a clearer understanding of the types of activity that can threaten a nation?

How can we ensure an effective collective response to such challenges?

And how can we work together to put out that faster truth so necessary in winning the great battle of ideas?

As with any diplomatic engagement, getting an immediate answer isn’t the point.

Having the conversation is what counts.

February 6, 2016
Philip Hammond – 2016 Speech on Global Uncertainty

Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, at the Savoy Hotel in London on 4 February 2016.

It’s a great pleasure to address such a senior business audience.

Lloyds Business Leaders Meeting
I think it’s true to say that the business and political cycles don’t always coincide.

But I suspect right now is the exception that proves the rule: most of you will be watching developments as we enter the final stages of our EU renegotiation process just as keenly as most politicians.

And I will, of course, talk about those EU reforms later in my remarks: why they’re necessary for the future health of both the British and the wider European economy.

But our EU reform agenda is just one part of a much wider, more ambitious package of reforms, aimed at equipping Britain to compete and win in this 21st Century globalised economy.

As we enter 2016, the world is once again facing economic uncertainty; but this time, unlike 2008-2010, we are simultaneously dealing with a level of global strategic insecurity and instability that we have not seen since the end of the Cold War.

The start of this year of course has underlined just how uncertain the global economic outlook is.

You all know the key statistics.

The IMF estimates that the global economic growth rate in 2015 will be just 3.1% – the lowest for 7 years.

Oil prices dipping below $30 a barrel.

Stock markets around the world volatile, to say the least.

And there’s been significant speculation about the nature of the slowdown in the Chinese economy and the Chinese authorities’ ability to manage it, and what all that means for global growth prospects.

Combined with this economic instability, the global security environment remains extremely volatile.

Just four weeks ago, the DPRK announced the test explosion of what it claimed was a thermonuclear, or hydrogen, bomb, reminding us all of the ambitions of North Korea’s illegal nuclear programme.

And despite the cooperation with the international community that led to the nuclear deal, Iran has continued to test fire ballistic missiles, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile the old adversary, Russia, is rearming at an alarming pace, despite its economic difficulties, and challenging the international community with aggressive behaviour in Syria, Ukraine and indeed closer to home as Cold War-style probing flights test our defences on a regular basis.

The migration crisis in Europe, driven by the civil war in Syria and the rise of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, continues, and represents a real political threat to some of Europe’s Governments.

If we add to these challenges the spread of Daesh and its affiliates to North Africa and parts of Asia; the civil war in Yemen; continued tension across the Middle East; and recent terrorist outrages in Europe and elsewhere in world; and the strategic impact of oil prices on critical and / or fragile countries across the Middle East, it all adds up to a picture of serious instability across the world.

A potentially toxic mix of threats that represents a grave challenge to UK and to global security.

So what is the Government’s response to this broad ranging set of challenges?

You all know just as well as we know, that businesses, and thus, economies prosper when uncertainty about the long term business environment is minimised and confidence is maximised.

We, of course, cannot be immune from the international climate, but domestically we can and we will seek to insulate the UK economy as much as we can through our long-term economic plan. We are continuing the transition from a low skills, low wage, high tax, high welfare economy; to the higher skills, higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare country that we want to see.

In 2014, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7; and in ‎2015 we were up there again, as one of the two fastest-growing major advanced economies alongside the United States.

We’ve grown almost three times faster than Japan, twice as fast as France and faster than Germany.

We’ve backed business, cutting Corporation Tax from 28% to 20% over the last Parliament, one of the biggest boosts British business has ever seen – with further phased cuts to 18% by 2020 still to come.

And, despite the dire warnings about our austerity programme from the doom-mongers and those who wanted to spend and borrow more, there are now 2.7 million more private sector jobs than there were in 2010; and over 900,000 more British businesses.

Living standards are rising.

But as we’ve recovered from the recession, the old structural weaknesses that have plagued the British economy for decades have re-emerged into the limelight:

Failings in our education and training system;

A welfare system that has too often acted as a disincentive to work;

And an infrastructure deficit that will take decades to correct.

And I am proud to say that we are tackling these familiar challenges – starting during the Coalition, despite the economic and fiscal difficulties that we faced, and continuing under this Government.

And all the while reducing the public sector deficit steadily to our target of delivering a surplus in 2019-20.

Reforming our schools and our vocational training; transforming student finance to ensure our universities have the funding they need to compete in the global marketplace for talent.

Fixing a welfare system that politicians – of all parties – have talked about for years, but always shied away from reforming. We’re fixing that welfare system so that work really will pay, all the time, for everyone.

And investing in infrastructure, right through the difficult years of fiscal austerity, and now increasing by 50% our investment in roads and rail to give Britain the networks it needs – as well as facilitating massive private investment in Britain’s creaking power generation sector.

In short, and if I may coin a phrase, we are fixing the roof.

And when it comes to the global economy, we reject the advice from those who say we should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world – somehow isolate ourselves from the world’s problems whether they are economic or political.

In a globalised, interconnected economy, sustainable economic growth will not come from isolation.

We have to engage with the fastest-growing economies of the world, and the economies with the greatest potential, like never before.

And we are.

Through the Spending Review, we have protected the crown jewel of the Foreign Office – our global diplomatic network – and given it a mandate to lead the charge for British businesses across the globe.

Now I know that Diplomats can’t do your overseas business for you. And we won’t try to.

But what we can do is coordinate British business approaches to key opportunity sectors; lobby foreign governments for access and for fair treatment; and help to create the most benign environment possible for British business through advocating and supporting liberalisation and reform in the fastest-growing economies.

We’re reforming UKTI, as Francis Maude I suspect has already explained to you this morning, making it leaner and more focused on the markets where we, Government, can make the biggest difference to what you, business, are doing.

And I can’t mention UKTI without thanking Lloyds for your support for the GREAT campaign, which is has done huge amounts to boost Britain as a brand around the world.

With China, we’re forging a new, 21st Century partnership – demonstrating in deeds our stated intention to be China’s partner of choice in the West; and to do that by being the Western market most open to Chinese investment.

And we are also opening up new markets for British businesses back in China, creating greater access to the world’s fastest-growing consumer market.

And it’s not just China.

We’re building a closer relationship with India, building on Prime Minister Modi’s visit at the end of last year and the agreements reached by the Chancellor and Finance Minister Jaitley on financial services, infrastructure and technology.

We’ve seen exports to South Korea more than double since 2010.

We’re the driving force behind efforts to deliver an EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement that could deliver an extra £6 billion in UK exports.

And now, Britain is the leading advocate, working with the US and other like-minded EU partners, for a new Transatlantic Trade Deal – TTIP – that has the potential to add almost £100bn annually to Europe’s GDP, and £10bn to Britain’s, bringing huge benefits for particularly the City, but for British businesses in general and for the British people.

Reforming the EU to make it more competitive

And a core part of our plans to boost the international competitiveness of the UK economy is the package of EU reforms that were outlined in documents published by Donald Tusk on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister has said this is a deal that is far from done.

And some of the most important details are still up for negotiation in the run up to the February European Council.

But I believe that the framework represented in that package, if – and only if – we can get agreement on the details, has the potential to address the four most important areas of concern about our EU membership for the British people.

The text draft delivers substantial progress in each of those areas – welfare, sovereignty, competitiveness and governance of the Eurozone.

Now I know that not all of these baskets of issues are as important to business as they are to the British electorate and I won’t go through the detail of all of them.

But I do want to address the two baskets that business leaders tell me are of greatest concern to them: the arrangements for a fair settlement between the Eurozone and the non-Eurozone countries in the EU; and the competitiveness agenda.

First, competitiveness.

We all know the problems created by the over-regulation and bureaucracy emanating from the Commission in Brussels that imposes burdens on business, limiting growth and costing jobs.

Making the EU more competitive in the global economy is crucial to Britain’s continued membership.

And the good news is that, after many years of a, frankly, cavalier attitude to Europe’s declining competitiveness, most of our EU partners, and certainly the Juncker Commission – one very nasty recession and 7 years of persistent high unemployment later – do now get it. That we do need to be competitive if we are going to maintain our current position.

The separate draft Council Declaration on competitiveness that was published on Tuesday sets out the significant steps the EU will take to deliver progress in all the areas that we’ve been pushing:

– progress towards completion of the single market, including in energy, digital and services;

– on completing international trade deals, including TTIP;
and, for the first time, introducing sector-specific regulatory burden-reduction targets, with an accountability mechanism, which will be particularly important to small and medium-sized businesses.

Secondly, in the equally crucial area of ensuring that Britain – and in particular, our hugely important financial services industry – will not lose out as a result of our decision not to join the Euro, we have secured the protections that we need.

We want the Eurozone to succeed. The Eurozone countries are our biggest market, and we want to be able to continue to grow our trade with them.

But we cannot allow Britain to be bullied into changes to facilitate Eurozone integration that would be bad for Britain.

We cannot accept the British economy, British businesses and British workers losing out as a result of changes imposed on the EU by the Eurozone countries who now form a Qualified Majority in the EU.

Now, for the first time, in these texts we have proper recognition that the EU has more than one currency, with explicit recognition that further Eurozone integration must not discriminate against non-Eurozone members, like the UK; that any discrimination based on the currency of a member state is unlawful.

If we can deliver this deal as drafted, never again will Britain be forced to bail out Eurozone countries; and never again could the EU attempt anything as clumsy as its “location policy” seeking to limit the clearance of Euro-denominated financial instruments to institutions located in Eurozone countries.

And underpinning these measures is a new mechanism – a brake that we can pull – to ensure that if these safeguards are not being properly applied in accordance with this agreement, the issue in dispute will be addressed at the European Council.

Now as I said earlier, this is far from being a done deal.

And there will be some robust discussions with the EU institutions and with our EU partners on these two baskets – and on the sovereignty and migration issues that are of even greater salience with the British people – in the run-up to the February Council in two weeks time.

But we are confident that we can reach an agreement that delivers what we need. But we are clear that we’re in no rush to do this.

Getting the right deal is more important than getting a quick deal; if it can be done at the February Council, good. If it can’t be done at the February council we’ll continue working on it. And only when the deal is done will we decide the timing of the referendum that will put it to the British people. But whether it’s sooner or later, that referendum is a commitment we have made and a commitment that will be delivered.

And as the public debate on our EU membership reaches its crescendo, I would urge all of you as business leaders, on whatever side of the argument you come down, to please get involved in that debate.

And I know, from my many discussions with business leaders, the frustrations that many of you have with the EU and actions that have, in the past, seemed like an attack directed at the success particularly of the financial services sector in this city.

But I also know that most of you will regard access to the single market, and Britain’s unique position as the first point of investment for many foreign companies into the EU, as of paramount importance to your future success.

And I say this to you: Business has a crucial role to play in this debate. These are complex economic issues and people who work for you will expect that you understand these issues better than they do, that business is in a position to make an objective, dispassionate judgement about the balance of advantage for Britain staying in the EU versus leaving it. And they deserve to hear it from those who are qualified to opine on all sides of this debate before they make up their minds, so that when they come to cast their votes, however they choose to vote, they have done so in full possession of the facts.

Delivering reform in the future

For my part, the most significant part of this deal is not the detail.

It’s something more fundamental.

It’s the fact that this negotiation has happened at all and that, if we get agreement at the Council meeting later this month, we will have delivered significant and enduring change to the way in which the European Union operates.

Because for the last forty years the European Community, now the European Union, has operated on a one-way ratchet.

It has accrued more and more powers from the Member States’ Governments, extending its areas of competence far beyond our membership of the single market that was the basis of the last European referendum in this country in 1975.

But if this deal is agreed and implemented we will have passed the peak of European Union interference in the UK.

The tide will be running in the right direction – and we see more and more people across Europe aligning themselves with our views on competitiveness, burden reduction and subsidiarity.

More and more governments being elected in the European Union countries that agree with our vision of the future of Europe.

The ratchet will have been broken – in favour of a more balanced, less ideological, more pragmatic, two-way mechanism.

Other countries, particularly those in the Eurozone, will wish – and will need – to integrate further in the future.

But Britain and the British people have never been signed up to ever closer union.

We have never believed in the one-way ticket to economic, social, fiscal and political union – the inevitable destination of the Eurozone, if it is to succeed.

And we have never believed that the key decisions affecting how this country is governed should be made in Brussels rather than just up the river, in Westminster.

The draft text presented this week demonstrates that powers can flow back from Brussels to the Member States; that restrictions can be applied to new migrants; and that the powers of Eurozone Member States can be fettered to protect the interests of the non-Eurozone Member States.

But let us be clear: whatever agreement is reached will not be the end of the process.

No-one is asking, no-one is suggesting, that Britain should stop fighting for open markets and free trade if we stay inside the European Union.

No-one is asking us to endorse as “final” or “perfect” any part of the EU arrangements.

Britain can, and will, continue to fight for an outward-facing, open-market, non-interventionist EU from the inside as we have done for years and, if I let you into a secret, as many of our fellow Member States would want us to carry on doing in the years ahead.

Britain is the second largest economy in the EU; and may well become the largest in the next 20 or so years.

And if the British people decide that our future is in the EU, that should be a future of leadership, a future in which Britain shapes the European Union for the future not grumbles from the sidelines about the direction of travel.

So Ladies and Gentlemen, I return to the theme I set out at the start

With a potentially toxic mix of instability in the international markets and a particularly volatile global security environment, charting a clear and certain course is vital to maintaining our economic security, the foundation upon which our national security is built.

Whether it’s the reforms to our tax system, to our welfare system or to the business environment here at home, the crucial international trading relationships we’re strengthening abroad, our commitments on Defence spending and the overseas aid budget or the renegotiation of the terms of our membership of the EU, we are taking the actions needed to ensure Britain’s prosperity.

And to ensure Britain’s national security.

We can’t be immune from external shocks.

And we cannot isolate ourselves from global threats.

But by enacting our bold reforms, backing business, backing job creation, strengthening our Armed Forces, boosting our competitiveness and building up global trade we will maintain and grow Britain’s position as one of the most competitive and dynamic developed economies in the world, and one of the most capable partners in defending the Rules-Based International System.

Business, and business leaders, are and will be a vital part of that success.

And I and all of my colleagues in Government look forward to continuing working with business to deliver it.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016
George Zambellas – 2016 Speech on the Royal Navy

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir George Zambellas, the First Sea Lord, at the Navy Club in London on 4 February 2016.

Thank you for that kind introduction.

It’s a pleasure to follow the Minister for Defence Procurement, and I very much intend to pick up on some of his themes.

But first, I’d like to say a few words on where the Royal Navy stands following the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

SDSR overview

Almost 18 months ago, on a dark November day, the Navy Board met in Scotland to determine our SDSR strategy.

We made what, in retrospect, was a quite extraordinary decision to define a highly ambitious future for the Royal Navy, based around 3 core capabilities of Continuous At Sea Deterrent and Carrier Strike, together with Amphibious Readiness.

It was reasonable in terms of an aspiration for a great nation.

But it was extraordinarily ambitious simply because of the wholesale political and budgetary uncertainties of the time.

Yet, with May’s General Election everything changed, and the first part of our plan looked possible.

The newly elected majority government had already committed to renewing the deterrent, and to bringing both our 2 new aircraft carriers into service, so the big building blocks of our future were already in place, even before the SDSR began.

And then the July budget last year defined a financial future of 2% for defence that gave our plan fiscal depth, perhaps not so much in the very early years, but certainly thereafter.

So, our focus switched, therefore, to making sure that the totality of these strategic promises were met, and that the necessary supporting and enabling components were properly credible.

And that, by and large, is what the SDSR delivered:

8 highly credible anti-submarine warfare Type 26 frigates;

9 new Maritime Patrol Aircraft necessary to protect the deterrent and support sea control;

At least 5, and listening carefully to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, probably more, new general purpose frigates too;

More F35B jets flying from our carriers, and earlier than planned;

Plus the Fleet Solid Support Ships necessary to sustain their global reach.

So nothing fancy, merely the necessary supporting components to deliver these 2 strategic responsibilities credibly.

Balanced fleet

But there are 2 other really noticeable features of the SDSR.

Firstly, we’ve met this objective while maintaining investment in a balanced fleet.The Royal Marines remain the UK’s ‘go-to’ contingency force.

The drumbeat of submarines under construction at Barrow continues, with signs of improved support performance.

Every helicopter type in the Fleet Air Arm is being replaced or upgraded.

There are 4 new tankers as well as supply ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Plus investment in larger patrol ships, unmanned mine countermeasures technology, Special Forces, reserves and all the other capabilities which deliver power at sea, and from the sea.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

The second noticeable feature was that 2015 marked the first time in decades that the Royal Navy emerged from a defence review unscathed. In fact, we’re set to grow, in ships and people. The increases may be modest for now, but soon the government will unveil its National Shipbuilding Strategy. It will set out plans to replace all 13 Type 23 frigates on a one for one basis. This will be achieved, as I’ve said, with 8 Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates together with at least five general purpose frigates.

Those 2 small words, “at least”, are hugely significant. For the past 20 years, and longer, we’ve have to make do with the words “up to”.

Remember the phrase “Up to 12 Type 45 destroyers”, which of course became 8 and then 6?

So I don’t know about you, but I’ll take the words “at least” over “up to” any day.

Carrier journey

And none of this journey and outcome happens by accident. SDSR 2015 was a huge team effort across the Royal Navy, and defence.

Yet the seeds were sown many years ago, decades ago in fact.

It’s down in no small part to the strategic foresight and steadiness under fire of the men who have stood in my place, and all those who supported them, many of whom are here tonight.

And while there have been setbacks along that journey, too often the focus was on what was lost, when it should have been on what was retained.

Because the navy of tomorrow is born out of the navy of today; and our case was reinforced, year-after-year, by our sailors and marines on operations, demonstrating what we offer the nation.

Nothing is more reflective of this truth than our carrier journey.

This year, this month, marks the fiftieth anniversary of Denis Healy’s seminal 1966 defence white paper, which cancelled the CVA-01 carrier project. 50 years.

Some thought, perhaps hoped, it would mark the end of British carrier based air power.

Yet there followed in the 1970s perhaps some of the most imaginative staff work the Ministry of Defence has ever seen as 3 “through-deck cruisers” slowly, quietly, evolved into small aircraft carriers.

And so began what Nick Childs aptly termed “the Age of Invincible”: 3 decades of carrier operations: in the Falklands, followed by Bosnia, the Gulf, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone.

Indeed, those who argue that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are too big, fail to appreciate that their size was determined precisely because of experience gained through back-to-back operations in the 80s and 90s.

It’s now 18 years since George Robertson stood up in Parliament and set this project in train.

It’s not been an easy journey since then.

There were a few moments when it was frankly touch-and-go.

Plenty of people predicted they wouldn’t be built, or that they would suck the rest of the navy dry.

Even 5 years ago, we had commentators helpfully suggesting that the Libya intervention was evidence yet again that we could rely on land based air power for future operations.

Not only had they forgotten the lessons of 1982, but they seemed not to notice when France and Italy deployed their carriers, despite having airfields within easy reach, or our own brilliant creative use of HMS Ocean for Apache strike, which once again showed that the navy does not let the nation down.

And just look at where we are today.

In the United States, the first squadron of US Marine Corps F35Bs is operational, with UK personnel alongside them every step of the way. This summer you’ll see the F35 in UK skies. Get used to the sight because many more are coming our way.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf, our frigates and destroyers have been working with US and French carriers. Our people have been integrated with theirs; in both cases honing the skills that will serve our own carrier centric future.

And then in Rosyth, HMS Queen Elizabeth’s diesel generators and gas turbines are up and running. Her radars are turning and burning. She is alive.

Prince of Wales is catching up fast: now structurally complete; the first members of her Ship’s Company joined last month.

HMS Queen Elizabeth’s sails from Rosyth later this year. It will be a great day for the Royal Navy. It’s the day when the ghosts of 1966, and 1981, are finally laid to rest. The 50 year circle will be closing.

But as you will appreciate, to view these 2 ships as a mere replacement for the Invincible class, or a return to the halcyon days of fast jet carrier operations in the 60s and 70s, is to underestimate entirely what they represent in both practical and symbolic terms.

From the mid-2020s the UK, already one of only three nations to maintain a Continuous At Sea Deterrent, will become one of an equally select few to wield a Continuous Carrier Capability.

Indeed, it was telling that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who announced that more jets would be ordered sooner than expected to “step up the carrier punch of the United Kingdom”.

These ships symbolise our military strength, our engineering and technical ability, our global economic ambition and our international authority.

So thank you. Through the years we’ve stuck to our course.

We’ve quietly and persistently made the case… well, perhaps not always quietly…

There is now a huge amount of work in the years ahead.

But the Royal Navy is heading forward at full steam to where we belong, back as a big deck carrier operator; back at the heart of our nation’s defence; back to the front rank of maritime powers.

Innovation and the future

So in the last few minutes, I want to look ahead.

Those who know me well know that I couldn’t be on my feet without saying a few words about innovation.

Innovation in the minds of some is fundamentally about technology.

But innovation is much more about attitude than technology.

So what the navy, or perhaps more widely defence, needs to do is create the environment in which people feel free to think, free to change, and comfortable in taking risk.

There is no doubt that the world that the world in which we are operating is changing rapidly.

So the utility of innovation, the flexibility of our approach to leadership, war fighting and capability, has at the very least to match, if not beat, what today’s enemy can achieve.

Meanwhile, underwater, some of you will know, and I won’t expand, we have seen extraordinary performances from our submarines.

We have met our operational responsibilities precisely through imaginative, innovative, utilisation of underwater technologies, and all credit to our submariners for their phenomenal performance.

So I just wanted to say that the future of the service shouldn’t be seen through the binary utility of innovation in a technical sense.

It will be through the attitude of our young leaders, and through the imagination of our command and management structures.

And that more than anything else, is our future.

Conclusion

So the SDSR 15 marks the start, not the end, of the Royal Navy’s ambition.

Much of this will fall on the shoulders of the young men and women stepping off the parade ground at Raleigh, Dartmouth and Lympstone.

But the commitment, the enthusiasm, the professionalism do not change.

They have fantastic careers ahead of them, in a Royal Navy now growing in size and ambition, as well as capability.

If I could do it all again I would in a flash, and I’m sure many of you would too.

But the next generation will continue what you, and what I, have always sought to do:

To protect and advance our nation’s interests;

To take the UK’s message of maritime prosperity and ambition around the world;

And, when called to do so, to “engage the enemy more closely”…to fight and win.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016
Justine Greening – 2016 Closing Speech at Syria Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, in London on 4 February 2016.

Thank you Baroness Anelay. I now have this amazing privilege of being the person that gets to wrap up this incredible conference that we’ve had today.

I want to start by saying a huge thank you to absolutely everybody who’s contributed today, and to everyone who’s been working so hard, over so many weeks and months, to put this Conference together.

On behalf of the UK Government, I’d also like to massively thank our co hosts Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the UN.

But most of all, I want to say thank you to everybody here, individuals, countries, NGOs and businesses, who came here today and pledged to stand by Syria in the weeks, months and years ahead.

I think nobody came here this morning doubting the scale of the challenge we’re facing. We’ve heard so many speakers today talk about that.

This is not only the world’s biggest and most urgent humanitarian crisis but its far-reaching consequences are touching all of us. The unprecedented people flow. A whole generation of children at risk of being lost to conflict.

And in these last five years the people of Syria have endured so many horrors – the barrel bombs, starvation and torture inflicted by the Assad regime, the unspeakable atrocities committed by Daesh and others involved in the fighting.

Now, peace alone will give the Syrian people their future back but in the meantime the question that we faced today was could the world come together and make a real and lasting difference to the lives of the millions of people affected by this crisis?

Could this be a turning point and a day of hope for those people affected by the Syrian conflict?

And in the end it all comes down to choices.

And I believe that today we’ve made the right choices.

Because countries, donors and businesses have all stepped up, you’ve all come forward, and we have raised new funds for this crisis to the amount of over $10billion dollars.

As the Secretary General said, together we have committed the largest ever amount in response to a humanitarian crisis, in a single day.

That is a phenomenal, record-breaking total but it also fully reflects the enormity of the crisis that we’re all facing and the scale of the suffering.

It also represents a promise, a promise not just to the Syrian people but to those countries that we’ve heard from today who are supporting them, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt who have shouldered so much of the responsibility.

But we’ve gone beyond simply funding. Because today was more than that, it was more than about getting funding for UN agencies and NGOs to provide day to day life-saving support, as vital as that is.

We also made a choice on behalf of Syria’s children and children in host communities as well. Today the world has been unequivocal: that there should be no lost generation of children affected by the Syrian conflict.

And we have pledged to deliver education to children inside Syria and outside Syria. We’ve pledged to make sure that there’s access to education for all refugee and host community children by the end of the 2016-17 school year. Now this is a monumental pledge and a crucial one – not just for those children and their hopes for their future. But it’s an investment in Syria’s future as much as anything that we’ve done today.

And today we’ve also made a second critical choice on supporting jobs for refugees and economic growth in the countries hosting them.

And these historic agreements with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have the potential not only to open up economic opportunities for refugees – but to create jobs as well for local people, and to leave a legacy of economic growth in the countries that have so generously opened their borders to the vast majority of Syrian refugees.

Finally, and critically, we have all condemned – again – the ongoing atrocities committed by all parties to the conflict. We do not accept them – the barrel-bombing, the sexual violence, the targeting of schools and hospitals. And today with one voice we have rightly called on all parties to the conflict, and those with influence over them, to ensure that International Humanitarian Law is upheld.

Today’s been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis. We’ve offered an alternative vision of hope to the people of Syria and all those affected by this crisis.

And we should take real pride in what we’ve been able to achieve today.

Now, though, we need to deliver.

Today we’ve set the ambition. For the sake of Syria and for all of us, we’ve now got to make that ambition a reality. And we’ve got to keep our promise to the Syrian people.

If we can, I believe that in the years ahead we can truly look back with pride and with hope on what we’ve managed to accomplish today.

And I think that in the years to come, we will truly be able to say that we’ve been part of a historic and incredible day.

February 6, 2016
Harry Harpham – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Harry Harpham in the House of Commons on 17 June 2015.

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and say what a pleasure it is to follow him?

As the new Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, I stand here with a good deal of trepidation, knowing the tireless and dedicated service that my predecessor, David Blunkett, devoted to his constituents. From both the Front and Back Benches, David fought unceasingly to improve the lives of ordinary people. David is Sheffield through and through. He was born in the constituency he would go on to represent, became a councillor at the age of 22, and led the city through the turbulent years of the 1980s. He was elected to the Commons in 1987, moved swiftly into the shadow Cabinet, and finally became a Cabinet Minister in 1997. He fought ferociously for his point of view in Cabinet, and although he may not always have got his way, as a lifelong Sheffield Wednesday supporter he was well accustomed to taking the rough with the smooth.

David carried the views of his constituents into Cabinet, and despite his heavy workload as Secretary of State for Education and Employment in Labour’s first term, and as Home Secretary dealing with the aftermath of the Oldham riots and the 9/11 terrorist atrocities in New York, he made a point of continuing to attend his constituency advice surgeries in person. He was relentless in his desire to drive up educational standards and improve the educational opportunities of all. Throughout his career, David was dedicated to the idea that for democracy to be worth the name, it should be a truly collaborative endeavour, and that politicians should reach out to the disaffected and the disfranchised. I pay tribute to the work of a man who has made an indelible mark on British politics.

Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough covers the north-east of the city and is dominated by the low-rise housing that was originally built for those working in the steel industry centred in the nearby Don valley. These days, employment patterns are more diverse, and many of my constituents work in the retail sector and in health and social care. There is an iron age hill fort at the eastern end of the constituency on Wincobank hill. This was built by the Brigantes tribe to keep out the Roman legions, so clearly our ancestors were against further integration with Europe. Perhaps if they had had the Prime Minister renegotiate the terms, they might have thought differently.

Despite the fort, we are a diverse constituency, but we are a community that faces some stiff challenges. My constituency is ranked 19th highest in the country for the proportion of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance—6.4%, a rate well over double the national average—and the number of children living in poverty is double that found across the UK as a whole. Much of the so-called economic recovery in our area has come in the form of low-paid, zero-hours contract work, leaving families unable to budget from one week to the next. Despite the Chancellor’s crowing, far too many of my constituents are still struggling to make ends meet. There are 6,000 households in my constituency living in fuel poverty, 14% of the total in the whole of the Yorkshire and the Humber region. That is one of the issues I will take up vigorously over the coming weeks and months.

Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to full employment and the creation of more apprenticeships, this by itself is not enough. We need not just more jobs, but better jobs. Our poor productivity is holding back our economy and holding down living standards. I am deeply concerned that the Government have no clear plan for boosting output. What we need is the investment in infrastructure and a properly thought out skills agenda that will not only lead to more stable, meaningful jobs but address the pressing problem of productivity that Britain is facing. Unless Ministers act on this, not only will UK businesses fall behind their international competitors, but working people will not see the improvement in their standard of living that Government rhetoric leads them to expect.

In Sheffield, budget cuts have left the public services that so many of my constituents depend on struggling to cope. In spite of the innovative and dedicated efforts of the council, local NHS services and ordinary men and women in my constituency, people are turning to support that more and more simply is not there.

I am originally from Nottinghamshire. At 15, I left school on a Friday and started down the pit on the Monday morning. I had no qualifications to speak of. It was moving to Sheffield that gave me a second chance at education. It is the city where knowledge that everyone’s chances can be improved has been found in the past, and where I will do my best to make sure that it can be found in our future.

I got into politics because I know the good that can be done by public servants working in the interest of the communities they serve. From the Opposition green Benches, I will do what I can to protect those services from ideological attacks that would reduce them to a shadow and leave those they serve paying the price.

February 5, 2016
Nicholas Macpherson – 2016 Speech on Keynes’s General Theory at 80

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, at HM Treasury in London on 4 February 2016.

Keynes was the greatest British thinker of the 20th century. He had an extraordinary mind. He was a brilliant polemicist. And I am proud that he served in Her Majesty’s Treasury, whose view I shall seek to represent here tonight.

But 80 years on from the General Theory he remains elusive. Partly because he was a creature of his time – the chronic under demand of the inter war years. And partly because his ideas were continually evolving. Keynes was and is a paradox. A liberal who proposed protection. A capitalist who regarded most business people with contempt. A conscientious objector who worked round the clock in support of the war effort.

The General Theory is a masterpiece. It put macroeconomic analysis and policy firmly on the map. It provides huge insights into expectations, uncertainty and the operation of markets. His description of the stock market in chapter 12 should be compulsory reading for economists and investors alike.

It also provided much though not all of the basis for what came to be known as “Keynesianism”: a view that government could not just manage demand but seek to smooth the operation of the trade cycle through fiscal policy.

Whether Keynes himself would have supported such an approach, had he lived, we will never know: the General Theory was focused on addressing persistent depression. Chapter 22 (Notes on the Trade cycle) is almost an after-thought. It was Hicks, Meade and others who sought to operationalise “Keynesianism”.

Now is not the time to set out a defence of the much maligned Treasury view of the 1920s and 1930s. I would merely make two points.

First, the Treasury view evolved over time: as George Peden has shown, it was much more nuanced than some of its critics have claimed. And secondly its focus on monetary policy as a way of regulating the economy, set out in Ralph Hawtrey’s seminal Economica article of 1925 , is still relevant today.

The Treasury policy of loose monetary policy and tight fiscal policy after the UK came off the gold standard in 1931 proved highly effective.

Similarly, in recent years, the speed of the authorities’ interventions on monetary and credit policy have been instrumental in the UK’s recovery.

And so the question I would like to address tonight is whether, beyond the initial loosening and tightening of fiscal policy by the then Chancellor in 2008-09, the Treasury should have made more use of Keynesian policies in recent years.

I will set out 9 reasons why the Treasury remains cautious if not sceptical about an activist fiscal policy. For completeness, I should make clear that many of the arguments apply equally to using monetary policy as a tool for fine tuning: the Treasury has always been as sceptical about crude monetarism as naïve Keynesianism. First, the labour market is much more efficient than it was in the inter war period. Policy since the 1980s has focused on reforming industrial relations, improving work incentives and pursuing more activist welfare to work policies. Just as unemployment peaked at a lower level in the 1990s recession, so did it again in the 2009 recession, with unprecedented real wage adjustment facilitating the maintenance of employment. Keynes’ case for public works in the 1930s rested on his view that nominal (and hence real) wages could not adjust not least because of the strength of the trades union movement.

Secondly, over my working life, there has been a persistent tendency to mistake structural weakness for cyclical weakness. Keynes was writing at a time of chronically low demand but it’s not at all clear that recent experience fits this description. Apart from a brief hiatus in 2011 caused by the Eurozone crisis, unemployment has been falling persistently since early 2010: in the last three years, it has fallen by over a third, while the rate of employment has reached a record high. Throughout this period, until input prices began to plummet in 2014, core CPI inflation remained above its pre-crisis average, and did not fall below 2 per cent on a sustained basis until September 2014. Neither of these indicators are obvious signs of chronic lack of demand, and I doubt Keynes would have seen them as such, while the evidence is building that the growth of productive potential in the UK (and the US) has slowed significantly since the financial crisis. But throughout this period the “Keynesian” prescription has been the same: more stimulus and a higher deficit.

That naturally leads on to my third argument: the issue of asymmetry. For most of the post war period, Governments found it much easier to lower interest rates than to increase them, and to relax fiscal policy than to tighten it. No wonder there was a tendency for inflation always to be a little higher than desirable and for deficits to predominate at the expense of surpluses. Now, Gordon Brown dealt with the former through making the Bank of England operationally independent in 1997. In a democracy, it is difficult to see how fiscal policy could be contracted to an independent body. However, successive governments have sought to address this tendency through elaborate fiscal rules, and more recently through George Osborne’s creation of an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

Fourthly, “Keynesian” demand management is likely to be much more effective in a relatively closed economy, like the United States, than an open economy like the UK. Here, demand expansion has historically fed through into imports and the current account: as Mark Carney recently pointed out, you cannot always rely on “the kindness of strangers” to help solve balance of payment problems. That led Keynes to argue for protection in the 1930s, just as Wynne Godley and the new Cambridge School argued for import controls in the 1970s. The Treasury has consistently set a very high bar when considering protection. Its commitment to Free Trade dates back to Gladstone. And you only have to look at the famous Kindleberger spider web diagram to see the damage protection did to the world economy in the 1930s.

Fifthly, the mythical “shovel ready” infrastructure project is precisely that: a myth. This is nothing new. The Treasury made the same point in the 1930s. But it is more of a problem today given the inexorable growth in planning law and wider regulation. Keynes’s suggestion in Chapter 10 of the General Theory that “the Treasury fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them…in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise…to dig up” would be the victim of many a health and safety regulation and environmental impact assessment today. In short, the lead times for getting public investment up and running are long and variable.

That leads some latter day Keynesians to advocate short term tax changes. Here, there tend to be administrative lags: for example, a change in the national insurance rate takes six months. That takes you inexorably to changes in VAT, which Alistair Darling reduced on a temporary basis in November 2008: that did bring forward expenditure albeit at some cost. An alternative is to increase current spending. But the problem there is that you can only do that by increasing entitlements, or employment or wages. Such changes are notoriously difficult to reverse.

Sixthly, there are the economic costs to businesses and individuals of continually changing tax rates and spending programmes. Businesses and consumers want a stable tax system. It enables them to plan with certainty. Tax policy is best set in a medium term framework, as for example the current Chancellor has been seeking to do with the corporate tax regime. The move to multi-year spending reviews from 1998 onwards also reflected the view of successive Chancellors that public service managers can spend money more efficiently if there is budget certainty over the medium term.

Seventhly, Ricardian equivalence is also relevant to fiscal policy’s effectiveness. A “permanent” stimulus will lead consumers to conclude that it will have to be financed, neutralising its impact. A theoretical case can be made that any Ricardian offset will be smaller if consumers know that a stimulus is temporary. Nevertheless, they are still likely to “look through” the change to some degree, reducing any inter-temporal effect. Whether for Ricardian reasons or because of wider leakages to imports, the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the fiscal multiplier at less than one. And interestingly, Nick Crafts has estimated that fiscal interventions in the early 1930s would not have paid for themselves .

The role of the multiplier takes me to a eighth argument: the sheer magnitude of the fiscal interventions that would be necessary to stabilise the economy. This can best be illustrated either by looking at the extent to which the private sector savings ratio varies year by year; or by the extent to which output diverges from trend. The latter is much easier to estimate ex post than ex ante. But on the face of it, output has diverged from trend by up to 4 per cent of GDP since 1990. Using OBR estimates of the multiplier, stabilising the output gap would have required at times interventions of £100 to £250 billion compared to a neutral stance. And even if a limit was placed on discretionary counter cyclical interventions of, say, 1 per cent of GDP in any one year, there would still be regular changes in policy of up to £18 billion a year. Whether or not that would unsettle the market, it would certainly trigger the damaging effect on economic efficiency I mentioned above.

Finally, I would argue that there are positive benefits (as well as costs) to the trade cycle provided it can be kept within reasonable bounds. As Nigel Lawson has said, “the superiority of market capitalism lies in particular in two areas: the freedom and encouragement it gives to innovation and risk taking…,and the discipline that drives up efficiency and drives down costs. The former is stimulated most during the cyclical upswing, and the latter is compelled most during the downswing. It is at least arguable that if economies moved in a straight line rather than a cyclical pattern, there might, in the long run be less of both these benefits. ” In short, Schumpeter may still have as much relevance today as Keynes.

The Treasury may be sceptical about activist demand management. But that does not mean it abdicates responsibility for economic performance. As the nation’s economics ministry, it attaches a high weight to microeconomic policies that promote growth, productivity and employment.

Since the 1970s, successive Chancellors have sought to create a macroeconomic framework which seeks to create price stability. For the most part the Treasury has relied on monetary policy to achieve that objective: since 1997, an operationally independent Bank of England has been tasked with hitting a symmetric inflation target. Fiscal policy has generally played a subsidiary role, with Chancellors setting it to achieve a medium term objective – a surplus under Nigel Lawson and George Osborne; a current surplus under Gordon Brown – underpinned with a target for the national debt.

That does not mean that there is no role for fiscal policy. In the recent downturn, the automatic stabilisers played an important role in supporting demand. As George Osborne has said “by not chasing the debt target we…allowed the automatic stabilisers to operate and that is a sensible economic decision… That supports the economy in that sense, during a cyclical downturn. ”

And as a pragmatic institution, the Treasury would never rule out recommending a fiscal response if the conditions were right.

But it is no surprise to me that the response to the recent crisis has focused on monetary policy and the credit channel rather than on fiscal policy. In 2008 we saw the advent of the special liquidity scheme, the credit guarantee scheme and “quantitative easing”. Latterly, we have seen the funding for lending scheme, supplemented by other interventions such as “help to buy” – all of which have been designed to reduce the gap between official interest rates and the rates companies and households pay.

If you have a banking crisis followed by a credit crunch, you need to treat the disease rather than the symptom. Similarly, it’s in the nature of a banking crisis that government deficits are likely to rise, often sharply. That is not a time to take risks with the deficit – there are always inflection points when just a little extra borrowing can do untold damage to how you are perceived in the market. Yields start to rise. Debt servicing costs begin to spiral. And that risk increases if you go into a down turn with an already high debt level.

Some neo-Keynesians may write off the modern Treasury view as expounded by “practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, [but] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. [Or] Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, [and] are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” But I’d like to think that Maynard Keynes – who understood markets as well as anybody – would have approved of what the Treasury has done since 2008.

February 4, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Supporting Syria Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 4 February 2016.

A warm welcome to London – and on behalf of my co-hosts Chancellor Merkel, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Prime Minister Solberg, and His Highness the Emir of Kuwait – thank you for your support today.

We could not have a stronger gathering to address one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. World leaders from 30 different countries, delegations from 60. Non-governmental organisations and civil society – the majority from within Syria. UN agencies, international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and more – all here with us today.

And if ever there was a moment to take a new approach to the humanitarian crisis in Syria – surely it is now. We are facing a critical shortfall in life-saving aid that is fatally holding back the humanitarian effort.

And after years of conflict we are witnessing a desperate movement of humanity, as hundreds of thousands of Syrians fear they have no alternative than to put their lives in the hands of evil people-smugglers in the search for a future.

Meanwhile Syria’s neighbours are struggling under the strain of hosting huge numbers of refugees, and trying to maintain services, and create jobs for their own people.

Of course, the long-term solution to the crisis in Syria can only be reached with a political transition to a new government that meets the needs of all its people. And we must continue to work towards that, however difficult it may be.

But while we pursue a solution to this horrific conflict, we can also take vital steps now which will make a real difference to people’s lives, both today and long into the future.

We can provide the help that Syrians need now – with pledges of aid – food and medical supplies – that will quite literally save lives.

We can provide refugees with the opportunities and skills they need to make a life for themselves and their families in host communities – giving them a viable alternative to remain in the region, and equipping them for the day they can eventually return home to rebuild their country.

And, critically, we can support those host countries and communities which are showing such enormous generosity in providing refuge to Syrians with no choice but to flee destruction.

February 4, 2016
Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Police and Crime Commissioners

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Policy Exchange in London on 4 February 2016.

It is a pleasure to be here today and to stand on a Policy Exchange platform – a think tank that has long argued for localism and democratic accountability in public services. It is fitting that I should be able to give this speech here.

It is now more than 12 years since Policy Exchange first proposed popular elections to improve police governance, and three and a half years since more than five million members of the public went to the polls to elect their local police and crime commissioners.

In fewer than 100 days time voters up and down the country will go to the polls again and pass judgement on the pioneering generation of police and crime commissioners for the first time.

With that vote they will be exercising the right to have their say on how policing is run in their area. The right to influence their local policing priorities. To ensure that crime in their neighbourhood is taken seriously and does not go unpunished. To scrutinise spending decisions with their taxes and the management of their force’s multimillion pound budget. To make their voice heard about police misconduct. And to ensure that a chief constable who is not delivering for local communities can be removed and someone who can do better appointed in their stead.

Now it’s easy to take these rights for granted now. The ability to influence local policing priorities and hold someone to account for delivering them feels indisputable. But we shouldn’t forget that up until recently the idea of proper local accountability in policing was not just neglected in England and Wales – but outright rejected by the other mainstream political parties.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have only come around to PCCs since the general election last May. But the fact they no longer want to go back to the dark days of indirectly elected policing boards is welcome. It is good for democracy and I think shows the power of the police and crime commissioner model.

Because whatever you might think of individual police and crime commissioners, whatever you might think of the decisions they have taken, or the priorities they have set – there is no denying that direct democratic accountability through the ballot box has brought real scrutiny, leadership and engagement to local policing in a way that never existed before.

The dark days of police authorities

When I first became Home Secretary, the system of police governance was broken. Back then, police forces were supposedly held to account by police authorities – invisible committees of appointed councillors. Theoretically they acted on behalf of the public and had a duty to engage local people and businesses in setting priorities and local taxes – but in practice they did nothing of the sort.

Just one in 15 people knew that police authorities even existed. Public meetings were barely attended, if at all, and decisions taken were communicated only in obscure minutes in forgotten corners of their websites. In 2010, an inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that only four of the 22 police authorities inspected were judged to have performed well in two of their primary functions – setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

So – as I have said before – how police authorities were supposed to convey the concerns of the local public, how they were supposed to provide a link between police leaders and the people, how they were supposed to have legitimacy in making important decisions and holding their forces to account – when they had no contact with the public, when they did their business effectively in secret, and when they were installed rather than elected – is beyond me.

That is what went before. Opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic. And it needed to change. That’s why we brought in PCCs – and their purpose was clear.

They’d be elected, visible, well-known in their communities and accountable to the electorate. They’d provide an impetus to reform, innovate and deliver policing more efficiently. They’d be powerful figures, with responsibility for writing the police plan, setting the police budget and precept, and hiring and firing chief constables. And they would focus relentlessly on the job of cutting crime and keeping communities safe. In short, they would bring – for the first time ever – real local scrutiny of how chief constables and their forces perform and real energy to the important task of policing – keeping families, neighbourhoods and businesses safe and secure.

Proving the critics wrong

But when I first set about introducing police and crime commissioners, I was met with a barrage of criticism. I was told that PCCs would politicise the police and operational independence would be undermined. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and former chiefs of the Metropolitan Police all said that politically motivated commissioners would interfere with investigations.

I was warned by some critics that the job was too much for one person to handle and, by others, of the risks of putting too much power and influence into the hands of a single individual.

I was cautioned that giving PCCs the power to hire and fire chief constables would lead to professional relationships between the two that were either too fractious on the one hand, or too close and corrupt on the other.

And, the other mainstream parties reacted with cynicism. The Labour Party opposed police and crime commissioners in principle, but nominated candidates to stand in practice. And despite being part of the Coalition Government that introduced PCCs, the Liberal Democrats delayed the vote until November, when less people would cast their ballots.

So in 2012, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were creating a monster. And I’d be lying if I said there weren’t times over the last three and a half years when I thought we might have done just that…

As I told Policy Exchange two years ago, there has been good and bad over the last three and a half years. We all remember the incidents that have given PCCs a bad name.

In South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright’s initial refusal to resign following damning revelations of child sexual abuse in Rotherham and the failure of the police, local authorities and other agencies to confront that abuse.

The appointment of a youth commissioner in Kent with no background checks, only for her to have to stand down after it was revealed she had posted offensive tweets as a teenager.

And in Surrey, the decision of Kevin Hurley to attack the leadership of his former chief constable and now Director-General of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens, despite proposing pay rises for her over successive years.

These episodes have been disappointing and there’s no doubt that some of them have brought the office of the PCC into disrepute.

But unlike police authorities, police and crime commissioners are accountable to the people and in May each and every PCC will be judged individually at the ballot box.

And every single one of the doomsayers’ predictions in 2012 have been proven wrong.

There has not been a single established case of a PCC influencing a police investigation or undermining the operational integrity of their police force. Having sworn the Oath of Office to protect operational independence when they took up office, PCCs have respected the historic division between policing and politics in this country.

Far from being too great a workload for a single individual, PCCs have used their personal mandate to drive positive change not just in policing and crime, but criminal justice, mental health, and the wider emergency services. In doing so, they have faced up to the limits of their own direct influence and used partnership not overbearing to drive collaboration and joint working.

And while there is no doubt that PCCs and Chiefs have clashed on occasion, both privately and publicly, the relationship between chief constable and elected official has by and large been one of healthy tension and respect for one another’s positions.

As Sir Peter Fahy told the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 2013, and I quote: “I would have to say that on the whole having one person who holds you to account and you can work with very closely and is able to provide a lot more local flexibility has worked very well.”

And – as I have said – there is now political consensus that police and crime commissioners are valuable and that they are here to stay.

The benefits of police and crime commissioners

So the case for PCCs was a hard fought reform and it has been hard won by the pioneering first generation of PCCs.

In the last three and half years, PCCs have engaged with the public in ways that police authorities never did or could. Collectively police and crime commissioners are getting upwards of 7,000 pieces of correspondence every month, and their websites are being visited by over 85,000 people, every month. And through web-casts and public accountability meetings, like those pioneered by Katy Bourne in Sussex, you are involving the public in the practice of holding the chief constable to account.

PCCs have commissioned reviews when there are specific areas of concern to local people. For example in Devon and Cornwall, PCC Tony Hogg commissioned a review of call handling following complaints about the service from the public. And in Greater Manchester, PCC Tony Lloyd’s decision to commission the Coffey Report into child abuse demonstrated firm action on this difficult and sensitive issue.

PCCs have worked together to protect vulnerable people and make sure they get the help and support they need and deserve. In Northumbria, Vera Baird is tackling violence against women and girls through a range of initiatives, including encouraging door staff to adopt a duty of care towards all those in the night time economy and partnering outreach workers with police officers on domestic violence callouts.

They have delivered value for money for taxpayers by finding efficiencies and ensuring sense in how police budgets are spent. Some, like Chris Salmon in Dyfed Powys, have managed to keep taxes down by freezing the police precept element of council tax year on year.

And locally and nationally, PCCs are providing leadership that was simply non-existent four years ago. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised in their 2014 report, and I quote: “PCCs have provided greater clarity of leadership for policing within their areas, and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction of their police force.”

The range of initiatives is broad. The ideas are fresh and innovative. And the benefits to the police and the public tremendous. In sum, PCCs are doing things that police authorities could never have imagined, and could never have hoped to achieve.

Overall, PCCs have presided over a reduction in crime of more than a quarter since their introduction – according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales – at the same time as police funding has reduced by a fifth. And they have done so while maintaining public confidence in the police.

And these accomplishments matter. They matter to local people and they matter for the integrity of the policing system as a whole.

But, most importantly, if members of the public haven’t been impressed, or they think their PCC hasn’t achieved what they said they would, in just a few weeks’ time they can say in the strongest terms possible – by voting for someone else at the ballot box.

The next stage of reform

So PCCs have brought leadership, scrutiny and engagement. They have helped cut crime. And they are working closely with local partners to protect the vulnerable and keep communities safe and secure.

But two weeks ago the latest set of crime statistics revealed that there are still 6.6 million crimes in this country. That is down from 9.3 million in 2010 but still far too high and the growth of fraud and cyber related crime will require a new response.

And there are still huge opportunities to improve capability between police forces, collaborate with other emergency services, and drive better joint working with the criminal justice system.

These are the challenges that the next generation of PCCs, elected in May, will need to tackle. And this Government is committed to helping them do so.

As I announced in Hampshire three weeks ago, we will introduce legislation to allow chief constables to use specialist volunteers – financial analysts and ICT experts – in the fight against complex fraud and cyber crime. In Hampshire, £1.5 million of funding from the PCC is already helping to make such a model a reality, bringing together academics, cyber specialists and police forces to improve its skills in preventing and solving cyber crimes.

As the Government will be announcing in the Police Grant Settlement today, on top of the overall protection for police force budgets over the Parliament, we are also investing hundreds of millions to transform police capabilities to face modern crime demand. That includes £34 million next year to support firearms training and resources to ensure we can respond to a Paris-style attack, and further funding dedicated to digital investigation and digital justice.

Because as many forces have shown, we should be thinking strategically about where capabilities are delivered. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, for example, have joined together to share specialist policing units such as armed policing, roads and dogs units, and the support services that underpin them, with estimated savings in the region of £15 million, and have announced plans to save at least £4 million a year through merging control rooms across the three forces, as well as a further £11 million planned by 2019 through collaboration of criminal justice, custody, ICT functions and continuing to improve their existing collaborations.

And in the Policing and Crime Bill, we will introduce measures to enable PCCs, where a local case is made, to take on responsibilities for fire and rescue services locally. Further, we will enable them to take an additional step to create a single employer for the two services and bring together back office functions.

And I am pleased that the Home Office has taken on responsibility for fire and rescue, and I am delighted that my colleague Mike Penning MP the Policing Minister has agreed to add fire to his portfolio.

Collaboration between the police and fire service is tried and tested, pioneered by PCCs and offering huge opportunities for savings and more effective emergency services. In Northamptonshire, for example, Adam Simmonds has developed a joint operations team between the police and fire service, responsible for the Multi-Agency Incident Assessment Team, and bringing together three experienced members of staff and their own specific operational knowledge from the relevant emergency service. In Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis has created a tri-service neighbourhood centre at the site of the existing fire station, with specific space for each service plus a shared service area.

And we will give PCCs a greater role in the handling of complaints against the police – to bring accountability and independence to that process too.

But in the future, I would like to see the PCC role expanded even further still. Together with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, I have been exploring what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. This is something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown interest in. As they say, there is a reason that we included the words “and crime” in PCC’s titles.

So after the May elections, the Government will set out further proposals for police and crime commissioners. Because as a number of PCCs have argued, youth justice, probation and court services can have a significant impact on crime in their areas and there are real efficiencies to be had from better integration and information sharing. We have yet to decide the full extent of these proposals and the form they will take, but I am clear that there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system.

And there are other opportunities too. As Adam Simmonds has argued, I believe the next set of PCCs should bring together the two great reforms of the last Parliament – police reform and school reform – to work with and possibly set up alternative provision free schools to support troubled children and prevent them from falling into a life of crime.

And alongside the expansion of PCC responsibilities, the development of powerful directly elected mayors provides a fantastic opportunity, where there is local agreement and boundaries make sense, to bring together policing with local transport, infrastructure, housing and social care services under a single directly elected mayor. I know many PCCs have engaged with local proposals, and I would encourage them to continue to do so – because I am clear that PCCs’ consent is a prerequisite for the inclusion of policing in any mayoral deal.

But today, as we look forward to the elections in May, and back upon the progress that has been made, I believe we can be pleased with what has been achieved, and the role police and crime commissioners are playing in making policing more accountable and more effective.

They do so as one important element of the reformed policing landscape I have put in place since becoming Home Secretary more than five and a half years ago.

Alongside democratic accountability through PCCs, I gave operational responsibility for policing back to the professionals – to chief constables. I restored professional discretion for police officers by scrapping all national targets, freeing them up from unnecessary bureaucracy and by giving the police a single mission – to cut crime. And I made sure information on police performance and efficiency is now more independent and robust, enabling PCCs to better hold forces to account, and in turn for the public to hold PCCs to account.

This Government is working to improve police standards, training and skills, so I have established the College of Policing as a proper professional body. We are opening up policing and bringing fresh perspectives and expertise through schemes such as Police Now and Direct Entry. And we have established the Police Innovation Fund so that PCCs and forces can bid for funding to improve policing and deliver greater efficiency.

We established the National Crime Agency so that can get to grips with serious and organised crime. And we have published the Strategic Policing Requirement which PCCs must have regard for, establishing a clear principle of local to national coordination, and through a reformed National Police Chiefs’ Council enabled forces to work together effectively on national priorities.

So police and crime commissioners are an invaluable part of the programme of police reform we have introduced since 2010. They have shifted power away from Government to the public, and replaced the bureaucratic accountability of police authorities with democratic accountability.

And in doing so they strengthen the principle that sits at the heart of the British model of policing – policing by consent.

A principle summed up by Sir Robert Peel when he founded the Metropolitan Police, and declared that the police must maintain a relationship with the public “that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police.”

Conclusion

We must not kid ourselves that PCCs are yet universally understood. Nor that their potential has been completely fulfilled. More than 5 million people voted last time, but that turnout was disappointing and needs to improve in May. And as I have said today, there are improvements that can and will be made to policing in England and Wales.

But over the last three and half years, Police and Crime Commissioners have proved that they matter. They have hired and fired chief constables. They have set local priorities and they have overseen budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. They have helped to ensure that crime continues to be cut and that people in this country continue to be kept safe.

And they are here to stay.

So I want to end by paying tribute to the first generation of police and crime commissioners – and to thank them for their hard work over the past three and a half years. They have been the pioneers in this new policing landscape. They can be proud of what they have achieved, and I look forward to seeing what the next generation of PCCs will do.

Police reform is working. Today policing is more accountable, more transparent and more efficient than it was before 2010. And today, the historic principle of policing by consent is stronger than ever before.

February 4, 2016
Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on the Importance of Partnerships in Education

Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education,held at Leicestershire Academies Group Spring Conference held at Stamford Court, Leicester University on 4 February 2016.

Thank you, Maxine [Adams, Chair – Leicestershire Academies Group].

It’s a real pleasure to be here today at the Leicestershire Academies Spring Conference and let me wish you a happy anniversary on a year of collaboration!

It’s great to be here as a member of the government – as Secretary of State for Education. And as MP for Loughborough too.

But actually I’m also just a local resident – a local mum, the wife of a school governor, and I feel privileged to be addressing you this morning.

This government has been very clear about its priorities for education in this Parliament, building on the work of the coalition government in the last. Putting it simply, we want to see excellence in education everywhere.

Our reforms have sought to unleash the potential in our schools and give them the freedom to operate in the best interests of their students and their communities.

The academies programme has been at the forefront of that work and under this government we expect to see it grow and expand until all schools become academies. And that isn’t because of some ideological slavishness to the idea of the academies programme.

As you all know – academies really work. We now have 5,500 academies with 65% of all secondary schools as academies and 18% of primaries.

We know that unfortunately too close to home there are authorities and unions who oppose conversion to academy status – the city council tried hard to block the conversion of Rushey Mead, meaning pupils stayed in an under-performing school for over 2 years.

They were prepared to put children’s education to the background by calling strike action at Uplands School and orchestrating the mass resignation of staff.

I think it is wholly wrong to play politics with children’s education.

It shows the importance of our Education and Adoption Bill, which will allow us to intervene swiftly where schools are failing, to bring in new sponsors and I’ll be saying more about the bill in a few moments.

If we are to be a truly world-class education system then we need to make sure that academies performing well are able to share their knowledge and collaborate with each other.

I’m talking about schools like Humberstone Juniors. An academy converter in 2013 that has seen standards rise year on year with pupil attainment moving from 77% of pupils achieving level 4+ at key stage 2 in English and maths in 2012 to 95% achieving it last year.

That’s a massive increase and something to be celebrated but what’s even more impressive is that Humberstone Juniors is taking its approach to driving up standards and now helping other schools to do the same.

If academies are driving excellence in our schools then partnerships are the way to make sure it spreads.

I want to see all our young people – no matter where they are or what their background – accessing high-quality education which helps set them up for their futures.

I think the best way to improve the education system is through school-to-school support and it has become increasingly clear that the best way to do that, the most sustainable, the most accountable, the most efficient way to do that is through multi-academy trusts.

MATs have so many benefits. These range from sharing best teaching practice to the economies of scale. Then of course there are staffing arrangements which can be more flexible, allowing MATs to develop and retain the best teachers who have well defined careers paths which lead them to school leadership roles much sooner.

These benefits are already being seen here in Leicestershire.

I mentioned Humberstone Junior School a few moments ago and I am pleased to say that the Humberstone Multi-Academy Trust was approved as a sponsor last year and Humberstone Infant School is planned to join the trust this year.

New MATs are forming all the time.

Another example in Leicestershire is Wigston Academies Trust, formed less than a year ago when Abington Academy merged with Bushloe High School and took on sponsorship of Guthlaxton College. It had been judged as ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted in 2014 with 2014 attainment results below expected standards. Wigston Academies Trust was able to implement an improvement plan which included staffing, leadership and the curriculum. Now called Wigston College, it is already showing impressive signs of improvement and what an exciting time it must be for the school.

That is the power MATs can have and we are offering various incentives to join them including the primary academy chain grants and the sponsor capacity fund which gave out over £11 million to 155 sponsors in the last year.

What is required is the vision for a grouping of schools collaborating in the pursuit of high performance and the leadership to make that vision a reality.

Leadership is so important in our schools and in our schools system. It is something DfE is very focused on. It is the impetus that keeps our schools on the path to success. We know that brilliant leadership teams can turn schools around at pace.

That’s why we are investing in the Future Leaders MAT CEO Course; in governors for schools; and Inspiring the future – an active programme to recruit more governors.

School governors are so important because of the skill, expertise and wisdom they bring to running schools.

We believe that the best run schools are those with highly skilled governors who can hold schools to account; play an active role in the path the school takes; and support heads and system leaders to create and sustain excellent educational outcomes.

We want those governors to have access to specific training too, so we have invested, through the National College of Teaching and Leadership, in governor training to help them understand key areas – like data.

If interpreted correctly it can have a huge impact on the success of a school or MAT.

We have local examples of fantastic leadership like the chief executive and head of Kibworth Church of England Primary, Paul Stone – a national leader of education.

Kibworth is a national support school and the lead school in the Affinity Teaching School Alliance. The alliance of 69 schools directly employs 6 national leaders of education, 8 local leaders of education and 40 specialist leaders of education.

Kibworth is part of the Discovery Schools Academy Trust – a strategic partner with the Flying High Trust and Candleby Lane Teaching School Alliance in Nottinghamshire.

Together they have formed, Inspiring Leaders, a not-for-profit partnership company which holds a licence to deliver National College of Leadership programmes, including the national professional qualifications for middle and senior leadership and for headship.

There’s no denying the wealth of talent that is being so widely shared and how amazing to think it is in our county.

Our Education and Adoption Bill, currently making its final passage through Parliament, seeks to create new powers to tackle failing and coasting schools – be they maintained schools or academies.

And that’s because our young people shouldn’t have to accept an education which doesn’t give them access to the kind of future they really want.

Should we stand by and allow any school to fail young people? Absolutely not.

The Education and Adoption Bill puts a duty on me, and my successor secretary of states, to make an academy order for all inadequate maintained schools, ensuring that swift action will always be taken where a maintained school has failed.

Crucially, the Education and Adoption Bill removes the requirement for consultation on whether a school should become an academy – to prevent the unnecessary, prolonged debates that have often prevented a school from being transformed quickly.

We have sought, however, to place a duty on sponsors to communicate with parents about their plans to improve the school, ensuring that – in all cases – parents are given the opportunity to understand just how a sponsor plans to transform their child’s school.

The Education and Adoption Bill, if passed by Parliament, will create a clearer path for all failing schools to be brought under new leadership and ensure that coasting schools are challenged to improve.

It is simply unacceptable that any young person should be held back from fulfilling their potential because their school was unable to provide them with the tools they needed to succeed.

We fully expect the Education and Adoption Bill to become law this year and we are excited about how it will feed into our priorities for the education system. We envisage a school-led system where schools voluntarily convert to become academies, form or join MATs, learn from teaching schools through teaching alliances and – where possible – join collaborative groups like yours.

We are all working towards the same goal and I believe government’s role is to support you in building that collaboration and capacity – because we know how difficult this is.

But where performance is unacceptably low we will use new powers to intervene to change leadership in schools.

We owe it to our young people – whose futures depend on it.

It really has been a pleasure to be here today. Conferences like this are in the spirit of collaboration we see as the future of our education system.

The Leicestershire Academies Group and others like it are crucial to realising that by sharing ideas and bringing together best practice on what really works for young people. This government believes that it is through partnerships like yours that our education system can become truly school-led and truly world-class.

February 4, 2016
Bernard Jenkin – 2000 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Bernard Jenkin to the 2000 Conservative Party Conference on 3 October 2000.

The demonstrations last month proved that Labour is out of touch.

The frustration has been building up for years.

You think that your car is to get you to work, or to visit the family, or to do the shopping.

But it’s not.

Under Labour, the most important job your car does is to siphon money out of your bank account and over to the Chancellor.

Labour’s taxes are such an injustice.

Petrol tax is a regressive tax.

It hits the poor the hardest.

For example, a disabled pensioner in my constituency needs her car to get to the shops and to see her friends.

She used to spend £10 per week on petrol.

Now it costs £20.

This is just one rural pensioner who is worse off under Labour – one of millions.

And as the pressure has mounted, Labour has simply become more devious.

In the last Budget, Gordon Brown said he was putting petrol tax and pensions up by the rate of inflation.

What he didn’t tell you was that he was using two different rates of inflation.

So he put pensions up by just 1.1% – but hiked fuel tax by three times that.

He said, he could only give pensioners an extra 75p a week, but he took away all of that and more with his fuel taxes.

Labour gives with one hand and takes away with another.

And another, and another.

People have been driven to distraction by this stealth taxing government.

Driven to do things they never imagined they would do.

The government calls the protests ‘blockades’.

But there were no blockades.

The people who protested against the government last month were not the trotskyites, communists, militants and anarchists that Jack Straw marched with in his youth.

They were decent, hardworking people.

People with responsibilities, businesses, customers, overdrafts, employees and families to support.

They were supported by a spontaneous groundswell of public feeling.

What an indictment of British democracy under Labour!

Three years of Labour has pushed the British people to breaking point.

Labour had no right to raise taxes.

They have no mandate.

Mr Blair promised no new taxes.

Democracy should be about government by consent.

But Labour is about taxation without representation.

That’s why the protests were so popular.

These protests rumbled Labour’s tax scam.

These protests showed that the British people will not stand for it.

These protests exposed Mr Blair, in the face of a real crisis, as weak and vacillating.

Labour cannot face the truth.

Oh, he could apologise for the Dome.

He could apologise for the Ecclestone affair.

But he can’t apologise for this.

Because his stealth tax deceit goes to the heart of his whole political strategy.

And I say now to everyone who is angry about fuel tax.

William Hague and the Conservative Party are the champions of your cause.

We will cut fuel tax.

So, put your faith in the ballot box and not the barricades!

Don’t get angry. Get even!

Labour failures: the missed opportunity

So what has John Prescott actually done in the last three years?

He put a bus lane on the M4 so that the New Labour elite could whizz past the queues.

He took an environmentally friendly car for a spin, and then crashed it.

At last year’s Labour conference here in Bournemouth, he was driven 200 yards from the Highcliff to here, so that he could tell us to use our cars less.

And so it goes on.

But while Prescott gaffes, everyone else must suffer.

As rural post offices and banks close, more and more people who cannot afford cars are being left stranded.

Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

Last month in London, 2000 Central Line passengers were stuck, stifling in dark tunnels for more than two hours.

Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

Pity the millions stuck in traffic jams every day!

Pity the towns and villages, choked with traffic, still waiting for a bypass.

Pity the haulage firms going bust.

Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

The 10 year plan

And after three years of misery, John Prescott now has the nerve to stand up and say ‘I’ve got a ten year transport plan’.

Suddenly he is promising billions but do you believe him?

And hardly anything would happen until after the next TWO general elections.

Talk about post-dated cheques!

What does he take us for?

The words, ‘ten year transport plan’ should enter the same lexicon as ‘the dog ate my homework’, and ‘the Dome will be a great success’.

This is a ten year plan from a one term government that can’t see further than tomorrow’s headlines.

A broken policy that follows broken promises proposed by a broken-backed Secretary of State.

Last year he was asked whether the job might be a bit too big for one person.

Plucky John replied: ‘No, because I’m Superman’.

Superman!

Superman didn’t need two Jags and a helicopter to get from A to B.

Mind you, he’s the only comic strip minister who breaks his promises, faster than a speeding bullet.

In 1997, he promised there would be far fewer journeys by car.

Well, John, if you don’t know already, short of a fuel crisis, you’ve failed.

Socialists always think they can change human nature.

Well there’s only one way they have succeeded.

Today, every nine seconds, the average healthy man now thinks about petrol tax.

How much it costs. Where will it end?

Under Labour, we’ll soon all have to take our driving tests on foot.

The sad reality is that by the end of this Parliament, John Prescott will have precisely nothing to show for his four years in office.

And over the next ten years, Labour plans to raise at least £423 billion in taxes from the motorist.

That’s over £18,000 per household.

You could buy one of John Prescott’s Jags for that, but you couldn’t afford to run it!

The Conservatives made the car a privilege for the many and not just the few.

The car and public transport are not enemies or opposites.

We need them both.

We need more of them both.

There’s no point in investing billions more in the railways if you miss your train because you’re stuck in a traffic jam.

Few of us have train stations or bus stops outside our front door.

So let’s get rid of Labour’s anti-car ideology.

Conservative Transport Policy

The next Conservative government will dump all the dogma.

We will ditch the jargon.

We believe in Britain.

So, we will simply get on with the job.

On day one of the next Conservative government, we will abolish Labour’s Integrated Transport Commission.

That will save millions by reducing bureaucracy and waste.

We believe in a prosperous Britain.

So we want Britain’s lifeblood arteries – our roads – to flow.

We will immediately bring forward the vital road improvements to get unsuitable traffic off unsuitable roads.

We believe in a cleaner and greener Britain.

So we want to remove through traffic from towns and villages.

You use less fuel if you don’t have to sit in traffic jams.

We will also reduce congestion by charging companies who dig up the road.

We believe road users deserve better.

So over all of this we shall set up a new Roads Inspectorate.

This will set standards for local councils and the Highways Agency to meet.

It will demand action on poor roads, dangerous roads or where roads cause environmental problems.

Conservatives also believe in Britain’s railways.

Labour inherited the start of our railway renaissance – liberated from state control.

But we are still waiting for stage two.

We propose measures to cut standing on cramped trains;

And to cut queuing for your ticket.

And to increase trains on Sundays.

And we believe in freight on rail.

The rail freight renaissance was started by privatisation.

Believing in Britain means putting the passenger and the freight customer first.

Not just on rail, but across all our transport networks.

And, of course, our commitment to cut 14 pence off a gallon of petrol is just a first step.

Because we are ambitious for Britain we will not treat motorists as some sort of revenue tap.

We believe in honesty in taxation.

So we want petrol stations to display just how much of what you are paying is tax.

We also believe in British business, and we need the haulage industry.

So we will introduce the BRIT disc.

So that foreign trucks will have to pay for using Britain’s roads.

We will use that money to cut the punitive tax on British trucks so they can compete with Europe.

But I give you one supreme pledge.

Our first day in government – and every day – will be about safety.

This week is the anniversary of the terrible Paddington rail crash.

The shock of that tragedy hangs heavy in the memory.

I pledge eternal vigilance on safety.

We have proposed to the Paddington Inquiry a new rail safety regime.

For the first time, there should be specific rail safety legislation – like there is in aviation.

There should be a new National Rail Regulator, with responsibility for performance and safety;

And a new independent rail accident investigation branch of the DETR.

There is no reason why privatised railways should not be every bit as safe as our privatised airlines and airports.

And would that our roads were as safe as the railways.

We will establish a Road Casualty Investigation body, to look into the causes of road accidents.

If you lose someone you love in a road accident, you want to know why it happened and what will be done to stop it happening again.

More than 3,000 people die each year on our roads.

That must change.

There is far more to road safety than just speed humps and cameras.

The government needs a proper, factual and statistical basis for road safety policy.

That will enable us to set the right road safety priorities, to reduce death and injury as effectively as possible.

It can be done without demonising the car, because we believe in the good sense and humanity of the vast majority of the British people.

That’s believing in Britain.

Peroration

Mr Chairman, conference.

Millions of people every day make millions of transport choices.

People want choice.

Conservative governments increase choice.

That’s why people are beginning to feel they want a new Conservative government.

That’s why a new Conservative government, under William Hague, will get the best for Britain, because we believe in the full potential of what British people can achieve.

Last, week we saw the Labour party on the run.

Mr Blair was blustering like a magician whose tricks have failed to deceive.

We are making Labour sweat!

And look at Mr Prescott’s contorted face!

Conservatives believe in Britain, because we are ambitious for our country.

We believe in a Britain, whose transport networks should be the envy of the world.

A Britain where the opportunity to travel is for the many and not the few.

A Britain where the passenger and the road user come first.

A Britain where everyone shares in the benefits of prosperity.

A Britain strong, independent and free.

A Britain, whose government believes in Britain.

And the Conservatives, under William Hague, are ready to be that government.

February 4, 2016