UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the Launch of the Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the Launch of the Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 5 June 2003.

    The Labour Government is dangerously divided.

    And it’s got its priorities hopelessly wrong.

    That’s as plain today as it will ever be.

    We are not be going to spend today talking about the euro.

    We are going to talk about things that are already damaging the British people’s quality of life…

    Day in, day out…

    The public services on which they depend — and which are now failing them badly under Labour.

    But the Government are most certainly talking about the euro today.

    And they’ll still be talking about it tomorrow.

    And for a long time after that.

    Even as – we – speak, Mr Blair and Mr Brown are lining up their coalitions, on either side of the Cabinet table, ready for a battle over the euro — in which the losers will be the British people.

    While the Government are busy talking about something people don’t want — the euro — we will be talking about something they do want – better healthcare.

    This distracted and divided Government should be focusing on the things that really matter to the British people.

    The British people want better public services.

    Public services that work – and work well.

    We’ve already begun.

    For the past two years, we have been conducting the most wide-ranging policy review for a generation.

    A policy review focused on making the public services better.

    We have travelled – at home and abroad – learning from whatever works best for people.

    So last month, we promised to scrap Labour’s university tuition fees – their tax on learning.

    Today, Liam Fox and I are launching fresh, exciting proposals designed to give British people the better healthcare they need and deserve.

    Today begins a full consultation with patients and professionals on something that will make a real difference to people’s lives.

    The ‘patient’s passport’ is our plan to give people real choice over the health treatment they receive.

    This will be a fair deal for patients.

    A fair deal for everyone on healthcare.

    Our proposals will mean…

    Fairer healthcare, with no-one left behind, as we expand choice to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

    Fairer healthcare, with no-one held back, as we recognise the contributions of those who pay for their own treatment.

    Last year, a staggering number of people – 300,000 – paid for their own treatment.

    Most of them were pensioners — desperate people, who had suffered for too long.

    Under our proposals for a Patient’s Passport, everyone in the NHS will be able to get treatment at the hospital of their choice, free of charge.

    And people who choose to go outside the NHS for their treatment will be helped, not penalised.

    Our proposals would also mean…

    Better healthcare for everyone, with choice driving innovation and excellence.

    And more healthcare, as we expand the capacity of the health system in Britain.

    Our proposals would mean nothing less than a revolution in healthcare.

    We will preserve all the founding ideals of the NHS.

    Healthcare, according to your need not your ability to pay, and free at the point of delivery.

    But, for the first time in its history, the NHS would become a truly national health service — embracing our belief that healthcare is first and foremost about the patient.

    Compared to that, everything else is surely secondary.

    Our plans for a patients’ passport, combined with our plans to shift power from politicians to doctors, nurses and hospitals, will deliver a fair deal for everyone on healthcare.

    We care enough to find out what people really want, and we are open-minded enough to find out what really works.

    That’s why last month we promised to scrap Labour’s university tuition fees, abolishing their tax on learning.

    That’s why today we are proposing to give every patient in Britain a Patient’s Passport, making real choice available to all, not just those who can afford it.

    We have the courage and vision to commit Britain to a better course.

    Today, we are taking forward our fight, on behalf of the British people…

    For better public services — and a fair deal for everyone.

    A fair deal for people who find themselves paying higher and higher taxes, but not getting the improved public services they need.

    We will give them those better public services

    …public services where no-one is held back…

    …and no-one is left behind.

    A fair deal for people who deserve better healthcare.

    A fair deal for people who deserve a better education.

    A fair deal for people who have been made to wait and suffer too long.

    That’s our fair deal for everyone in Britain.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Volodymyr Zelenskyy: I would not like a story about Ukraine as about 300 Spartans – I wish peace to my country

    PRESS RELEASE : Volodymyr Zelenskyy: I would not like a story about Ukraine as about 300 Spartans – I wish peace to my country

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 3 March 2022.

    Ukrainians do not take anything from anyone, but protect their land and their freedom. This was stated by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview for foreign media.

    “We have a special state and very special people. I really wouldn’t wish their destruction. I wish they all stayed, and not just in the stories. I would not like a story about Ukraine as a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace and I want it to come to my country,” he said.

    At the same time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed: “We are on our land, ready for anything.” He noted that the Russian army, which is fighting against the Ukrainian state, significantly outnumbers the Ukrainian army; the enemy does not count his people and does not take into account any losses.

    “They brought a crematorium with them. That is, they are not going to show their families, their mothers, in advance that their children died here, that they came here to kill us. We are defending our freedom, our home, and that is why they are dying,” the President said.

    He called such behavior of the Russian aggressor an act of genocide, which despite the tragic lessons of history is committed in the XXI century already.

    “If we can’t stop such steps, this is the end of the world. And the end of the world for such people,” the Head of State is convinced.

    According to him, today Ukraine is a “fence” between civilization and non-civilization.

    The President noted that it is impossible to determine the time intervals in which Ukraine will be able to repel Russian aggression.

    “We are not holding on in terms of time – we are holding on in terms of us, we are defending because it is our job. A job that has become the preservation of our lives, our history, our family,” said Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    The Head of State noted that he, like anyone, worries about the lives of his loved ones, but shares the pain of every Ukrainian in these difficult times.

    “We are afraid for our loved ones. And we are very afraid of losing the place we live in. I am afraid to imagine that I do not have a state, and you are asked: “Where are you from?”, And you say: “There is no such country.” I’m afraid of that. I am afraid of what we will leave to our future generations,” he said.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said that if he had not been President, he would have joined the Territorial Defense Forces to help Ukrainian defenders repel the military invasion.

    “I would provide food, shoot, help, I would do what I was told. But if I had been told an ultimatum: you must lay down your arms, go to the other side, I would not have done so. No matter what warrior I am. That’s the difference. Because we are here, we defend our own. We are not taking anything away,” the Head of State stressed.

  • Liam Fox – 2003 Speech at the Launch of Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    Liam Fox – 2003 Speech at the Launch of Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Health, on 5 June 2003.

    Unless there is fundamental and radical reform, the NHS will never produce the quality of care we have a right to expect. And the people who would suffer most as a result would be the very people who rely most on the NHS.

    Labour’s internal divisions mean it is unable to deliver the reform that many
    recognise to be necessary. Only a Conservative Government will be able to deliver this.

    Our experiences during our extensive travels convinced us that we must undertake far-reaching reform on three broad fronts:

    – taking politicians out of running the NHS;
    – giving real freedom to health professionals; and
    – ensuring patients have real choice in health.

    We believe that the NHS is there to serve patients not vice versa.

    Freeing health professionals from the burden of red tape and the paperwork which targets bring will enable them to spend more time looking after their patients.

    This is vital, since ultimately greater professional satisfaction is the only route to more health care professionals, something which Labour has failed to understand.

    Our principle is that we want to see total spending on healthcare increase, but we will want to see the proportion of that spending that comes from other sources increase at a faster rate than that coming from the State. This will bring the UK more into line with the pattern of spending found in most of the European countries we have visited.

    We believe that choice – a Conservative word – must be available to all patients who will receive their health care through the NHS.

    But this alone is not enough. The standard of healthcare currently available to the British people is far below that which they have every right to expect in the world’s fourth largest economy.

    Over recent years, whereas there has been minimal growth in PMI, the number of people opting for self-pay (frequently the elderly, reflecting the high cost to them of PMI and their desperation to avoid excessive waiting times late in life) has increased by an average of over 20 per cent a year.

    In order to stimulate the creation of the new, non-NHS capacity referred to above, we will send clear signals that we are fully committed over the long term to measures designed to stimulate and strengthen demand in the voluntary and private sectors.

    The most effective way of doing this is to make it more attractive for individuals to supplement what is already being spent by the State through the NHS. This will therefore be on top of what they spend through their taxes, not, as Labour falsely claims, as an alternative.

    There are three main candidates which might be thus incentivised:

    • Personal PMI;
    • PMI available through company schemes; and
    • Patients who pay for a single procedure or item of care
    (the ‘self pay’ sector).

    We saw examples during our overseas visits of cash rebates, tax incentives and reductions of the price at source, with the State reimbursing providers.

    Attention needs to be given to companies who provide all their employees with a health insurance scheme and to those who negotiate reduced rates on their employees’ behalf with private insurers.

    This will include the large number of Trades Union members who benefit from these types of scheme.

    The self-pay market accounted for some 300,000 procedures last year (the age profile for which tends to be higher than that for personal PMI), a trebling since Labour came to power in 1997. If these patients did not opt to pay directly for defined elements of their care, in addition to what they have already contributed to the NHS through their taxes and National Insurance, they would be added to NHS waiting lists. It is doubtful whether the NHS would be able to cope with that extra demand.

    Under our proposals, patients will be able to move around the NHS, with the finance for their treatment automatically following them. This will mean that for the first time there will be access to a truly national health service. Patients will be given a greater say over where and when they are treated, and by whom.

    GPs could act as independent professional advocates for patients, advising them on factors such as comparative waiting times, outcomes and locations. This informed partnership between the patient and the GP would refute the argument advanced by Labour that patients would be unable to make sensible decisions about what form their treatment should take – a view which is both patronising and outdated.

    There is no acceptance in Labour’s centralised monopoly model that patients have any ownership, in part or full, of the funds they have contributed through their taxes to the NHS.

    We believe that the concepts of social solidarity – we all accept the need to cross-subsidise others in our society – and individual entitlement to contributions already paid are not mutually exclusive.

    We believe it is simply unacceptable for choice to be available to a small proportion of patients. We want it to become the norm that patients are free to get treatment beyond the NHS whatever their income. We will therefore extend the Patient’s Passport to services beyond the NHS – that is to the voluntary, the not-for-profit and the private sectors – as soon as capacity allows.

    This will yield two important benefits:

    • It will become a realistic option for a much larger proportion of the population to have access to a very much wider range of healthcare providers than is now the case.

    • Those who choose to have their health care provided within NHS hospitals will reap the benefit of shorter queues if more patients choose to have care elsewhere. Patients will, of course, be able to stay entirely in NHS hospitals if they choose: nobody will be compelled to go outside.

    The value of the Patient’s Passport beyond the NHS – i.e. whether patients take some or all of the standard tariff funding that patients can take to voluntary or private hospitals – will need to take account of several factors: the total cost to the public purse, the level of available capacity from other providers, the predicted effect on NHS demand, the effect on the current private insurance market and the need to promote greater diversity in provision.

    During the 1980s, the Conservative Government brought choice in home ownership to millions of people who had been denied it by socialist dogma.

    This laid the basis for a home-owning democracy in which all social groups were able to take part.

    The next Conservative Government will set patients free from the restrictions they face in the centralised Labour model of the NHS, so that all patients can benefit from the type of high quality and accessible care which is taken for granted by so many of our neighbours.

  • Michael Howard – 2003 Response to the Chancellor’s Euro Assessment Statement

    Michael Howard – 2003 Response to the Chancellor’s Euro Assessment Statement

    The response by Michael Howard, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 9 June 2003.

    “The time of indecision is over.” That was what the Chancellor said about the euro six years ago.

    It’s time, he said, to “establish clear national purpose”, to show “economic leadership”, to “make . . . hard choices”.

    “Divisions,” he said, led to “indecision” and policy that was “inconsistent and unclear”.

    Today ministers are speaking with one voice. They are united in common purpose, with one objective only in mind: to paper over the cracks which have riven them apart over the last few weeks.

    Is it not clear, from any objective reading of the evidence, including the 18 volumes we were given today, that joining the euro would damage our prosperity, destroy jobs and lead to an irreversible loss of control over our economic policy? That is certainly our view. And it is the view of the clear majority of the people of this country.

    Today’s statement is not the result of any real assessment of Britain’s national economic interest. It’s a result of the frantic efforts by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to cover up their differences. After all, that’s why the five tests were thought up in the first place.

    Indeed, the Prime Minister was so determined that the Treasury view wouldn’t be decisive that he thought the unthinkable. He suddenly saw the merits of Cabinet decision-making. There’s a first time for everything. This Prime Minister will pay any price to do down his Chancellor.

    There they sit: united in rivalry. Each determined to frustrate the other. Each determined to scheme against the other. Each determined to do the other down. So there’s no clarity in policy. There’s no consistency of purpose. And each of them is the loser.

    The Chancellor is losing. The Prime Minister is losing. And much more importantly, the British people are losing.

    The Government’s ability to deliver has broken down; on health, on education, and now on the euro. Blair goes one way, Brown goes the other way, and bang goes the Third Way, lost in conflict, compromise and confusion. No wonder so little under this Government ever gets done.

    That’s the price we are all paying for the fault line at the heart of this Government. What a humiliation for the Chancellor! Wasn’t it the Chancellor of the Exchequer who briefed there was no reason for another assessment this Parliament?

    What if the 1,738 pages of data we’ve been given today had shown that the tests have been passed? How on earth are we to know whether a similar assessment in two or five or ten years’ time would reach a similar conclusion? If the data changes in one direction, how can anyone know it won’t change back again?

    If, at any particular moment in time, our growth rate or inflation rate or interest rates are at similar levels to those in the eurozone, how do we know whether that convergence is permanent? Might it not be because our economies were like ships passing in the night, coming together for a moment before moving off in different directions?

    The Chancellor predicted that trade with the EU could grow by as much as 50 per cent over 30 years. Will he confirm that his own department’s reports conclude that improved levels of trade are totally dependent on sustained convergence that has not yet been achieved?

    At the moment, we can choose to have the same interest rates as the eurozone when that suits our needs. But why on earth should we be forced to do so when it doesn’t suit our needs? Why on earth should we accept the straitjacket of a one-size-fits-all interest rate when it’s not the right rate for our economy?

    Competitiveness would be lost. Growth would be hampered. Jobs would be put at risk. And that will be just as true at the time of next year’s Budget and in a year’s time as it is now. Other countries have discovered these truths the hard way.

    This party has learnt its lesson from the experience of fixed exchange rates. But the Government has not — despite the fact that the present Chancellor was calling for “early entry” to the ERM nearly a year before we joined. Today the national economic interest took a back seat. As the Government dithers, uncertainty is maximised.

    This is the Prime Minister who promised in Opposition not to be derailed by “internal bickering” on Europe. This is the Government whose election manifesto in 1997 pledged that Labour would make a hard-headed assessment of Britain’s economic interests, rather than be “riven by faction”.

    This is the Government which promised to “prepare and decide”. But now it’s “not prepare and decide”. It’s not even “wait and see”. It’s just “hope and pray”.

    Today they haven’t put off a referendum because they’re against joining the euro or because they think it will damage the national economic interest. They haven’t put off a referendum out of conviction. The only reason we are not having a referendum now is that they know they can’t win it.

    Today’s statement comes from a divided Government, a Government on the run. This whole exercise has been an exercise in deceit. The deceit that they had the national economic interest at heart. The deceit that they wanted an objective assessment of what this country needs. The deceit that they were united. It is time for an end to the deceit. It is time for an end to the duplicity.

    This is not the end of the beginning for this Government. It is the beginning of the end. And the sooner it ends, the better it will be for the national economic interest and for the British people.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference

    Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference on 9 June 2003.

    I welcome the opportunity to come and address you today on “Domestic Violence – the National Context”. Before I move on to this subject, may I congratulate all of you who are part of the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy for the work you have done and are doing to fight domestic violence. It is an extremely important and much-needed work and I am sure that there are many survivors of domestic violence grateful to you.

    When I was Shadow Spokesman on Health and when I came to be Shadow Minister for Women, I was shocked to discover the extent of domestic violence. Domestic violence is cross-cutting and is not constrained to a particular gender, age, class, ethnicity, region – it can, and does affect people from all circumstances. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men suffer from domestic violence and domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crime. Figures I found even more shocking were that 2 women and 2 children die every week at the hands of their partner or ex partner as a result of domestic violence. You cannot argue with these statistics for you cannot argue against bodies in a morgue.

    You may have heard it said that there are 3 types of victims of domestic violence. The primary victim is the person who has been directly attacked by their partner or ex-partner. The secondary victims are those who may not have been directly attacked but have been indirectly affected, for example, children who may have been in the same house or room when the violence took place. I also recently met with a group of Grandparents who had watched the lives of their grandchildren suffer as a result of the scars from seeing domestic violence. The tertiary victim is the future victim who may enter a relationship with the perpetrator if he is not sufficiently dealt with by the statutory agencies. So, not only is domestic violence cross-cutting, there are also many hidden people affected.

    Provision of services nation-wide to help those affected by Domestic Violence is far from adequate. That is why it is so encouraging to see that Solihull is taking a lead with a Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy. The provision of refuges in the UK is very scarce. It appalls me that there are more animal sanctuaries in this country than refuges. It is estimated that around 40,000 women are on the move in refuges every week. This ‘caravanning’ around the countryside of vulnerable women and children looking for somewhere to hide and sleep is barely credible in the 21st century.

    I am very pleased to be involved with the refuge that is being set up in the Solihull area. With little help from the Government in establishing refuges, it is a difficult process but this must not put us off. I hope that this is the start of further refuges being built in the Solihull area so those affected by domestic violence can find a safe haven away from their abusive partners, before it is too late.

    So, what is being done on a national level to fight against domestic violence? At any time now, the Government will announce a Bill on Domestic Violence. I understand the Bill will cover a number of areas. For example, unduly lenient sentencing, establishing where the public interest lies in prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence, a focus on a multi-agency approach, and child contact orders.

    There will be a period of Government consultation and I will also be carrying out consultation with the relevant agencies and actors. May I encourage you to play an active role in the consultation process both with the Government and myself – this is a real chance to influence the legislation as this early stage, before it is ‘put in stone’. We haven’t had any legislation dedicated solely to domestic violence for over 25 years – we must not get it wrong.

    I welcome this legislation and we will work closely with the Government on it – this is not an issue to score political points. However, I feel strongly that legislation is not the only answer to the problem of domestic violence. There must be a culture shift in relation to domestic violence. Domestic Violence can no longer be termed ‘just a domestic’.

    Imagine domestic violence being seen as unacceptable in the UK; perpetrators wouldn’t be able to ‘get away with it’ and they would receive the lengthy sentences they deserve; victims of domestic violence would hopefully seek help before it was too late; those of us thankfully not primary victims of domestic violence, would be there to support our friends who were victims and have confidence to raise concerns about possible perpetrators; children being able to talk openly to their teachers about their fears. Maybe this seems unrealistic, but I honestly believe we can bring about a substantial culture change.

    Let me give you an example of how we have tried to contribute to this. Last Christmas I produced a domestic violence poster. This was the first time the Conservative Party had done something like this. The poster carried the helpline numbers of Women’s Aid and the NSPCC. Over 10,000 posters were put up in GP surgeries, hairdressers, police stations and other places throughout the country where women could discreetly write down the helpline number and seek help.

    The model for the poster campaign was the Drink Driving Campaign seen in the early to mid 1990s. Some of you may remember that few eyebrows used to be raised when people went to the pub, drank alcohol and then drove home. However, as the result of an effective, nationwide, advertising campaign over consecutive years, and I must add no specific legislation, there has been a huge culture shift. Now, it is my generation and the one above who may still be tempted to drink and drive. But on the whole, those in their 20s and 30s view it as unacceptable. They would not drive if they had drunk alcohol and they would not get in a car with someone who was over the limit. So, why can’t the same change in opinion occur with domestic violence?

    It is crucial that we target all generations but for a culture change to be sustainable, we need to target the younger generations. And may I press it upon you that this need is urgent. There are worrying figures which show that about 20% of young men and 10% of young women think abuse or violence against a partner is acceptable. This trend needs to be urgently reversed.

    Another example of trying to bring about a culture change was the recent BBC Hitting Home Initiative. I am sure many of you saw some of the programmes during that week in February. The media is an effective tool of changing public opinion and we must encourage them to do this with domestic violence, as we did with the BBC.

    One area I am extremely concerned about is child contact arrangements. I acknowledge this is an extremely contentious area but one that needs to be resolved in the forthcoming legislation. I think that we must address the problem of abusive and violent parents – particularly those convicted of a sexual or violent offence against a child, having unsupervised contact with their children following separation. This may sound shocking but it does occur.

    Courts are putting children and their mothers at unnecessary risk. There have been incidents of child contact arrangements being used by an abusive partner to track down his wife and children and then to kill them. A court needs to consider all the relevant evidence, assess the risks and take all reasonable steps to ensure the protection of the child when a violent parent applies for contact or residence.

    I am very encouraged about your emphasis on a joined-up approach to the development and delivery of services. Domestic Violence will only be tackled if we work together. It is very important that we make early intervention with victims of domestic violence. A woman is likely to be assaulted by her partner or ex-partner 35 times before reporting to the police. This is unacceptable. A victim of domestic violence may feel unable to go to the police but they may have to receive medical treatment for their injuries. If we can make contact with them at this point, and encourage them to seek help, we may be able to prevent further abuses against them in the future.

    A multi-agency approach will only work if all the relevant agencies receive better training. This is particularly needed with the magistracy. Survivors of domestic violence will be more willing to press charges if they feel justice will actually be done. Unfortunately this is not the case at the moment. Perpetrators of domestic violence do not receive the sentences they deserve. I was, however, very encouraged to read in the strategy that Solihull Magistrates Court will be dedicating Wednesday mornings to Domestic Violence Cases. I hope this practice will be extended as time goes on.

    So, let me bring my remarks to a close. This week, people are suffering at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, some may even die; there are not enough refuge places to deal with the demand; perhaps a child will be forced to have contact with a parent they are terrified of; perhaps a perpetrator will receive a light punishment for the crimes committed.

    But it is not all negative; I really believe the tide is turning in relation to domestic violence. The new piece of legislation will bring about some important changes but we have to make sure we get it right – we owe that to all those affected by domestic violence. May I once again congratulate you on all you are doing to fight domestic violence and urge you to continue to give it a high priority. And every day, we can all play a part in the daily fight against domestic violence. By talking about domestic violence, we bring it into the public arena and if we actually do something to fight it, we can bring about the much needed culture change and change the lives for the better of many people affected by domestic violence in this country.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Essay by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak for The New York Times

    PRESS RELEASE : Essay by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak for The New York Times

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 3 March 2022.

    In launching a war on our country, President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia would “de-Nazify” and free Ukraine. But Ukraine — a nation that lost as many as eight million lives in World War II, a country that has a Jewish president — does not need to be freed from the liberated path it has chosen.

    Not since the end of World War II has Europe seen violence and naked territorial ambition at such a scale.

    I am writing this appeal from a bunker in the capital, with President Volodymyr Zelensky by my side. For a week, Russian bombs have fallen overhead. Despite the constant barrage of Russian fire, we stand firm and united in our resolve to defeat the invaders. We will fight to the last breath to protect our country.

    But make no mistake: Other autocrats are watching, taking lessons. They can create a coalition of bad will — just look at how once-peaceful Belarus is now serving as a staging ground for Russian troops.

    Listen to what Mr. Putin is saying. For years, the West listened to Mr. Putin but didn’t hear him; it is just now waking up to the existential challenge he poses to the world order. Ukraine has never underestimated his intentions — not since Russian aggression against our country began in earnest in 2014 — nor his willingness to achieve domination by any means necessary.

    That’s because we know this war is not just about Ukraine. The Kremlin wants to create a new Russian empire.

    We Ukrainians have proved that we are able to effectively repel the invasion force alone. We have used the weapons the West has provided. We are thankful to our American and European friends, to democracies worldwide including Australia and Japan, for their quick decisions to help us, for their sanctions against the Russian economy, for the armaments and equipment to deter the aggressor.

    But it’s not enough. We need more — and, please, stop telling us military aid is on the way. Nothing less than our freedom — and yours — is at stake.

    In President Zelensky’s call with President Biden on Tuesday, he again appealed for more security, military and humanitarian assistance.

    Since 2014, the West’s critical security assistance helped to transform a Ukrainian military that is now capable of mounting a defense and inflicting large-scale casualties against the Russian invaders. Ukraine is not asking for its allies to put boots on the ground. But we need the West to back us up in order to keep defending our families and our land. We need to show Russia — in painful terms — the mistake it has made.

    The Russians underestimated our resolve and we’ve held them off for now. But as we speak, a 40-mile-long convoy of Russian troops and equipment is closing in on Kyiv.

    We need antitank and antiaircraft weapons and other ammunition delivered to our brave soldiers right now.

    We are calling on the West to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. We recognize that this would be a serious escalation in the war and that it could bring NATO into direct conflict with Russia. But we firmly believe that Russia won’t stop at just Ukraine, which would potentially drag NATO into this conflict anyway. A no-fly zone would at least give Mr. Putin some pause.

    We also ask the West to increase the nonmilitary costs on Russia. We welcome the coordinated measures thus far, but we need more. Every Russian bank — not just a select few — must be cut off from the SWIFT banking system, and every Russian oligarch must be sanctioned. We are also calling for a full embargo on Russian oil and all Russian exports to the United States and Europe. These measures would not be without cost to the world economy, but the alternative is far worse.

    The international community should consider expelling Russia from the United Nations or, at the very least, excluding it from the Security Council, where it has a veto.

    Russia is waging war on Ukraine to destroy its democracy, its alignment with the West and the spirit of the Ukrainian people. Not content to strangle most political opposition and forms of civic expression within Russia, the ex-K.G.B. clique now running the country is using its position to further a revisionist ideology — one that hungers to reassert Moscow’s control over the former Soviet Union countries and to discredit the democratic world for its failure to stay united and respond. Again, make no mistake: Mr. Putin aims to advance this ideology by going for blood beyond Ukraine. He must be stopped.

    The shelling across Ukraine is not letting up; it’s gotten worse here in Kyiv, with women, children and other noncombatants taking refuge in bunkers and subway stations while Russia’s invading forces indiscriminately strike residential buildings and civilians. A high-rise apartment building has been hit, and at least one hospital has been damaged. They have fired rockets into the center of Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and attacked the Chernobyl power plant.

    This is Moscow’s way of war. Mr. Putin’s forces will continue to terrorize the country to induce surrender. If they don’t succeed, they will burn it all down. It’s either bow or vanish; no third option is allowed.

    This is not going as planned for Russia, however. Everyday Ukrainians are confronting Russian soldiers, blocking tanks with their bodies. Russian forces are experiencing fierce resistance from both the Armed Forces of Ukraine and from Ukrainian citizens hurling homemade Molotov cocktails that Ukraine’s government is encouraging them to make. Ukrainians are defending their streets, their communities, their country and their identity. At the same time, Russian soldiers are surrendering en masse or sabotaging their own vehicles to avoid fighting, according to the Pentagon. They must know this war is unjust.

    We beseech our Western allies and partners to make the costs unbearable for Russia now.

    Article 4 of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances guaranteed that the United States, Britain and Russia would seek “immediate” action from the United Nations Security Council “to provide assistance” if Ukraine “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Just because the aggressor — Russia — vetoes U.N. Security Council action does not relieve the other parties of the promises they made to Ukraine.

    Even though Mr. Zelensky and I cannot be physically alongside every brave Ukrainian fighting for this country, our spirit is with them.

    Every day brings the possibility that our words may be our final ones. So let them be a plea for support for a free Ukraine.

    We have been able to withstand intense fighting in recent days despite the vicious brutality of the Russian aggressors, and we will continue to fight — even if Russia becomes an occupying force in Ukraine. We are united around the Ukrainian flag, the symbol of our identity, our resolve and our will, but our state’s future and survival largely depend on the West.

    This war could be a prologue to a greater European or even global massacre. As President Zelensky wrote on Twitter after a strike hit near Ukraine’s sacred memorial to Jews massacred in World War II, “what is the point of saying ‘never again’ for 80 years, if the world stays silent?”

    Standing with us today and helping us is the only way to achieve peace for all and ensure that history does not repeat itself — so that our future does not echo Europe’s darkest time.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a conference call with local authorities on the current security situation in the country

    PRESS RELEASE : Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a conference call with local authorities on the current security situation in the country

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 2 March 2022.

    President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a conference call with mayors, heads of regional state administrations and heads of military administrations.

    The parties discussed the current security situation in the country, preparation of cities for defense and its course, construction of fortifications, checkpoints, provision of equipment and weapons, etc.

    Particular attention was paid to the staffing of the Territorial Defense Forces and their coordination with local authorities and law enforcement agencies.

    In the context of the humanitarian situation, the heads of local authorities informed the Head of State about the number of civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure, public and private property. The most problematic regions were identified, the supply of medicines, food and the organization of “green corridors” where necessary were discussed.

    Following the meeting, the President gave relevant instructions.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy also received information on the necessary personnel decisions.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Armed Forces Minister meets UK troops in Estonia

    PRESS RELEASE : Armed Forces Minister meets UK troops in Estonia

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 24 August 2022.

    Armed Forces Minister James Heappey has met UK soldiers protecting NATO’s borders during a visit to Estonia, including his old battalion, 2 Rifles.

    The minister travelled to Tapa, where more than 1,600 British personnel are based, watching troops train and speaking with servicemen and women.

    He also met with Estonia’s newly appointed Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur to discuss our joint work to support Ukraine and uphold European security.

    Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said:

    “Every day our friends here in Estonia live with the threat of a belligerent Russia on the other side of their border.

    Bilaterally and through NATO, the UK will stand firm with Estonia and I’m proud of the way our troops here stand ready to fight whenever, wherever they are needed.”

    More than 800 troops from 1st Battalion, the Royal Welsh currently lead a NATO enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) battlegroup in Estonia. The UK also has a second battlegroup of over 800 from 2nd Battalion, the Rifles in the country after deploying them in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced in June that the lethality of these deployments would be enhanced with advanced capabilities including helicopters and artillery systems, as part of an increased UK contribution to NATO. Meanwhile, the UK’s existing HQ in Tallinn will be expanded. Led by a Brigadier, it will support the rapid deployment of high readiness forces at the brigade level.

    The UK will also support Estonia with training and logistics, the development of its first divisional-level HQ, as well as developing new ways of fighting through their joint hosting of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic European HQ, and supporting innovative dual use start-ups through the NATO Innovation Fund.

  • Alister Jack – 2022 Comments on Government Expenditure and Revenue Figures for Scotland

    Alister Jack – 2022 Comments on Government Expenditure and Revenue Figures for Scotland

    The comments made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 24 August 2022.

    Today’s Scottish Government figures show how people and their families benefit massively from being part of a strong, resilient UK.

    Scotland’s deficit – the shortfall between taxes raised here, including oil, and public spending – stands at £23.7bn. But as part of the UK, we can rely on the Treasury to step up to support us in plugging the gap.

    At a time of unprecedented challenges, sharing resources around the UK has never been more important.

    As we continue to recover from the pandemic and confront global pressures on prices and the cost of living, it is clear we need a shared and a relentless focus on boosting the economy.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Scottish Secretary Alister Jack comments on 2021-22 GERS figures

    PRESS RELEASE : Scottish Secretary Alister Jack comments on 2021-22 GERS figures

    The press release issued by the Scottish Office on 24 August 2022.

    Commenting on the Scottish Government’s Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland figures, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said:

    Today’s Scottish Government figures show how people and their families benefit massively from being part of a strong, resilient UK.

    Scotland’s deficit – the shortfall between taxes raised here, including oil, and public spending – stands at £23.7bn. But as part of the UK, we can rely on the Treasury to step up to support us in plugging the gap.

    At a time of unprecedented challenges, sharing resources around the UK has never been more important.

    As we continue to recover from the pandemic and confront global pressures on prices and the cost of living, it is clear we need a shared and a relentless focus on boosting the economy.

    Background

    • Total expenditure for the benefit of Scotland fell from £98,439 million in 2020-21, to £97,502 million in 2021-22.
    • The decline in spending reflects a reduction in spending associated with coronavirus support schemes.
    • Although spending as a share of GDP has fallen from the peaks seen during 2020-21, it remains above 50% of GDP, and around 5 percentage points higher than prior to the pandemic.
    • On top of receiving additional Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Government for 2021-22, these figures account for Scotland having benefited from at least an additional £3.7 billion in reserved spending, down from £9.4 billion in 2020-21.
    • The figures from the Scottish Government show that Scotland’s notional deficit fell from £35,774 billion in 2020-21 to £23,727 billion in 2021-22.  This is more than Scotland’s entire health, education, economic development, tourism and culture budget for the year, which was a cumulative £23.4 billion in 2021-22.
    • Public expenditure per person in Scotland in 2021-22 was £1,963 higher than the UK average. This was an increase from £1,530 in 2020-21.
    • Revenue per person in Scotland remained below the UK average. In 2021-22, including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue, revenue per person was £221 lower than the UK average.  In 2020-21 when revenue per head was £395 lower than the UK average. This shows the higher variability when North Sea revenues are included.
    • The ‘Union dividend’ per person in Scotland (the combined value of higher spending and lower revenue) was £2,184 in 2021-22.  This was an increase from £1,924 in 2020-21 (revised).
    • Although spending on the pandemic fell in 2021-22, this has mostly been offset by increases in the cost of servicing public sector debt.