Blog

  • King Edward VII – 1906 King’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by King Edward VII in the House of Lords on 19 February 1906.

    My Lords and Gentlemen,

    The lamented death of the King of Denmark, to whom I was united by the closest ties of family and affection, has caused Me much sorrow, and I feel convinced that the sympathy of the country will be extended to Queen Alexandra, who, in consequence of Her severe bereavement, is prevented from accompany Me on the important occasion of the opening of the new Parliament.

    The Prince and Princess of Wales left last autumn for India, and are visiting as many portions of My vast Empire as time will admit of. The reception they have met with from all classes has been most gratifying to Me, and I trust that their visit will tend to strengthen, among My subjects in India, the feeling of loyalty to the Crown and attachment to this country.

    It was with real satisfaction that I received the King of the Hellenes, who is so closely related to Me, as My guest during the autumn. His Majesty’s visit will, I am confident, confirm the friendly ties which have so long governed the relations existing between the two countries.

    My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.

    I rejoice that the war between Russia and Japan has been brought to an end by the satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations commenced last August, and due to the initiative of the President of the United States, which resulted in an honourable peace.

    An Agreement has been concluded with the Government of the Emperor of Japan prolonging and extending that which was made between the two Governments in January 1902. Its text has already been made public.

    The Conference summoned by the Sultan of Morocco to consider the introduction of reforms into his Kingdom has assembled at Algeciras, and Delegates from the Powers Signatories of the Madrid Convention of 1880 are engaged in deliberations, which still continue. It is earnestly to be hoped that the result of these negotiations may be conducive to the maintenance of peace among all nations.

    The dissolution of the union between Sweden and Norway has been peacefully accomplished, and, in accordance with the declared desire of the Norwegian people, My Son-in-law and Daughter, the Prince and Princess Charles of Denmark, have ascended the Throne of Norway as King and Queen.

    The insurrectionary movement in Crete has subsided, and the four Protecting Powers have appointed Commissioners with a view to the introduction of reforms in the island.

    The condition of the Macedonian vilayets, though in some respects improved, continues to give cause for anxiety. The Sultan has agreed to the appointment of an International Financial Commission to supervise the financial administration of these provinces, and I trust that this may lead to the introduction of salutary reforms and the improvement of the condition of the population.

    Papers will be laid before you respecting Army administration in India.

    In order to establish responsible government in the Transvaal Colony, I have decided to recall the Letters Patent which provided for the intermediate stage of representative government, and to direct that the new Constitution be drawn up with as much expedition as is consistent with due care and deliberation in all particulars. The elections to the first Legislative Assembly, which had been expected in July, must accordingly be postponed, but it is not anticipated that the additional delay need extend beyond a few months.

    The directions which have been given that no further licences should be issued for the importation of Chinese coolies will continue in force during that period.

    A Constitution granting responsible government will also be framed for the Orange River Colony.

    It is my earnest hope that in these Colonies, as elsewhere throughout My dominions, the grant of free institutions will be followed by an increase of prosperity and of loyalty to the Empire.

    The Colonial Conference, which, in existing circumstances, cannot be held this year, has been postponed until the early part of next year, with the concurrence of the Colonial Governments concerned.

  • Henry Campbell-Bannerman – 1901 Speech Following the Death of Queen Victoria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Henry Campbell-Bannerman in the House of Commons on 25 January 1901.

    Sir, the gracious Message which we have received from His Majesty the King and the Address by which the First Lord of the Treasury proposes that we should make reply to that Message concern themselves with a subject on which, happily for us, the House of Commons forgets all differences of party and of political opinion. If I were to borrow a, phrase from the stately Proclamation which yesterday resounded through these islands, I should say that it is “with one voice and consent of tongue and heart” that on these occasions we are accustomed in this country to act. If this is so, if we are all of one mind to-day, it is not merely in giving formal expression to constitutional and traditional loyalty; there is a deeper and stronger chord, a more intimate chord, that has been struck by the events of this week. The ties that bind the people of this country to the Throne and the Royal House have not been created, they are not such as could be created, by the wit or theory of philosopher or statesman; they have been knit by the character and the life of Queen Victoria and the members of Her Royal Family. I am not going to attempt to add—because if I attempted to add to it I should spoil it—to the eloquent panegyric which the right hon. Gentleman has passed upon the great Sovereign whose loss we deplore to-day. One might, of course, enlarge upon many points that were most prominent in her character and conduct, on her ungrudging devotion to duty, on her scrupulous observance of constitutional rules, on the soundness of her judgement, on her unfailing discretion, on the unsullied goodness of her life, and on her singularly quick and watchful sympathy with everything that could bring joy or sorrow to any of her subjects.

    But there is one thing which strikes me as having, above, all, from the earliest days of Her Majesty’s reign, won for her the hearts of her people, and which has increased her hold upon them as the revolving years succeeded each other, and this is a certain homely sincerity of character and life and purpose which, amid all the pomp and dignity of her august position, seemed to make the whole world kin. If we were to attempt to appreciate the light in which Queen Victoria has been regarded, and in which her memory will continue to be regarded by her people at home, and by her subjects within the vast bounds of her Empire—if we were to attempt it—we should search in vain down the long list of epithets expressive of pride and affection—admired, beloved, revered, even adored—to find one which accurately or adequately conveyed the real sentiment of her people towards her. I believe that this is because there was between them a friendly, tender, almost familiar, mutual understanding which it is impossible to put into words. Who can measure the strength which the existence of a relation such as this between the Sovereign and her people must have given through all these, years to this kingdom and this Empire? We have been so habituated to it that we hardly realise it; and it is now, when the relentless hand of death has taken Her Majesty from us, that we see how much we owed to her. Let me ask how often it must have happened during her long reign that some policy or action on the part of this country, either by fault of ours or not, may have failed to secure the goodwill of other States and nations among our neighbours, and how often may the evil effects of such a state of things have been averted by the knowledge, which was universal in the world, of the Queen’s personal and sincere devotion to the cause of peace and freedom and uprightness. It is, therefore, with a deep sense of gratitude for all the happiness and the strength which Her Majesty, by her own personal qualities, has given to her faithful people that we bow the head before the decree of Divine Providence which has put a close to a reign the most beneficent that has been seen in any nation and in any age of the world.

    Happily, the grief with which we suffer this irreparable loss is in some degree assuaged by our well-founded confidence that the Monarch who succeeds to the Throne will follow the same line of public conduct and will adhere to the same principles of life as have wrought so much good in the past. It often happens when a new occupant comes to the Throne of a country, that he is an untried Prince, unversed in public affairs; it may be even that he is little know personally to those over whom he is called upon to reign. It is not so with King Edward. For the greater part of his life it has fallen to him not only to discharge a large part of the ceremonial public duty which would naturally fall to be performed by the head of the State, but also to take a leading part in almost every scheme established for the benefit, material or moral, of the people of this country. Religion and charity, the public health, science, literature, and art, education, commerce, agriculture,—not one of these objects appealed in vain to His Majesty, while he was Prince of Wales, for strong sympathy and even for personal effort and influence. We know how unselfish he has been in the assiduous discharge of all his public duties, we know with what tact and geniality he has been able to lend his aid to the furtherance of these great objects.

    Therefore it is, not only that we hope, but that, from our past experience, we know, that His Majesty understands and enters into and appreciates and sympathises with the desires and needs of his people, and that he will devote himself even to a greater degree than he has been able to do in the past to the promotion of their welfare. And in this, perhaps, it may be light to say that it is an additional satisfaction to us to know that His Majesty will have by his side his august Consort, who has reigned in the hearts of the British people ever since she first set foot on our soil. Sir, there will be no discordant voice in this House to-day. If there were, we should not fittingly represent those who have sent us here. There will be but one universal feeling of sorrow for the lamentable calamity that has befallen the nation, and of hopeful confidence for a happy and prosperous future. I beg to second the motion.

  • Arthur Balfour – 1901 Speech on Death of Queen Victoria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Arthur Balfour, the then First Lord of the Treasury (he wasn’t Prime Minister until 1902, this was a rare period when the First Lord of the Treasury wasn’t also the Prime Minister), in the House of Commons on 25 January 1901.

    The history of this House is not a brief or an uneventful one, but I think it has never met in sadder circumstances than to-day or had the melancholy duty laid more clearly upon it of expressing a universal sorrow—a sorrow extending from one end of the Empire to the other, a sorrow which fills every heart and which every citizen feels, not merely as a national, but also as a personal loss. I do not know how it may seem to others, hut, for my own part, I can hardly yet realise the magnitude of the blow which has fallen upon the country—a blow, indeed, sorrowfully expected, but not, on that account, less heavy when it falls.

    I suppose that, in all the history of the British Monarchy, there never has been a case in which the feeling of national grief was so deep-seated as it is at present, so universal, so spontaneous. And that grief affects us not merely because we have lost a great personality, but because we feel that the end of a great epoch has come upon us—an epoch the beginning of which stretches beyond the memory, I suppose, of any individual whom I am now addressing, and which embraces within its compass sixty-three years, more important, more crowded with epoch-making change, than almost any other period of like length that could be selected in the history of the world. It is wonderful to reflect that, before these great changes, now familiar and almost vulgarised by constant discussion, were thought of or developed—great industrial inventions, great economic changes, great discoveries in science which are now in all men’s mouths-—Queen Victoria reigned over this Empire.

    Yet, Sir, it is not this reflection, striking though it be, which now moves us most deeply. It is not simply the length of the reign, it is not simply the magnitude of the events with which that reign is filled, which have produced the deep and abiding emotion which stirs every heart throughout this kingdom. The reign of Queen Victoria is no mere chronological landmark. It is no mere convenient division of time, useful to the historian or the chronicler. No, Sir, we feel as we do feel for our great loss because we intimately associate the personality of Queen Victoria with the great succession of events which have filled her reign, with the growth, moral and material, of the Empire over which she ruled. And, in so doing, surely we do well. In my judgement, the importance of the Crown in our Constitution is not a diminishing, but an increasing factor. It increases, and must increase with the development of those free, self-governing communities, those new commonwealths beyond the sea, who are constitutionally linked to us through the person of the Sovereign, the living symbol of Imperial unity. Hut, Sir, it is not given, it cannot, in ordinary course, be given, to a constitutional Monarch to signalise his reign by any great isolated action. His influence, great as it may be, can only be produced by the slow, constant, and cumulative results of a great ideal and a great example; and in presenting effectively that great ideal and that great example to her people Queen Victoria surely was the first of all constitutional Monarchs whom the world has vet seen. Where shall we find any ideal so lofty in itself, so constantly and consistently maintained, through two generations, through more than two generations, of her subjects, through many generations of her Ministers and public men?

    Sir, it would be almost impertinent for me were I to attempt to express to the House in words the effect which the character of our late Sovereign produced upon all who were in any degree, however remote, brought in contact with her. In the simple dignity, befitting a Monarch of this realm, she could never fail, because it arose from her inherent sense of the fitness of things. And because it was no artificial ornament of office, because it was natural and inevitable, this queenly dignity only served to throw into a stronger relief, into a brighter light those admirable virtues of the wife, the mother, and the woman with which she was so richly endowed. Those kindly graces, those admirable qualities, have endeared her to every class in the community, and are known to all. Perhaps less known was the life of continuous labour which her position as Queen threw upon her. Short as was the interval between the last trembling signature affixed to a public document and the final and perfect rest, it was yet long enough to clog and hamper the wheels of administration; and when I saw the accumulating mass of untouched documents which awaited the attention of the Sovereign, I marvelled at the unostentatious patience which for sixty-three years, through sorrow, through suffering, in moments of weariness, in moments of despondency, had enabled her to carry on without break or pause her share in the government of this great Empire. For her there was no holiday, to her there was no intermission of toil. Domestic sorrow, domestic sickness, made no difference in her labours, and they were continued from the hour at which she became our Sovereign to within a few days—I had almost said a few hours—of her death. It is easy to chronicle the growth of Empire, the course of discovery, the progress of trade, the triumphs of war, all the events that make history interesting or exciting; but who is there that will dare to weigh in the balance the effect which such an example, continued over sixty-three years, has produced on the highest life of her people?

    It was a great life, and surely it had a, happy ending. She found her reward in the undying affection and the passionate devotion of all her subjects, where so ever their lot might be cast. This has not always been the fate of her ancestors. It has not been the fate of some of the greatest among them. It has been their less happy destiny to outlive contemporary fame, to see their people’s love grow cold, to find new generations growing up who know them not, and burdens to be lifted too heavy for their aged arms. Their sun, once so bright, has set amid darkening clouds and the muttering of threatening-tempests. Such was not the lot of Queen Victoria. She passed away with her children and her children’s children, to the third generation, around her, beloved and cherished of all. She passed away without, I well believe, a single enemy in the world—for even those who loved not England loved her; and she, passed away not only knowing that she was—I had almost said adored by her people, but that their feelings towards her had grown in depth and intensity with every year in which she was spared to rule over them. No such reign, no such ending, can the history of this country show us.

    Mr. Speaker, the Message from the King which you have read from the Chair calls forth, according to the immemorial usage of this House, a double response. We condole with His Majesty upon the irreparable loss which he and the country have sustained. We congratulate him upon his accession to the ancient dignities of his House. I suppose at this moment there is no sadder heart in this kingdom than that of its Sovereign; and it may seem therefore to savour of bitter irony that we should offer him on such a melancholy occasion the congratulations of his people. Yet, Sir, it is not so. Each generation must bear its own burdens; and in the course of nature it is right that the burden of Monarchy should fall upon the heir to the Throne. He is, therefore, to be congratulated, as every man is to be congratulated who, in obedience to plain duty, takes upon himself the weight of great responsibilities, filled with the earnest hope of worthily fulfilling his task to the end, or, in his own words, “while life shall last.” It. is for us on this occasion, so momentous in the history of the Monarchy, so momentous in the history of the King, to express to him our unfailing confidence that the great interests committed to his charge are safe in his keeping, to assure him of the ungrudging-support which his loyal subjects are ever prepared to give, him, to wish him honour, to wish him long life, to wish him the greatest of all blessings, the blessing of reigning over a happy and a contented people, and to wish, above all, that his reign may, in the eyes of an envious posterity, fitly compare with that great epoch which has just drawn to a close. Mr. Speaker, I now beg to read the, Address which I shall ask you to put from the Chair and to which I shall ask the House to assent. I move—

    “That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to assure His Majesty that this House deeply sympathises in the great sorrow which His Majesty has sustained by the death of our beloved Sovereign, the late Queen, whose unfailing devotion to the duties of Her high estate and to the welfare of Her people will ever cause Her reign to be remembered with reverence and affection: to submit to His Majesty our respectful congratulations on His Accession to the Throne, to assure His Majesty of our loyal attachment to His person, and further to assure Him of our earnest conviction that His reign will be distinguished under the blessing of Providence by an anxious desire to maintain the Laws of the Kingdom, and to promote the happiness and liberty of His subjects.”

  • King Edward VII – Statement on Death of Queen Victoria

    Below is the text of the statement issued by King Edward VII on the death of his mother, Queen Victoria, which was read out in the Houses of Parliament on 25 January 1901.

    The King is fully assured that the House of Commons will share in the deep sorrow which has befallen His Majesty and the Nation by the lamented death of His Majesty’s mother, the late Queen. Her devotion to the welfare of Her country and Her people, and Her wise and beneficent rule during the sixty-four years of Her glorious reign will ever be held in affectionate memory by Her loyal and devoted subjects throughout the dominions of the British Empire.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech to the Conservative Group of the Local Government Association

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Conservative Group of the Local Government Association on 5 July 2005.

    And so, as sure as night turns to day, a General Election defeat has now been swiftly followed by another Tory leadership contest.

    Of course we will need, in time, to elect a new leader.

    But my concern is that, as usual, we are already rushing to a personality-based beauty contest.

    When what we need most is to have a substantial debate about the future of our party.

    So my message to our colleagues in Westminster is simple:

    Stop looking for quick fixes.

    There is no silver bullet.

    Put the work in.

    Face up to the scale of the problem.

    Keep your eyes open, your thinking clear.

    And empty your heads of ideological prejudice.

    You see, there is a massive job to do, and so far I’m afraid most of our colleagues in Westminster have shown little or no sign that they understand just how big it is.

    One of my faults, or so I’m told, is that I have a habit of quoting from Democrat Presidents.

    Well tonight I will only quote from a fictional one, every Tory’s favourite Democrat, President Jed Bartlet from The West Wing.

    In one episode, he’s talking about the mixed messages he’s receiving from his economic advisers.

    “Everyone’s got a magic lever they want you to push,” he says, “…but in this job only a fool is ever certain. You don’t push any one lever. You want to push a little on all of them.”

    Bartlet could have been talking about the current Conservative debate.

    Because that’s the problem everyone seems to have a single policy answer to the massive problems we face.

    For some, that policy is low taxes.

    For some, it’s choice in the public services.

    And for others, it is localism.

    But the truth is that no single policy or idea will be sufficient to rebuild the Conservative Party’s relationship with the British people.

    Just look at the evidence in the research published last week by Lord Ashcroft.

    His polling showed that through January and February, Conservative policies on schools and the public services were never recalled by more than two per cent of the electorate at any one time.

    It was simply not the case that people heard digested and rejected our policies.

    They just didn’t think we were worth listening to.

    It therefore cannot be the case that a renewal of our policies this time around will be the answer.

    And yet here we are in danger of elevating certain policies to the status of ideological cure-alls.

    And you know what?

    We’ve done it before.

    For years, we saw low taxes and privatisation as ends in themselves, rather than as means to delivering the kind of open, free enterprise culture we value.

    As a result, people thought us dogmatic rather than pragmatic more interested in pursuing our ideology for the sake of it, than in making a difference to their lives.

    We did it again at the General Election, when there was no better example of our failure to connect with people and their values than our approach to the public services.

    While people wanted the right to good quality public services, on May the Fifth we offered them the right to choose.

    Yes, we aspired to good quality schools and hospitals.

    But, while Labour talked the language of aspiration and improvement, people perceived the extent of our vision to be choice-driven managerial jargon.

    And now, along with our lingering ideological obsessions with low taxes and choice, a growing number of voices have identified localism as the theory that will mend our broken party.

    In recent weeks, some in the party have told us that they’ve found the secret to winning the next election.

    They’ve called it localism.

    Apparently all we have to do is talk to local people, get interested in local issues, focus on local campaigning, and get involved with our local communities.

    What on earth do they think councillors have been doing, day in, day out, year after year?!

    But when you get into specifics, you find that the implications of their brand of localism are quite different to what I and, I suspect, most of you have always believed in.

    It is a blueprint for nothing less than the almost complete dismantlement of government — at both a national and a local level.

    Instead of government, they want to see Britain run by a plethora of locally-elected mayors, authorities, and officials.

    A Britain more like America where people have the power to elect everyone from their local MP to their local dogcatcher.

    Quite apart from what you may or may not think of this brand of localism, the really important question is who’s going to vote for it?

    There are two clear political dangers of a radical agenda that seeks to bypass and replace all levels of government, and that allows people instead to elect their own local police chiefs and school boards

    First, the concept of elected boards and authorities has the potential to undermine the long-standing, and genuinely popular, Conservative commitment to civil society and voluntary action replacing it with yet more politicians and elected officials.

    For example, how many people, who currently offer their time for free in order to act as school governors, do you think would be willing to put themselves up for public election to a school board?

    Second, these policies might sound to us, and to friendly policy wonks, like clear and compelling proposals.

    But many voters will choose to hear a far less desirable message.

    As far as they’re concerned, the message will be:

    “You choose who you want to run things, you elect them, so now it’s your problem, not ours.”

    Now I believe our values should include an instinct for local, people-based solutions, over Whitehall-bureaucratic centralisation.

    I believe we should always seek to push down power from national government, through local government, and ultimately to people.

    And I believe it is through the work of people like you and the base you have established at a local level that the Conservative Party can best approach the long journey back to government.

    For the record, I was one of the co-founders of Britain’s leading localist think tank, Policy Exchange.

    And I remain a committed localist.

    But, I also want to be clear that a local approach to our politics and our policies can only ever be a part of the answer we are looking for.

    And, in rushing to narrow policy specifics, my colleagues risk missing crucial wider points about what needs to happen to get the Conservative Party back into shape.

    In short, neither localism nor any other single policy idea will ever be sufficient to guarantee the revival of the Conservative Party.

    Lord Ashcroft’s polling also showed that, during the campaign, six times as many people saw the Conservative Party as ‘old-fashioned’ rather than ‘modern’. And twice as many people saw us as ‘dishonest’ rather than ‘honest’, and ‘not concerned about people’ rather than ‘concerned about them’.

    These depressing results reflected the fact that the Conservative brand is seriously badly damaged.

    If we are going to fix that, we will have to accept and respond to the way politics has changed and this is where you, as councillors, are way ahead of the Party in Westminster.

    Today, politics is more than ever about individual people and families, and what government can do for them.

    It is about making a difference to their day-to-day lives.

    I know this because, like all of you, I was once a local councillor.

    I was a councillor for eight years, and it taught me a lot.

    Not least, I learnt that what people want is delivery on issues that matter, and not warm words and fuzzy jargon.

    When I was Chairmen of Education on Merton Council, I was privileged to be able to champion the completion of an incredibly bold programme that was years ahead of its time.

    We made sure that there was a free nursery school place available to every three and four year-old child whose parents wanted one.

    This was way before central government had woken up to the importance of nursery education for children and their parents.

    The lesson of how local councils can lead the way, because they operate at such close range to the lives of the people they are elected to serve, has never left me.

    I think the Conservative Party, at a national level, now has to demonstrate that same kind of commitment to delivering the things that really matter to people.

    And it has to demonstrate an absolute flexibility of thinking and approach, in striving to achieve those ends.

    But initially at least, the Conservative Party has to focus far more on what those ends should be, and far less on the means of delivering them.

    The time will come for the policy lever.

    But four years away from a General Election, with the world changing faster than ever, this would be a very silly time indeed to start committing ourselves to narrow policy specifics.

    So what now, if not policy?

    I’ll tell you what.

    Values, vision, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.

    Now I know that these things are hard to summarise easily.

    I know others are looking for answers that are crisper and more tangible.

    But the time for ten-word slogans will come.

    You see, politics is about people.

    Politics is about delivering a vision, based on a core set of values.

    Politics is about telling a powerful story with real substance.

    Only then can you reduce that story to policy specifics that are snappy enough to influence the ‘ballot-box moment’.

    Your story can begin, and it can end, with ten words, or even just five but, in between, it needs to be made flesh with hundreds, if not thousands of them.

    That’s why we need to start today not by launching numerous detailed, distinct, and specific policies but by painting vivid pictures, and telling compelling stories, about what life would be like in Conservative Britain.

    I believe the Conservative Party’s aim should be to give people security and hope and to help them achieve fulfilment in their lives.

    Government alone cannot make people happy.

    But it can ensure that its net contribution to people’s happiness and well-being is always a positive one.

    So when we, as Conservatives, seek to set people free, to trust them, and to give them the best possible opportunities in life it’s actually helping them fulfil their potential today, and giving them hope for an even better tomorrow.

    Because we believe that people, in the pursuit of their own happiness, will take better decisions for themselves that any politicians or bureaucrats ever could.

    When we think about issues like healthcare and social security, we should do it knowing that, without such universal safety nets, people would feel hugely insecure.

    When we argue for a strong economy and for growing wealth, we should be mindful that they are just means to an end.

    Because we know that, by supporting our public services, and by helping people to live their lives as they want, wealth helps to generate security and happiness.

    When we consider the values that the British people associate with their country – decent, tolerant, fair-minded, respectful, and equal – we should remember that it makes them feel secure and hopeful for the future to live in such a country.

    And we should remember that it would make them unhappy ever to think that their country, or their government, was failing to live up to those values.

    And finally, when we argue for tough-minded approaches to things like policing, asylum, or government spending it should not be because particular policies give us some ideological thrill.

    It should be because there are growing problems to be dealt with that, if not addressed, will end up reducing people’s well-being in the long run.

    Now is not the time for details.

    It’s only July 2005 and we should not get ahead of ourselves.

    Right now, if we could just begin to convince people that we’re serious about making a commitment to the big and the small things that make their lives that little bit better, then we would have taken a giant step on the road back to power.

    I think you, as local councillors, know all this.

    I think it’s what you do every day for the residents you serve.

    And I think you understand, better than anyone, how politics is all about what you do for people, not about how you do it.

    That’s why I believe it’s so important that you play a full part in the election of our next leader.

    That’s why I find it ironic that, at a time when my colleagues seem so keen to hand over endless powers to local people, they want to take all powers away from our own local community.

    They’ll let you vote for your local sheriff, but not for your party leader.

    And that’s why I urge each and every one of you to write to your MPs, to your members, to the Party board and fight for all you are worth to protect your right to have a say in the future of our great party.

    Because if we want to change this party, and, ultimately this country for the better we can only do it together.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on Improving Lives of Children in Care

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May on 12 July 2005.

    Can I begin by thanking you all for coming here today. The events of the last few days have had a huge impact on the lives of everyone living and working in London. It is a sign of the resilience and determination of the people of London that we are all getting on with our business as usual. And I am doubly glad that you are able to join us today to discuss such an important issue, helping some of the most vulnerable in our society.

    As you may know, the Conservative Party is currently engaged in a debate about it’s future direction, and about who should be the person to lead us. We have been given this opportunity by Michael Howard – an opportunity to take time to consider who and what it should stand for in modern Britain. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to waste. That is no idle threat. The reality is that, if we draw the wrong conclusions and set the wrong course as a result of the outcomes of this debate, then it will not only be our party that will suffer. In other words, this isn’t just about us.

    Britain needs a strong opposition, it needs a Conservative alternative. Only then can we ensure that the Government is held properly to account, and that we have a genuine debate about the problems that we as a community face. So long as we fail to come up with radical solutions to the ills that are affecting modern society, then we will fail to leave the British public with our vision of a caring, compassionate society. By being seen as not addressing the issues that effect society today, we allow ourselves to be perceived as out of touch with the views of society.

    The Conservative Party can do so much better than this. Our approach to politics and policy-making – based on an instinct for people, for local decision making, for trusting charities and voluntary groups, and for supporting civil society – can add so much to the quality of so many people’s lives. We genuinely have a positive and distinct story to tell about how we would deal better with problems like child support, family breakdown, about issues such as children in care, quality housing provision, improved educational standards, enhancing life and job opportunities, and urban renewal.

    But if we are to do so we must first remind ourselves that there are no Conservative issues – there are just Conservative instincts, values and methods. That is why it is so important that we should address issues like the one we are discussing today.

    As the political landscape has changed and as people’s priorities have changed, so must the focus of our efforts. In a democratic society such as ours, it is nothing less than our duty to do so. If we fail to do so, then we too will be failing the vulnerable in society. The challenge for us as a party is to give voice to our vision of what that society would be like, and how we would achieve it.

    And that is why I am so pleased that so many of you have come along today to discuss this vitally important problem. Of course, the problem is that all too often, the work done by everyone sitting around this room today goes unnoticed.

    Your difficult and often heartbreaking job of dealing with the aftermath of the breakdown of families, and the devastating effect that this can have on young lives is not glamorous or exciting. Often it is thankless and difficult. On most occasions it only reaches the headlines when something goes wrong. The breakdown in the system, the child that slips through the checks. The Victoria Climbie, the Adam case or the headline grabbing cases of ritual abuse. These are all shocking and terrible. We must never reach a point when such items do not wrench us from our comfortable television viewing, or shock us to the point of silence.

    But what is equally as shocking, is that throughout this country, there are children who aren’t slipping through the net. They aren’t the children who will be headline grabbing cases of abuse or neglect. They are just the children who never quite get the life they deserve. The children who are quietly resigned to a life that they and that we should not accept. Everyday, there are too many children to whom this tragedy happens.

    It isn’t because people don’t care enough. It isn’t because government or councils, social workers or charities aren’t concerned by the problem. It isn’t for any of those reasons. But it continues to happen, day in and day out. Young lives that should have been so happy and so promising are filled with tears, young people destined for a life on the streets, in and out of work, or even in prison.

    These aren’t doomsday words, set out to paint the blackest picture to score political points. Many thousands of children leave care with hope and in families who love them. But too many children do not.

    The figures speak for themselves. There are more than 61,000 children in care, the highest figure in over 20 years, an increase of 20% since 1997. More than 13 % of all looked after children were moved to a new placement three different times last year, 12 % of which were children under the age of 2, when emotional attachment and stability is so important.

    But the harsh realities of life in care do not get any better as children get older. Despite the efforts of social workers and teachers, more than 1 in ten children in care miss 25 days of school or more a year. 6 in 10 children leave care without achieving a single GCSE to their name, and only 1% go on to university.

    Government have failed miserably to achieve the target they set themselves that 75% of children leaving care should achieve a single GCSE. That the government has failed is not the thing that should lead us to take action. The thing that should force us to take action is the acceptance by government that one GCSE, one single qualification, in any way equips these young and vulnerable people for a life in the real world.

    Whenever we hear government trumpet its aim to encourage 50% of all young people to go to university, we should all remind them, whether we vote Labour or not, that only 1%, a miserable one in a hundred children from care ever make it to university. This is a scandal that none of us would accept for our own children. Yet every day, we accept it for the children of others. Children that we the state, are supposed to care for.

    How can we say that these are “looked after children”. The Government have the best of intentions and have made headway. But surely, if we are truly to “look after them” we must do more than resign them to a life that for many is without hope – where they are two-and-a-half times more likely to become teenage parents, where between a quarter and a third of people sleeping rough on the streets were in care as a child: where a quarter of those in our prisons were in care as children; we can and we must do better!

    There are of course many good things going on to help these children. There are many initiatives to support families and prevent children being taken into care in the first place, and we will hear some examples later. There is some magnificent work to support such children in school, to help them achieve their goals, and make an independent and successful life for themselves. And there are many hardworking people, social workers working under difficult conditions, foster parents giving the time and the love that children need so badly, people working to reunite families, and to make new families and new homes for so many children., who are working day after day to give hope and a better life to these youngsters.

    What I want to hear about today is how we can help. What more can we do? What can we as politicians do to help you make a better lives for our children? All our children deserve the best chances in life. We must work together to deliver them a better life.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Conservative Party Conference held on 3 October 2005.

    “It’s great to be back amongst so many friends.

    When I was Chairman, I met thousands of you as I visited constituencies across the country.

    I know how hard you all work — not just at election time, but week in, week out — to spread the Conservative message.

    And, as an MP, I know that none of us would be here without you.

    So thank you.

    Of course, if you listened to the Liberal Democrats before the election, I wasn’t supposed to be here at all.

    Well so much for Mr. Kennedy’s decapitation strategy.

    There’s only one head that Liberal Democrats want to see roll now.

    And that’s yours Charlie!

    I want to talk this afternoon about the next Conservative Government.

    Not just about what we will do when we are in power — as if we only have to wait four more years before it happens.

    But about the roadmap — the hard work and the tough choices — that will take us there.

    Government is about people.

    And right now, the people of this country need our help more than ever.

    But, if we are to win the opportunity to help them, and to change life in Britain for the better…

    There are three things we will have to do.

    First, we are going to have to change the way we conduct our politics.

    Tony Blair chose to use his first major speech after the election to talk about restoring ‘respect’ on our streets.

    Can you imagine how sweet those words sounded to someone whose life is affected daily by Britain’s drink-fuelled yob culture?

    And then think how they feel now with the Prime Minister insisting on 24-hour drinking laws.

    Cheated, betrayed, conned.

    And a little less likely to trust anything a politician promises, ever again.

    There is a problem with respect in Britain.

    We do need urgently to restore respect for people and property.

    But it’s more than that too.

    It’s the respect for government that has been steadily eroded by years of broken promises.

    And it’s the respect for government that we will have to restore — if we are to persuade people there is a better way.

    You see, the status quo always favours the incumbent.

    Labour know that no-one trusts them, but they still won in May, so they don’t care.

    All they care about is that no-one trusts us either.

    So we have to change that.

    It won’t be easy.

    I know some people say that the main job of the opposition is to oppose.

    And, as an opposition, the temptation is always to throw the punch — to grab the headline.

    But we’ve done that for eight years.

    And where has it got us?

    The real job of this Party — the real way we will win people’s respect — is to stop being today’s opposition and start being tomorrow’s government.

    So, from now on, we will have to be scrupulously honest and painfully reasonable.

    We’ll have to stop opposing for opposition’s sake — and resist all temptation to be opportunistic.

    And we will have to show people what we stand for — and then stick to those ideals and principles — even when that means supporting the Government if they get things right.

    The second thing we have to do is reform our Party.

    We have to show that we are a Party comfortable with Britain as it is today.

    A Party representative of men and women — of every age, race, and religion.

    A Party as at home in the cities as it is in the country.

    A Party as confident about the future as it is about the past.

    And we must reflect that — not just in our words — but in our attitudes.

    In today’s Britain, the vast majority of people regard equality between man and women as so obvious it doesn’t even need stating.

    And yet, for too long, in too many parts of this Party, the assumption has been that politics is a man’s job.

    And the other parties aren’t much better.

    But Margaret Thatcher proved that your ability to lead your country depends on your talent and your courage, not on whether you are a man or a woman.

    And for the small minority who don’t accept women — or black or gay people — as their equals, I’ve got a message.

    Don’t think you’ll find a refuge from the modern world here.

    There is no place for you in our Conservative Party.

    Because every day that we are unwilling to embrace a future in which all men and women respect each other as absolute equals — is another day we will be out of government.

    But I’m optimistic.

    I know we’re moving forward.

    That’s why our benches have been swelled by great new MPs like Adam Afriyie, Shailesh Vara, Maria Miller, and Anne Milton.

    I know that all of you, the real Conservative Party, are with them and with me.

    And anyone who wants to stop us had better get out of our way.

    I spend much of my time focusing on how the Conservative Party has to change.

    I do it for a reason.

    I want us to win.

    And not just win, but govern — and govern well.

    That’s the third thing the Conservative Party needs to do.

    Focus on exactly what it means to govern well.

    In 1979, the bonds of state dependency were obvious.

    They tied down our economy and made us a laughing stock.

    Today, the bonds of state control are often invisible.

    But they are there — and they are tightening.

    The difference is that New Labour prefer to run everything remotely by dictat and regulation.

    That way they get to interfere all they want, but can pass the buck when things go wrong.

    We should be willing to turn all that on its head.

    I want us to reject BIG government — government that tries to do everything and ends up achieving nothing.

    The hands-on, control-freaky, government-knows-best mindset that Labour, new or renewed, can never escape.

    But I want us to reject SMALL government too — and with it the assumption that politicians have no responsibility for peoples lives.

    So let’s put the myth to rest once and for all.

    Size doesn’t matter!

    Just because government is often part of the problem…

    Doesn’t mean it can never be part of the solution.

    Instead, I want the Conservative Party to stand for GOOD government.

    Government’s job is helping people live their lives — throughout their lives — as they raise and protect their families, build their careers, and save for their retirements.

    Listening to people’s needs, and taking responsibility for the things that matter to them.

    Making sure they get the education and healthcare they deserve, keeping them safe, providing a fallback should life take a wrong turn, and helping them with the childcare or the care home place they need but can’t afford.

    Of course, we all know that, often, the best thing government can do is simply stay out of the way.

    To allow people to give their time freely to help others — as I know so many of you do.

    But sometimes, to do its job, government needs to get stuck in.

    So good government has to be prepared to be active, strong, and effective — whenever it needs to be.

    Good government should be both idealistic and pragmatic.

    Idealistic in what it aims to achieve.

    Ruthlessly pragmatic in how it sets out to achieve it.

    There is no need to choose between the two.

    And if it does its job well, the impact of government can be enormously beneficial.

    If it does it badly, it can be oppressive and corrosive.

    Labour don’t understand that.

    We do.

    If the Conservative Party could only change the way we conduct our politics, and restore respect in government…

    Then people would take a fresh look at us.

    If we could show not only that we are comfortable with modern Britain — but that we reflect modern Britain…

    Then people might listen to what we have to say.

    But they won’t listen for long if we don’t hold their attention.

    We don’t just need to convince them that we want the things they want — world-class education, better healthcare, safer streets.

    We need to show them— how we can make it happen.

    And we won’t KEEP them interested — if we just talk about dry academic concepts like localism, decentralization, and the size of the state.

    So let’s start speaking the language of people — talking about the concrete things we would do to improve their lives — focusing on what should happen in the public services, not just on how they are structured.

    Because if we paint a picture of the good Conservative Government that we know we can be — then we can win the next election.

    I stand before you today as the Conservative Party’s first ever Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, and for Culture, Media, and Sport.

    Supported by my excellent team, Malcolm Moss, Hugh Robertson, Hugo Swire, Andrew Selous, Tim Loughton, William Astor, Arthur Luke, and Trish Morris.

    You know, I’ve been struck recently by the similarities between politics and sport.

    Just a few years ago, England lost to New Zealand and we were called the worst cricket team in the world.

    This summer England beat Australia — to become the best in the world.

    So have faith — anything is possible if you work hard enough to achieve it.

    The other highlight of the summer was London winning the Olympic Games with the bid team lead by Seb Coe.

    Wasn’t it great to see a Tory winning a vote against the odds?

    Winning AT the Olympic Games requires years of sacrifice, hard work, and single-minded dedication.

    Winning an election is much the same.

    A successful athlete must give up the nights out and the fast food.

    If the Conservative Party is going to win the gold medal in four years’ time — it too is going to have to give up some enjoyable but ultimately damaging vices.

    Ya-boo, opportunism, intellectual self-indulgence, ideological obsessions, quick fixes, and easy answers.

    I’m afraid they’ve all got to go.

    But then there’s something else as well.

    London’s bid to host the Olympic Games involved not just graft but vision — not just perspiration but inspiration.

    And that’s what we, the Conservative Party, have to offer too.

    You see, you can win a race without the crowd on your side — by training hardest, by being the best.

    And, of course, you won’t win if you’re not.

    But you can’t win an election like that — no matter how good you are.

    To win an election — to be confident of victory — you have to inspire people — you have to make them want you to win.

    I hardly need to tell you how successful the Conservative Party can be — when it inspires people with the possibilities of change and progress.

    Margaret Thatcher inspired people.

    She gave them a glimpse of a better future.

    And she delivered it!

    So let’s inspire people again.

    Let’s find that confidence and belief that for so long we seemed to have lost.

    The confidence to dream.

    The belief in our power to achieve.

    This week we begin to set our new course.

    We have four years’ of work in front of us.

    They will go past in the blink of an eye.

    So we have to choose the right path — right now.

    Let’s remind people what a Conservative Government can achieve.

    Let’s inspire them with what the next Conservative Government would achieve.

    And let’s be ready — once again — to transform our great country.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on Women 2 Win

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May on 23 November 2005.

    I think today could mark a turning point for the Conservative Party. What is clear from what you have heard is that throughout our party, at every level, there is a growing realisation that we must change. And fundamental to that change is the role of women within the Conservative Party.

    What this event has proved, without a shadow of a doubt that championing the cause of women in our party is no longer a minority sport. For a while there it seemed somewhat of an exclusive club – myself, my Shadow cabinet colleague Caroline Spelman, and a few doughty supporters.

    But today that is simply no longer the case.

    6 members of the Shadow Cabinet, former cabinet Ministers, senior members of the House of Commons and newly elected alike. Candidates, constituency chairman, activists, we all agree that we must ensure that more conservative women are elected to parliament at the next election. They have all chosen to sign our Women 2 Win declaration.

    And perhaps most importantly, this view is shared just as equally by men in our party as it is by women. You will remember that just a few weeks ago, 6 male MPs were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet and say that it was time we took positive and radical action to guarantee more women candidates. Since then, a number of others have joined us. This is no longer an all girls club, the men have gate crashed the party.

    I have been told by a number of senior labour MPs and journalists that the Labour party didn’t take electing women to parliament seriously until the men began to realise the impact it had on voters. The cut through that having women in senior positions, developing policy, and talking to the public had on the voter’s view of the labour Party.

    And it worked. As we have heard, in 1997, Labour led the Conservatives among women by 12 points. And they have continued to lead us ever since.

    Well the good news, the news that should cheer every member of our Party, and make the Labour benches sit up and take notice, is that now we realise it too.

    Not all of those believe that the answer is all women shortlists. Not all believe that an ‘A’ list or a gold list is the best solution. But what we all agree is that waiting and hoping for more women to be elected is never going to deliver the results we need.

    Women 2 Win is the signal that the Conservative Party is determined to win back the women vote and to win back power. It is a sure sign that we know what has to be done to represent modern Britain, and that we are prepared to take those steps.

    Over the coming months and years, we will work to ensure that more women re selected. We will raise the profile of Conservative women in the Party and in the media. We want to raise the money to provide the training and support they need.

    We want to work with the Party, with candidates department and training team to ensure that the finest candidates we can find are selected to represent our Party

    And we want to arm our candidates with the skills they need to win back seats from Labour and the Lib Dems at the next election.

    But of course, we can only play our part. As I have said, the support for our aims is wide ranging, and it is continuing to grow. But there are two people who we need to recognise what needs to be done if we are to guarantee success.

    Of course, I am talking about the David’s!

    It is a little known fact that there are more men in the Shadow Cabinet called David than there are women.

    It is for that reason, that Women 2 Win are making this challenge to anyone who views themselves fit to lead our party and to govern our Country. Over the course of the remaining leadership election campaign, make clear your commitment to reform the Conservative Party into a Party that represents, reflects and understands Britain today. We urge you to sign up to the women 2 win declaration, and make a positive commitment to securing our parties future success.

    In short recognise what we all recognize. That the Conservative Party really does need women to win!

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on the Causes of Crime

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, at Conservative Central Office on 22 April 2005.

    Drugs are at the root of a lot of crime, especially violent crime. They ruin families and destroy communities too. As the dealers and junkies take over, families move out, turning neighbourhoods into ghettos.

    We cannot afford to sit back as drugs ruin more families and destroy more communities. We need a coherent, committed, consistent anti-drug programme.

    Some people say that drugs are a matter of personal freedom. I disagree. It’s time we stopped blurring the distinction between right and wrong. We need to send a clear message: “Drugs are wrong”. No quibbling. No hedging.

    Increasing drug abuse is not inevitable. Look at America where drug abuse by young people has declined. In two years there has been a more than ten per cent drop in the number of high school pupils taking illicit drugs – the first fall for a decade.

    Why? Well partly because American children are getting a clear message about drugs – that they are wrong, that they aren’t glamorous, that they ruin lives.

    But here in Britain youngsters all too often get mixed messages. We have a government that tells children what to eat – that sweets and crisps make you fat – but isn’t prepared to take a clear line on cannabis.

    That is why a Conservative Government will reclassify cannabis – sending a clear message that the drug is dangerous.

    And we’ll fund a major advertising campaign with a clear, consistent anti-drugs message.

    We’ll tackle drugs at school too.

    Head teachers need to be able to take firm action against drugs at school.

    So the Conservatives will help schools introduce random drug testing, if parents and teachers want it.

    We will provide the resources for testing machines in every local authority area.

    Life is too precious simply to be written off – we have to give youngsters who get hooked on drugs the chance to get back on the straight and narrow.

    All the evidence shows that residential rehab is the most effective means of treating addicts.

    But in Britain today there are fewer than 2,500 residential rehab places available.

    A Conservative Government will expand this massively, providing 25,000 residential places for hard drug users where they can spend six-months getting intensive treatment to get them off drugs.

    That’s enough to help 50,000 addicts a year.

    It will allow us, over the course of a year, to treat every young teenage drug addict in Britain.

    And we will give the police the power to send young drug addicts ‘straight to treatment’ at a residential treatment centre without first going to court.

    Young drug users will be faced with a choice. Take up these places and come off drugs. Or go to court and face the possibility of time in prison.

    There will be no soft option or half way house. Young drug abusers will have to face up to the consequences of their actions. They will have to seek treatment or accept that they will be punished by jail.

    Those that do seek treatment will have a fresh start. They will not face criminal proceedings and will not have a criminal record. That’s what we mean by the chance to change. Those that refuse treatment, or who do not complete their course, will be sent to court for their case to be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

    Too many people in Britain today think that there is little or nothing that we can do about problems like drugs. Conservatives think differently. We don’t promise the earth. But we are committed to tackling the problems that matter to families today.

    We will implement a coherent, consistent committed anti-drug programme.

    The potential rewards are enormous. Imagine helping a generation of addicts back into society so that they can once again make a contribution to their communities. Imagine tackling one of the root causes of violent crime. Imagine passing on to our children a safer, more secure society than the one we have inherited.

    It’s an ambition worth fighting for. David will now set out our action plan on violent crime.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2019.

    I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) followed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who called for calm and moderation in this debate. I am afraid that some of the language the hon. Gentleman used rather failed to rise to that challenge. For him now to call for a people’s vote when he never for an instant accepted the result of the people’s vote we have already had underlines the point about double standards raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray).

    Peter Grant rose—

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    No, I am not giving way; the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time. But I will say this: like him, I believe in the sovereignty of the people, and in fact I believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and the Scottish people spoke in 2014 and voted to be part of the United Kingdom. And then the Scottish people, as the British people, took part in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum and the British people spoke, and I believe in their sovereign right to be respected.

    So I will rise to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge and say that the benefits the Scottish people are getting from leaving the EU are that they are taking control of their own laws and money, and—something dear to his heart, I imagine—that the Scottish Parliament is going to have more power as a result of us leaving the EU. He seems to be very quiet about that.

    In the emergency debate on Tuesday 11 December I emphasised the democratic legitimacy of the referendum vote. The Commons voted to give the decision to remain or leave to the voters by 544 votes to 53, and then we accepted that decision and invoked article 50 by 494 votes to 122.

    Nobody could possibly question the courteous determination and sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has striven so hard to secure an agreement acceptable to this House from our EU partners, but it now looks most unlikely that this draft agreement will be approved, because it would leave the UK in a less certain and more invidious position than we are prepared to accept.

    Nevertheless, the EU withdrawal Act, which sets the exit date as 29 March 2019, did pass this House. It could have included an amendment that the Act should not come into force without an article 50 withdrawal agreement, but we approved that Act, which provides for leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement—I think even my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex voted for that Act. Parliament has now spoken. The Act makes provision for the so-called “meaningful vote”, but not for any kind of vote in this House to prevent Brexit without a withdrawal agreement. Democracy has been served.

    For some MPs now to complain that they did not intend to vote for what the Act provides for is rather lame. They may have held a different hope or expectation, but the Government gave no grounds for that. The Government always said, and still say, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Parliament has approved the law and set the date. There is no democratic case for changing it, nor could that be in the national interest.

    The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) reminded us of some of the less pleasant elements on the spectrum of British politics, but elsewhere in the EU, extremism is becoming far more entrenched than here, with AFD in Germany and the gilets jaunes on the streets of Paris, as well as Lega Nord, which has actually taken power in Italy. Popular revolt against the immovability of the established EU consensus in the rest of the EU cannot be blamed on Brexit. On the contrary, our broad and largely two-party democracy has proved to be the most durable and resistant to extremism because we absorb and reflect the effects of political and economic shocks. UKIP died at the 2017 general election because both the main parties pledged to implement the referendum decision without qualification.

    But what are some in this House trying to achieve now? What would be the consequences for the stability and security of our democracy if the Government let the politicians turn on the majority of their own voters and say, “The politicians are taking back control, not for Parliament but to keep the EU in control”? The voters did not vote to accept whatever deal the EU was prepared to offer. They voted to leave, whether or not the EU gave us permission. Ruling out leaving without a withdrawal agreement is not a democratic option. They did not vote to remain as the only alternative to a bad deal, they did not vote for the EU to hold the UK hostage, nor did they vote for a second referendum.

    Of course, a second referendum is what the EU really wants, which is why it will not give the UK a good deal. It is shameful that so many leading political figures from our country have been shipping themselves over to Brussels to tell the EU not to make concessions in the negotiations with their own Government, in order to try to get a second referendum. The EU is a profoundly undemocratic and unaccountable institution, whose biggest project, the euro, has inflicted far worse disaster on businesses, individuals and families in many countries than even the direst Treasury forecasts for the UK. The economic and political storm clouds are still just gathering over the EU. It is the EU that is on the cliff edge of disaster, not the UK. In the years to come, in the words of Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England:

    “If you give people a chart of British GDP and ask them to point to where we left the EU, they won’t be able to see it.”

    Our domestic policies, as well as our trade with the rest of the world, have already become far more important than our present trading relationship with the EU. We will have the freedom to develop them more quickly. Our EU membership does not just cost the net contribution of £10 billion per year and rising, which does no more than avoid some £5.3 billion of tariffs, but it has locked the UK into an EU trading advantage, leaving the UK with an EU trade deficit of £90 billion a year. Why are we trying to preserve such a disadvantageous trading relationship?

    Even if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, there will be immediate benefits. WTO is a safer haven than the backstop. Far from crashing out, we would be cashing in. We would keep £39 billion, which would immediately improve our balance of payments and could be invested in public services, distributed in tax cuts or used to speed up economic adaptation. That would boost GDP by 2% over the next few years. We would end uncertainty; the draft agreement would perpetuate it.

    Business needs clarity about trading conditions with the EU from day one. Jamie Dimon of J. P. Morgan campaigned for remain, side by side with George Osborne, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. J. P. Morgan now says that extending article 50 is the “worst case scenario” because it does

    “not see what it provides us in reaching a clear, final outcome that provides certainty for businesses”.

    It adds that paralysis is

    “not good for the economy”,

    yet that is what the article 50 extenders are arguing for. We will not be caught in any backstop if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, nor will there be a hard border in Ireland. Even Leo Varadkar has said that

    “under no circumstances will there be a border. Full stop.”

    The EU and the UK Government have said the same.

    All of the more ludicrous scare stories are being disproved. There will be no queues at Dover or Calais. The president of Port Boulogne Calais could not have been more emphatic—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, because they do not want to hear the truth. The president of Port Boulogne Calais said:

    “We have been preparing for No Deal for a year….We will be ready….We will not check trucks more than we are doing today…We will not stop and ask more than we are doing today”.

    He added that the new special area for sanitary and phytosanitary checks was somewhere else, and would

    “not influence the traffic in Dover.”

    The Government and the pharma companies say that they can guarantee supplies of medicines, and the EU Commission has proposed visa-free travel for UK citizens in the EU for up to six months of the year. The EU statement of 19 December already proposes its own transition period of up to nine months, including no disruption of central bank clearing, a new air services agreement, access to the EU for UK road haulage operators and special regulations on customs declarations.

    Leaving on WTO terms is far preferable to the protracted uncertainty of either extending article 50 or this unacceptable withdrawal agreement. The leadership of this country—that includes the Government and the Opposition—should stop reinforcing weakness and start talking up our strengths and building up our confidence. History has proved that our country can always rise to the challenge, and our people will never forgive the politicians who allow the EU to inflict defeat. It saddens me greatly that even some in my own party are promoting such a defeat.