Blog

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in Brussels on 5 December 2000.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to be here today to talk about Britain’s role in the EU and the case for the Single Currency.

So much of the discourse about Europe or the Euro in Britain is characterised by scare stories and misinformation that it is scarcely possible to have a serious debate on the issues any more. Any positive news stories about the benefits of EU membership or the virtues of the Single Currency tend to be subverted by the sceptical British press in favour of scare stories about straight bananas or the fact that the European Union flag will fly alongside the Union Jack over Downing Street for one day this year to mark our membership of the EU.

You would think from the hysterical reaction in one particular Sunday newspaper a couple of days ago to that story that we weren’t actually members of the European Union at all. It is becoming more and more necessary in Britain for those of us who support Britain’s membership of the European Union and think that a successful Single Currency will yield benefits for British businesses, and British workers, and British consumers to go out and make the case for them both time and time again.

The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of the European Union. Let us not forget the dream of the original members of what is now the EU. It was that a degree of economic and political integration would bring co-operation and, more importantly, peace and stability to Western Europe, which had been notably absent for centuries.

Having, most of us, grown up in the last fifty years it is perhaps easy to underestimate the degree to which the European Union has been the cause and the guarantor of that peace. The longest continual period of peace in Western Europe since Roman times. Membership of the European Union also gives Britain more power and influence than if we were a nation alone.

Look at the example of British beef and the BSE crisis. The United States has banned the import of British beef for a number of years. and we have absolutely no power to stop them. Yet France also maintains an unwarranted ban on our beef. The difference is that in this case, we are able to complain to the European Union who are now taking legal steps to force the French to lift this unnecessary and unacceptable ban.

Indeed, given the current fears over the safety beef produced in other EU countries, notably France, I find it hard to understand any justification for the French action. Measures must be taken speedily to reassure public opinion as to the safety of beef in the EU, so as not to undermine confidence in beef produced in this country. I want to see nothing less than a total EU-wide ban on all cattle over 30-months old entering the food-chain. The European Union must provide 100 per cent compensation to farmers for destroying cattle of that age.

The EU must not shy away from taking the strong action necessary to ensure public safety and reassure public opinion. Membership of the European Union gives us the leverage to fight for this to happen. If we were not members our calls would mean nothing.

In a wider sense, Britain’s place in the world order has changed dramatically, in the years since we joined what was then the Common Market. Britain is now a stronger trading nation than at any time since World War Two.

In the years since 1973, our trade has increased by 138%. More than half of British trade now is actually with other EU countries. In 1999, the value of Britain’s trade with the EU approached £350 billion. Almost a tenth of that was with Belgium. As businessmen and women, you will know how easily levels of trade are affected by tariffs, barriers to entry, and exchange rate fluctuations.

So long as we are members of the European Union we will enjoy the benefits of a common market. But if we remain outside of the Single Currency we remain open to the damage that an unstable and high exchange rate can do to our exporters and to inward investment in Britain. The high pound has already been doing serious damage to our manufacturing industry and exporters in recent years. If this were to be perpetuated in the future it could have a seriously adverse impact on Britain as a trading nation.

The Liberal Democrats have not been alone in arguing this case. But we have perhaps been the most consistent. The Prime Minister, for example, probably shares this view. Although some of his ministers, including the Chancellor, may not. But he is timid when it comes to discussing the benefits of joining a successful Single Currency, preferring to hide behind a series of utterly subjective economic tests laid down by Gordon Brown. They are a fig leaf to hide the Government’s indecision.

Yet, I believe people need the British Government to take a lead, more than ever, on the issue of the Single Currency. To give them the certainty they need to plan their businesses or to give them the certainty that their job is secure.

It is important also to take heed of the views of those in business and industry when looking at the case for or against the Euro. Over the course of the last year, numerous big hitters in business have spoken out in favour of Britain joining a successful Single Currency. Richard Branson, for example, has let it be known that he is increasingly concerned about our non-membership. Earlier this year he wrote: “Outside the Euro we will be much poorer both as a nation and as individuals.” A month later, the President of the Japanese electronics giant Matsushita spoke out of his concerns that Britain had still not made a commitment to join the Euro. “The immediate question is when the pound will be included in the Euro” he said. “If Britain does nothing to solve the problem, foreign companies, regardless of whether they are Japanese American, or whatever nationality, may exit the country.”

These words should be heard by all politicians when deciding whether we should join the Single Currency. But I readily accept that this issue cannot, and should not, just be decided on economic grounds. There are constitutional implications to consider also. That is why the Liberal Democrats were the first major political party to call for a referendum on this issue. To call for the British people to have the final say on whether to adopt the Euro.

All I ask is that the public are given all the information on the pros and cons of membership in order to make an informed decision when the times comes, rather than being fed a diet of half-truths, exaggeration and plain hysteria as is the case all too often at present. The British people deserve nothing less than the whole truth.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in London on 23 January 2001.

Ladies and Gentlemen

I am delighted to be here this evening.

I’d like to begin by thanking Hugh Macdonald and Martin Ely

for inviting me to meet you all.

The former Conservative Chancellor

Nigel Lawson once famously called ACI UK

“a bunch of City scribblers”.

Diplomacy was never really his strong point.

I can assure you that I have a higher opinion of your organisation

and look forward to talking to many of you later to hear your views.

London remains the largest financial centre in the world

accounting for almost one third of global currency business.

As such issues that affect that City and those who work in it

are of great importance to politicians of all parties

and naturally to government, let me be clear from the outset.

I want the City of London and the UK financial services industry

to be the global leader. Government should do all that it can

to enable you to do this.

At home that means competitive taxes, consistent policy, and sensible regulation.

In Europe – completing the Single Market,

winning for the City of London

and getting the economy right for Euro entry.

In the world, opening up the market for financial services.

Where regulators need to be tough they should be,

with the full support of politicians.

Tough because reputation and confidence

The most important ingredient for a healthy economy,

I believe, is financial stability.

That is why the Liberal Democrats entered the last election campaign

advocating independence for the Bank of England.

We were delighted that the Government chose to adopt our policy

which has proved to be very successful.

No decision has done more to end boom and bust economics.

However, the other chief ingredient in economic stability is

exchange rate stability.

On this, the Government has failed.

Prolonged over-valuation of sterling

has done a great deal of harm

to certain sectors of the UK economy.

Which is why the Liberal Democrats

advocate membership of a successful Single Currency

at an appropriate exchange rate

subject to the consent of the British people.

Last May, my party set up a commission,

chaired by Chris Huhne MEP,

whose members included such people as

Willem Buiter of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee,

and a variety of other distinguished

City practitioners and economists,

to advise on those measures Britain needs to take

in order to join the Euro-zone successfully.

Their report was published in September.

Yet, almost five months later the Government

still has not taken a lead on this issue.

My Party welcomed the step forward

that was taken in financial regulation

in the City in the last few years.

We have a high personal regard for Howard Davies

and believe the concept of the FSA is the right one.

Whilst regulation must never be over-bearing

we have always believed that the FSA

must take full account of the need

for proper consumer protection

in the job that they do.

In this respect,

regulators need

to be prepared, on occasion, to be tough to ensure that

And that means there should be no hiding place

for those who have mis-sold pensions,

failed to deliver on endowment mortgages

or closed rural bank branches.

Economic efficiency and social justice can, and must,

go hand in hand.

Before moving on to the main theme of my speech

I want to take a moment to

make some points on two specific regulatory issues

of which you will no doubt be aware

and which are of great importance to financial service institutions

as well as to politicians both as public policy makers

and as representatives of our constituents’ interests.

The first is the recent AXA deal on disposing

of its ‘orphan assets’,

And the second is the plight of Equitable Life

whose many policyholders

may suffer some heavy losses

as a result of the company’s difficulties.

Both of these issues are linked,

in my mind,

by the role of the FSA in regulating each company.

And they have implications

for the job that the FSA is doing more widely.

The recent controversy over the AXA deal on ‘orphan assets’

and particularly the role of the FSA

in giving it the green light to that deal

is a source of great concern to me and has been much commented on.

We have great sympathy with the Consumer Association

in the action that they took on behalf of consumers.

Government ministers

seemed to indicate a few years ago

that ‘orphan assets’ belonged to policyholders

in a ratio of 9 to 1.

Yet now, the AXA case would now seem to imply

that this principle has been undermined.

Previously I had understood

that ‘orphan assets’ were to be allocated

according to the ‘90% rule’

whereby nine tenths of the value of those assets

is given over to policyholders.

In the AXA case, the figure is much closer to a mere one-third.

This case is particularly important not only because it affects

the 660,000 with-profits policy holders

who are disputing the £1.68 billion worth of AXA ‘orphan assets’

but also because it has implications for those

with a potential claim on the £20 – 30 billion worth

of unallocated ‘orphan assets’ in other insurance companies.

Many thousands of people

throughout the country could be affected.

How to best dispose of ‘orphan assets’

is a source of some debate I acknowledge,

but I am not at all convinced that the regulator should have agreed

to in effect transfer well- over £1 billion

from AXA policyholders to AXA shareholders.

And I’m not at all convinced that the regulator should have agreed

to a ballot where AXA policyholders

were asked to agree a deal on the basis of

a ‘take it or leave it’ cash offer.

in which only those who voted in favour of that deal

would actually be entitled to the cash.

This is rather like Gordon Brown giving pension increases

only to those pensioners who voted Labour.

Ballots – whether of AXA policyholders, trade unionists or Florida electors – must not be open to question.but at first sight the outcome of the AXA case would seem

to contradict the Government’s intentions.

Moreover, the FSA’s stance throws doubt

on its willingness to defend the consumer interest.

This is not the only issue

in which the role of the FSA has been controversial.

The Equitable Life case is a cause of enormous concern too.

I appreciate that Equitable Life is not insolvent,

but it is in severe financial difficulties.

Many policyholders could suffer losses,

or returns below reasonable expectations.

There has clearly been a serious failure by management,

by the FSA, and quite possibly by the DTI at an earlier stage

which has allowed the situation to develop

into the crisis we see now.

Last year, Vincent Cable MP,

the Liberal Democrat Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary,

called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer

to instigate an immediate independent assessment

into possible regulatory failure by the FSA in this case

which could lead to compensation for any investors

who have been misled.

he Government has acknowledged

that the FSA has a case to answer

but responded to this by announcing

that the FSA itself would be charged with investigating

its own performance as regulator.

This is simply not good enough.

In both the AXA ‘orphan assets’ decision,

and the Equitable Life case,

the performance of the FSA as regulator

would seem to have been inadequate at best.

Many people would call it incompetent

The FSA was set up

to be champion of the consumers interests –

it should be just that.

London cannot afford a ‘paper tiger’.

It is time for the Government to

force the FSA to be more rigorous

and to take its share of responsibility

for any mistakes that have been made.

Investors and the wider public

must have confidence that it is doing its job on their behalf.

The City of London must not be over-regulated,

but must be regulated in a way also needs to must be regulated

in a proper way

so that protects and enhances London’s

excellent reputation

around the globe is maintained.

The reputation of politicians on the other hand

is probably beyond redemption.

You may be surprised to hear someone like me say that,

but I am genuinely concerned that

the public’s perception of politics

and the political class

is at an all time low.

You may have seen some press speculation recently

about the probable date of the next General Election.

Indeed, the media have

reported that an unofficial election campaign

by the three main parties is already underway.

Given that the likely date of the General Election

is the 3rd of May

I am truly depressed that the electoral “Phoney War”

seems to have begun

almost four months before anyone

is likely to walk into a polling booth.

And I am particularly angry because

this is exactly the kind of behaviour

that is putting more and more people off voting

and off participating in the electoral process.

At the last round of local elections in May 2000

voter turn-out in some parts of the country

was as low as ten per cent.

That is an horrendous figure to anyone

who cares about inclusive politics.

I am deeply, deeply worried by it.

And the other two parties are already engaging

in the usual pre-election Dutch auction

over tax and spending –

pretending that you can magically tax people

less and less

and yet spend more and more

on the things that people care about.

The public know that you don’t get

something for nothing.

This kind of debate

with both other parties striving

to reach the lowest common denominator

does a great deal to turn the public off politics

and create cynicism about the promises of politicians.

I fully intend that the Liberal Democrats will enter

into the forthcoming election battle

as the only major political party

who are prepared to be honest with people

about the cost of investing properly

in our public services:

in schools, in hospitals, in pensions and in the police.

This debate should not be characterised simply as “tax and spend”.

All Governments raise taxes

in order to spend the revenue they bring.

I want the debate to focus on

what we as a nation see as our priorities

for investing in public services

based on how we as a nation are prepared to fund them.

I believe that the British people

do want to see investment in public services in this country.

A country in which the NHS

provides decent care for all, free at the point of delivery.

A country in which schools are properly funded

and teachers properly valued.

A country in which older people share fairly in increasing prosperity.

And a country in which all in society feel free from the fear of crime.

And that investment is funded by all of us

through the tax system.

That is why I will enter the forthcoming election

promising honesty in taxation.

Telling people exactly how we would invest their money

in the services which they use,

and from which they may benefit.

In an age of political cynicism

one of the ways that these and many other policies

could best be discussed

in front of as wide an audience as possible

would have been through a debate

between the three main UK party leaders

during the election campaign itself.

As you may know, the BBC and ITV

approached Tony Blair, William Hague and myself

with a set of non-negotiable proposals

for two debates to take place between us during the

final two weeks of the General Election campaign.

I have long believed that in a television age such debates

would be an important addition to the democratic process

allowing the public to see the Party Leaders debating

outside of the juvenile environment of Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Because of this I have agreed to the broadcasters’ proposals for a debate.

William Hague has agreed also.

Unfortunately, as you may have seen in the papers,

Tony Blair has refused to take part,

arguing that the British people are not electing a President

but rather individual MPs.

This is true, and I do not want British electoral campaigns

or British politics

to become presidential in nature.

Well, I accept it is always good to see a sinner repenting.

But only a Labour spin doctor could argue

that the farce of Prime Ministers Questions

is a substitute for a serious leaders’ debate.

Mind you self-evidently debates are dangerous.

So dangerous that they have had them in the United States since 1960.

Canada since 1962.

Germany since 1969.

Holland since 1977.

Australia and New Zealand since 1984.

And South Africa since 1994.

Dangerous?

No, Tony it’s called democracy.

But I do believe that Leader’s debates

would have done a great deal to re-engage

and hopefully re-enthuse the public

ahead of election day.

And now that these debates will not take place

I think Tony Blair must be prepared

to accept much of the blame if

voter turn-out is down again at this election.

By shying-away from debating with William Hague and myself

he is doing the country and the electoral process

a great disservice.

Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate if

arguments over the Leader’s debates

to detract from the issues that will be

crucial in the forthcoming election campaign.

Because there are real reasons

why the next General Election

should concentrate on issues of greater importance

to the British people

and to the future direction of our country.

The Liberal Democrats will enter that election promising

further targeted investment in our public services.

Honesty and openness in taxation.

More decentralisation away from Westminster and Whitehall

to the nations and regions of Britain.

A sensible relationship with our European partners

with whom we, as a nation, do so much of our trade –

not least in the financial services sector.

For the Liberal Democrats 2000 was a very successful year.

In May we recorded 28% of the vote in the local elections,

the highest share of the vote

we have ever received in a national election

which enabled us to capture

previous Labour strongholds like Oldham.

And on the same night we captured

what had previously been the safe Tory parliamentary seat of Romsey

in a Westminster by-election.

I want to translate those results

into further success at the polls this year.

There is every chance for my party to do so.

Liberal Democrats are already in national government

in Scotland and Wales.

We are already in local government in town halls

up and down the United Kingdom.

We will be fighting this election hard.

I intend for my Party to take more votes and more seats

from both Labour and the Conservatives.

No-one should expect us to do any other.

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 29 January 2001.

Liberty.

What’s it’s all about?

Does it matter?

Why, above all, is a party leader here this evening,

talking about an abstract political concept,

just three or four months before an election.

That could be a risky strategy,

when all the pollsters and pundits tell us,

that people are bored by politics,

and that the only chance we have of getting any message across,

is to talk about schools, hospitals and pensions,

in only the most basic terms.

Well, one of the arguments I shall make this evening,

is that schools, hospitals and pensions are issues of liberty,

and that progressive politicians have all too often lost sight of that basic case.

More of that later

But I want to start off focusing,

on one of the traditional liberty issues:

civil liberties.

When I look at the current government,

and its record on civil liberties,

I find it very difficult to attach the label progresssive to it.

Just look at Labour’s record.

Preventive detention of people with ‘severe personality disorders’.

Snooping on private e-mails.

Removing benefits from offenders,

if they don’t meet all the requirements of community service.

Mandatory drug testing of those arrested.

Denying bail to drug addicts.

Restricting the right to trial by jury.

Failing to tackle drugs afresh.

Labour’s priorities veer too much towards punitive populism.

Neither treating the causes of crime,

nor safeguarding the rights of the individual.

There is, I sometimes think, a judgement made by Labour politicians,

that they have to out-Tory the Tories on crime.

That somehow, knee-jerk reactions are the best.

policies like ending jury trials.

Or blanket curfews for kids.

That’s just a hammer to crack a nut,

And the kind of policy you would expect,

from a Conservative Home Secretary,

not an allegedly progressive one.

It’s not just the policies of the government that worry me.

It’s also the tone.

The current Home Secretary likes to lash out

at so-called ‘woolly Hampstead liberals’,

joining William Hague’s refrain

that liberals are the cause of most of Britain’s ills.

I don’t just blame Jack Straw.

I do think that Labour’s obsession with spin,

is partly to blame.

On that subject, I like the quote from the 1997 election.

It came from a Labour Party press officer.

” Later today Tony Blair will be spontaneous. Tomorrow he will be passionate.”

But the problem doesn’t just lie in Number Ten.

The New Statesman said a while back,

in an interview with David Blunkett,

that if he became Home Secretary,

he’d make Jack Straw look like a woolly liberal.

Well, if Jack Straw is a liberal,

then I’m Ann Widdecombe.

There are too many signs of the centralising, bossy and collectivist tendency

that was so much at the heart of Old Labour.

Unfortunately, it seems also be part of New Labour.

Little change there,

as far as I can see

in the basic culture of the party.

It’s a travesty of what this Labour government could have been.

A concern for liberty should not be alien to the Labour Party.

It was deeply rooted in the ethical socialism of the early part of the last century.

The early speeches of Ramsay MacDonald spoke vividly of individual freedom.

And Roy Jenkins’ record as a liberalising Home Secretary,

was an impressive one.

But the differences now,

embodied in the figures of ministers like Jack Straw,

are all too apparent.

And that’s why all this recent talk,

of electoral pacts between ourselves and Labour,

is so preposterous.

For four reasons.

First, we are fighting to defend seats against Labour

and to win some more from them.

In my own seat, Labour was in second place in 1997,

so I need no lesson in how to win against Labour.

Second, I don’t just want to win more seats at this election.

Wherever we fight, I want to win more votes for the Liberal Democrats,

so that we can get into second place where we are third,

and so that in the election after next, we can win even more seats.

Third, across the country,

we will be fighting Labour hard on civil liberties.

Highlighting the government’s illiberal policies on asylum and law and order.

It is our territory, and we are deeply disappointed with Labour’s record.

And finally,

I don’t believe that party leaders should dictate to the voters,

by restricting their choice at election time.

Only Labour, with its centralising approach,

could believe that is the right way,

or even that it’s possible.

But it’s not the Liberal Democrat way.

And it’s a basic issue of political liberty

that I think all progressives should feel strongly about.

So at this election,

there will be no pacts, no deals,

where the Liberal Democrats and Labour are concerned.

Wherever we stand,

and that will be every seat in England, Scotland and Wales,

our candidates will be fighting for every single vote.

Anything else would be betraying the cause we believe in,

and which Labour does not.

I’ve talked about civil liberties.

And I want to talk now about wider issues of liberty.

The ones that aren’t always seen as liberty issues.

Liberty is of course about government not telling you how to live your life.

But it should also mean social justice.

Nearly a hundred years ago,

The Liberal philosopher Hobhouse said,

‘the struggle for liberty … is the struggle for equality’.

He was right.

If you live in a high rise flat,

bringing up a child on your own,

or struggling on a pension,

liberty isn’t about government making you buy healthcare or education.

If you live in those conditions, liberty is about social justice.

Employment.

Decent public services.

Decent welfare support when times are hard.

A first class education system.

Whatever your income, whatever your background.

That means a key role for politics,

and a role for government.

And it is a great contrast to the Hague approach.

The Conservatives tend to equate liberty with rampant market forces.

They think that government,

especially at a European level,

is public enemy number one.

But I take the view

that liberty does not mean ‘minimum government’ for the sake of it.

It seems to me preposterous to assert that people are more free,

when government does less.

If government did nothing to provide decent health and education services,

then many people in Britain would be manifestly less free,

because they would not be able to provide these services for themselves.

For me, social justice,

protected and enhanced by government,

equals more liberty.

If progressives recognised this openly,

that would represent a major shift in progressive thought.

Traditionally, we have been hung up on the conflicts between liberty and equality,

seeing them as somehow contradictory.

But I don’t think we should see them as contradictory.

Instead, we should recognise them to be two sides of the same coin.

For guidance on how to do that, we can turn to Isaiah Berlin.

Isaiah Berlin was the first person to argue that there were actually two sorts of liberty.

Negative liberty and positive liberty.

Negative liberty, he said,

means wanting to curb authority,

leaving individuals alone to do what they want,

providing that their actions do not restrict the freedom of others.

Positive liberty was different.

It meant using political power to emancipate.

It meant groups, or the state, judging what was best for individuals.

Berlin did not oppose positive liberty entirely.

In fact, as Michael Ignatieff’s biography points out,

Berlin was, in politics, a New Deal liberal.

He was neither a conservative,

nor a laissez-faire individualist.

He accepted that poverty and ignorance were not the ideal conditions for liberty.

But Berlin did urge us to recognise the contradictions between liberties.

The conflict between negative liberty and positive liberty.

He would want us to recognise

that although we may tax somebody to create opportunities,

we may still be restricting the liberty of the taxed.

That is the heart of the conflict between positive and negative liberty.

I think this is a conflict that can help us.

Although not quite in the way Isaiah Berlin would have liked.

What we have to accept,

is that although there are conflicts between negative and positive liberty,

they are still both forms of liberty.

Both are about promoting individual freedom,

giving everybody the chance to make the most of their life.

So I think that it is now time to recast the liberty-equality debate,

into a simple liberty-liberty debate.

We have to recognise that we are not,

when we speak of investment in education,

talking about creating equality.

We are talking about creating liberty.

Yes, it is positive liberty, but it is liberty nevertheless,

and that can, I think, make it easier to pursue an agenda

which incorporates both traditional liberty issues,

and traditional equality issues.

That is where New Labour has, I believe, failed.

Although we hear a lot less about the Third Way than we used to,

it still lies at the heart of the Labour approach.

The logic goes something like this:

do something left-wing one day, and right-wing another,

or talk right and act left.

and all will be fine

You will build a Big Tent,

that everyone can enter.

But all you end up doing,

is building a Big Dome,

which has no Big Idea,

and very few people want to enter a Big Dome.

This is where, in my view, the Liberal Democrats are succeeding.

We published our general approach to this last summer,

in our pre-manifesto, Freedom in a Liberal Society.

It states quite clearly our view that there can be a modern progressive politics,

that takes traditional equality issues,

and recasts them into liberty issues.

It takes the issue of the liberty,

and places it right at the forefront of the message we will take to the country.

By doing that, I hope that we can make liberty not only the challenge for progressives, but the challenge for the country as a whole.