UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Nigel Farage – 2015 Speech at the State of the Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 9 September 2015.

    Mr President, Mr Juncker has simply got this wrong. As I warned in April, the European Common Asylum Policy sets its terms so widely as to say that anyone setting foot on EU soil can stay: I said it would lead to a flow of biblical proportions, and indeed that is what we are beginning to see. This has been compounded by Germany saying last week that basically anyone can come. It is a bit too late now to draw up a list, by countries of origin, of who can stay and who cannot stay. All they have to do, as they are doing, is throw their passports into the Mediterranean and say they are coming from Syria.

    As we know, the majority of people who are coming – and the Slovakian Prime Minister has been honest enough to say so – are economic migrants. In addition, we see, as I warned earlier, evidence that ISIS is now using this route to put their jihadists on European soil. We must be mad to take this risk with the cohesion of our societies. If we want to help genuine refugees, if we want to protect our societies, if we want to stop the criminal trafficking gangs from benefiting as they are doing, we must stop the boats coming – as the Australians did – and then we can assess who qualifies for refugee status.

    I noted your comments, Mr Juncker, because there is a referendum coming in the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing you in the UK. I know you intend to spend tens of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money telling us what we should think. I have a feeling that the British people will warm to you on a personal level, but, as to suggesting that getting rid of a few EU regulations is going to change our minds, sorry – unless you give Mr Cameron back control and discretion over our borders, the Brits, in the course of the next year, will vote to leave.

  • Louise Bours – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Louise Bours to the UKIP conference held on 25 September 2015.

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    12 months ago, in this very hall I delivered my first national conference speech as your spokesman for health.

    After my speech some media commentators moaned because they found me a bit… shouty.

    Well, 12 months ago, the NHS was under threat from the Westminster bubble, but now the NHS is facing an even bigger threat from the European Union, and whilst that remains the case let me assure you… I will not stop being shouty!

    And I say to the media and anyone else that doesn’t like it – deal with it. This is about the NHS, it is about the people of this country for whom the NHS is a lifeline, and I’m not going to be quiet about it!

    There are many areas of the NHS that are affected by our full membership of the EU.

    There are reams of rules, regulations and directives that defy logic and leave clinicians and managers in a head-spin and the pending TTIP trade deal threatens the very fabric and principles that the NHS is built upon.

    There are also many unplanned, unintended consequences of wider EU policies that add pressure and confusion to the health service.

    The most fundamental of these is uncontrolled immigration. We hear how there are not enough nurses and doctors in the NHS. It takes years to train for these professions, but how can the government know how many doctors the NHS will need in 7 years’ time, when they don’t know how many people will be living in the country in 7 weeks’ time?

    It’s no surprise we need so many nurses from overseas at short notice when we can’t predict how many patients there may be in 3 months’ time, let alone in the 3 years it takes to train a nurse.
    We can’t plan for the amount of beds, ambulances, medical equipment, drugs or midwives we might need because from one day to the next we cannot tell how many people will arrive here to live.

    No establishment can plan properly under these circumstances, and what is particularly worrying about the NHS not being able to plan properly is that the results can literally be the difference between life and death.

    There are of course, many specific regulations and initiatives that threaten the structure and efficacy of our NHS, I have nowhere near enough time to go through them all, that’s a whole conference in itself, but I will just mention a couple before going on to talk about the TTIP Agreement.

    The Working Time Directive is a health and safety initiative that on the surface may appear reasonable and helpful, but in practice is restrictive and unwelcomed by many in the NHS.

    Ipsos Mori and the General Medical Council have reported negative effects on medical training and on health services throughout Europe.

    But it is not just the future quality of training that is being effected by the EU, it is also the future quality of treatment.

    From next year medical researchers will be blocked from using historical patient data records for research purposes. Cancer Research UK have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the new regulations claiming that many lives will be lost as a result.
    It is vital for those looking for new cures and treatments to be able to track the medical history and developments in people, and this regulation will stop that.

    Last year I spoke about the desperate case of Ashya King, the little boy that couldn’t get NHS treatment for his brain tumour. Today I have to tell you about the EU’s ‘Medicine for Children’ regulation.
    It prohibits medical trials being carried out on children. The Institute of cancer research and other major cancer charities oppose the regulation and health experts say it has resulted in many unnecessary child deaths throughout Europe because half of all new cancer drugs developed between 2007-14 have not been tested on children and therefore cannot be licenced for use on children.

    How can the EU in all conscience say to the family of a dying child that they cannot have a new drug? One that may cure them or help them die without pain or fear? Giving terminally ill children access to new treatments and drugs is vital in the fight against childhood cancer.  It is barbaric to deny them an opportunity to extend their lives, or maybe even the possibility to cure them, simply because of a European Union regulation.

    It must be stopped and if we leave the EU just so we can ditch that regulation alone – it’s worth it.

    Now before I go on to the biggest threat to our NHS I want to dispel a myth about the EU.

    Many Europhiles say that without the freedom of movement that we have in the EU, our NHS would grind to a halt.

    But despite the propaganda, controlling immigration will not damage the NHS.

    Whilst we have a system where new nurses have to have a university degree we will never be able to provide the numbers of nurses the NHS needs.

    Why do those that leave school without A-levels have to do an access course to learn how to write essays, before they get anywhere near to a patient who may need a glass of water, or help being fed a meal, or someone who needs comfort and reassurance?

    We are not training enough, and it is not that there are too few people wanting to become nurses, it’s because we refuse to accept that not all those entering the nursing profession need a university degree.

    Commenting on the need for more UK training, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, Dr Peter Carter, points out that last year there were 57,000 applicants for 20,000 nurse training posts.
    He said it was a matter of huge regret that thousands of people in the four countries of the UK who want to train as nurses are being turned away, while we’re going off and raiding the often impoverished workforce of other countries.

    Let us have a system where those that excel academically can achieve the degree they aspire too, that should be applauded, but let us also encourage and enthuse those who see nursing as a vocation – let us see the return of the State Enrolled Nurse.

    All of the above are about specific issues within the health service, how it delivers what we want it to deliver.

    But the biggest threat the EU poses to the NHS is TTIP, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that Brussels want to sign with the USA.

    It would not only change how services are delivered, but go further, it would change why services are delivered.

    It would take us from a health service motivated by delivering the best for patients, to a system motivated by delivering the best private profit.

    We have the most established healthcare system in the world, nearly 70 years-old, America doesn’t have one at all, and the confusing ObamaCare is barely 70 days-old.

    We should not be giving other EU nations the power to influence our health services, let alone allow investors from a country where some people have to sell their homes in order to get life-saving treatment.

    The Tories say there is no need to exempt the NHS from TTIP because it is not at risk.

    Labour MPs say they want exemptions, yet their own MEP’s are helping to push the agreement through the committee stages in the European Parliament.

    TTIP will allow multi-national companies to sue national governments if they introduce policies that harm their investments. Does that not seem a bit topsy-turvy? Shouldn’t it be the other way round, aren’t corporations supposed to serve us, rather than us serve them? Surely a private company should be fitting into our rules, not us fitting into theirs.

    If Labour are serious about protecting the NHS they should stop their MEPs helping the agreement go through.

    And I say to David Cameron: If you are sure TTIP won’t involve the NHS, why not introduce legislation to stop it. The legislation may not be needed as far as you are concerned, but it is needed as far as the public are concerned, because Mr Cameron, we don’t trust you.

    Why don’t we trust him?

    Let me share with you a little known line from the EU, I found it in the EU document library, it’s from June of this year, in a document specifically about TTIP, it says:

    The EU reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the provision of all education, health or social services which receive public funding or state support in any form.
    What do you say now Cameron? Get out of that.

    Last year I produced a letter from Jeremy Corbyn’s boss, Len Mclusky. In it he asked us to support UNITE in their fight against TTIP.  I responded, I said we would stand side by side with them in this fight.  Come on Len, I am still waiting for your response!!
    Presiding over so much infighting, bitterness and backstabbing, before long the Labour party will become less the Jeremy Corbyn show and more the Jeremy Kyle show.

    If you want people to believe your party cares about the British people and the NHS, you must advocate leaving the EU.
    The UK needs to be able to run its own NHS, full stop.

    I am livid that they are systematically ruining our country’s proudest achievement, and now want to sell it off to the highest bidder.

    I am angry for the elderly who have paid-in all their lives only to see the EU decimate the care available to them, angry for the seriously ill that will suffer longer because of EU restrictions on research, angry and upset for the children whose lives will be blighted by the EU rules against medicine trials, angry for every bit of interference from the EU into our beloved and vital NHS.

    So let me make this pledge to you, between now and the referendum, I will fight tooth and nail to make sure the public know the hugely damaging effect the EU is having on our NHS and therefore our health, and the massive dangers it faces if we stay in the EU.

    I will do everything I can to ensure the public know we have to leave the EU if we believe in the NHS.

    And don’t forget… I can be shouty, so in case you haven’t heard, we believe in Britain, we believe in the NHS.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Reckless – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Reckless, the party’s economic spokesman, to the UKIP Conference held on 25 September 2015.

    It has been an eventful year.

    One change for me from last year is that this time you have been kind enough to advertise me in the programme.

    As our new Economy Spokesman, I would first like to thank Patrick O’Flynn for the solid base of work he has left me, as well as for his hard work on the general election campaign.

    Second I would like to thank Nigel for all the support he has given me both before and since the general election. I could not have asked for more, from him or from you.

    Would Britain be better off outside the European Union?

    Trade deals

    For the first time in forty years we would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, rejoin the World Trade Organisation, and sit on the global bodies which set product regulations.

    We could press for trade deals which would open up new markets for the business and financial services at which this country excels. In return we could offer the free trade in food and agriculture which the EU sets itself against.

    We could reach deals with the big emerging economies, like India and China, with which eight million Swiss have a free trade agreement. Yet the EU blocks us from trading freely with China, so every British woman pays an EU tax every time she buys a bra.

    UKIP wants to end those EU tariffs to cut costs for consumers.

    We also want trade deals with the United States and Canada. But we would seek free trade deals, based on eliminating tariffs and mutual recognition of standards.

    That could not be more different from Cameron and Corbyn’s TTIP. Their Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will in reality be a corporatist’s charter constructed behind closed doors to shield incumbent companies from competition.

    Now that Jeremy Corbyn has gone back on his word and handed David Cameron a blank cheque on Europe, it is UKIP and UKIP alone that can fight TTIP.

    Paying our way in world

    Ever since we joined we have run a large trade deficit with the European Union. In good years we have paid for it with a surplus on our trade outside the European Union.

    Despite having no authority over trade, where the EU is in charge, David Cameron promised to double UK exports under what George Osborne termed a “march of the makers”.

    The reality within the EU has been anything but. We now have, along with Turkey, the largest overseas deficit of any advanced country globally, between 5 and 6% of GDP.

    The problem is three fold and all relate in significant degree to the EU.

    First, the UK trade balance in goods and services has been running about 2% of GDP in deficit. More than all of this is with the EU.
    Second, we now run a similar deficit on investment income, largely due to a deteriorating balance with the EU and Osbrown more than doubling our national debt.

    Third, and most easily dealt with, if only we were to restore our independence, we transfer a net 1-2% of everything we earn overseas every year. In other words we give it away.

    It is one thing to give money away in overseas transfers if, like say Germany, you run an enormous trade surplus with which to pay for it. It is quite another when, like the UK, you run a 2% of GDP trade deficit and another near 2% deficit on investment income.

    Yet on top of that 4% deficit David Cameron’s Conservatives transfer overseas a further 1-2% of GDP leaving us with a current account deficit of 5-6% of GDP, or £100 billion per year.

    What that means is that every year we have to borrow from or sell to foreigners the equivalent value of British assets.

    So when people complain to me, including some people in the hall today, about all that fancy London property being sold to foreigners, and not our own young people, I say don’t blame them, or think you can somehow solve our problems by restricting those purchases.

    The emptying out of prime central London property to overseas owners is a symptom, not a cause of our problems. If foreigners didn’t buy our most expensive property, we would have to sell them something else, or pay them more to lend to us, adding yet more to our deficit.

    We must instead tackle the problem at source. That means improving our trade balance. We must shift the focus of our trade from the EU, where we run a massive deficit, to outside the EU, where we run a surplus.

    The need to cut overseas transfers

    We must also stop giving away money we do not have. That means cutting the enormous overseas transfers we are making.
    Fifty years ago it was Britain’s huge overseas defence burden which drained resources from the UK. So the call went out to end commitments East of Suez, because our chronic balance of payments couldn’t support them.

    Today our massive overseas transfers do not reflect defence spending, but EU membership, overseas aid, and likely now migrant transfers.

    If you don’t want to have to borrow an extra £55 million a day from overseas, that you will later have to pay back with interest, then don’t give the EU the £55 million a day you then need to borrow.

    If you don’t want to sell £13 billion more London property to absentee overseas investors, then don’t run an overseas aid programme that requires the UK to finance £13 billion of overseas spending.

    You can’t spend money overseas unless you borrow or sell something overseas to pay for it.

    And just as we should never blame overseas investors for buying something we need to sell, we should never blame people who come here from overseas for trying to do the best for themselves and their families.

    That will often mean sending wages which they earn here back to their family who are still overseas. So we need to increase UK exports to pay for those overseas remittances. If we don’t, and they continue, then we will add to our already record current account deficit.

    The Brexit dividend

    Cutting overseas aid and ending our EU contributions will cut our current account deficit. It will also give us more money to spend at home.

    Patrick and Suzanne set out how we might spend our Brexit dividend in a superb manifesto fully costed and independently verified. Leaving the EU would yield enough to finance widespread tax cuts as well as billions more for the NHS.

    That exceptionally well received manifesto will remain the baseline for policy development which I now undertake, and there is just one change I will announce today.

    Our manifesto was so good that we have already seen the government adopt a number of our ideas. One area where we can now come close to declaring victory is inheritance tax.

    It is now eight years since George Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to a million pounds, and until this summer it was eight long years of inaction.

    There are three aspects of the changes he now proposes where I would like us to be able to go further, and which we may seek to address in our next general election manifesto.

    First, I would prefer a threshold of a million pounds per person, as George Osborne first promised, and not a million pounds per couple. Second I would not further distort the market by restricting the new allowance to housing for descendants. Third, I would not add yet more complexity to the system by clawing back the extra allowance from larger estates.

    However, making those changes is not the priority for our Breixt dividend. That lies somewhere else.

    Public sector pay

    As an MP in the last Parliament I voted for severe restraint in public sector pay.

    I thought there was no choice if we were to cut the record deficit. I also thought it was fair after several years of relatively more generous public pay settlements and then a sharp fall in real private pay in the recession.

    Public and private pay are now in better kilter.

    Despite that, the Conservatives now propose to continue their assault on public sector pay for another five years, while private sector pay accelerates.

    The government said in the Summer Budget that it would only fund 1% pay increases on average across the public sector.

    Last Monday Greg Hands, the Treasury minister and Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham, went further and stated on the parliamentary record that their policy was one “of a one per cent cap on public sector pay increases”.

    And what have we heard from Labour? On Budget day their Acting Leader declared they supported the Conservative policy. And under Corbyn, nothing. A Treasury minister just hardened a 1% pay norm to a 1% pay cap and the Labour front bench didn’t even notice.

    If public sector pay rises at that 1% a year, or barely 5% over the Parliament, then the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast implies that private sector pay will increase by 25% over the same period.

    5% v 25%. How can that be fair? How could we recruit and retain the quality staff we need for our public services? Why do the Conservatives so dislike people who work in the public sector? And who will defend those public servants when Labour is riven by extremism and division?

    UKIP will. It is not just people in the private sector who deserve a pay rise but public servants too.

    And unlike the other parties, UKIP can find the money to pay for fairer treatment of public sector workers, from the £55 million a day we give the EU.

    So I have an announcement.

    Instead of using £5 billion of the Brexit dividend to abolish remaining inheritance tax, UKIP would use that £5 billion to give public sector workers a pay rise.

    We would end the government’s 1% pay cap in the public sector, except for those at the top end who already earn more than £50,000. The extra £5 billion could fund 2% rises every year, or one 5% pay rise above the government’s policy.

    We give the EU up to £55 million a day. If Britain votes for Brexit next year then that money will be available for the NHS, it will be available for tax cuts, and it will be available to give people in the public sector a long overdue pay rise.

    When we vote to leave the EU we will not only be more than a star on someone else’s flag. We will be prosperous, democratic and free.

  • Roger Helmer – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    rogerhelmer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Helmer to the UKIP Conference held on 26 September 2015.

    Good Morning Conference!

    I’d like to share with you something I’ve learned in my years in Brussels and Strasbourg, and it’s this: the EU’s apparatchiks harbour a huge contempt for public opinion.  Isolated in their ivory towers, they can mostly afford to ignore the voters.  They think that people like you and me are just too stupid and ignorant to understand the huge benefits of EU membership.

    But once in a while, reality strikes back and bites their ankles – for example, in 2005 when the French and Dutch voted down the European Constitution.  So did the bureaucrats see the error of their ways, and change course? The hell they did!  No.  They stood wringing their hands, and saying “Perhaps we haven’t explained it well enough”.

    My response is, that I have spent the last sixteen years explaining the European Union to the voters, and the more I explain it, the angrier they get.

    But now at last, with the up-coming Referendum, we’re facing the opportunity of a lifetime.  So I’m going to change the habit of a lifetime.  I’ve spent the last sixteen years telling the British people what’s wrong with the EU.  But now it’s time for a change.   It’s time to talk benefits.  It’s time to talk positively about the massive opportunities offered to this country, to all of us, not by the EU, but by freedom and independence.

    And nowhere are those benefits clearer than in the field of energy.  For three years now, as UKIP’s Energy Spokesman, I’ve been setting out a plan to deliver secure and affordable energy.

    And while we in UKIP have a consistent and workable energy policy, other Parties do not.

    Alex Salmond of the Scots Nats wants to finance an independent Scotland on the back of North Sea Oil and Gas.   But he also says he wants 100% Green Electricity by 2025.

    Jeremy Corbyn talks about re-opening the coal mines, and coal currently produces a third of the UK’s electricity.  But don’t believe Mr. Corbyn – because he also says he wants carbon-free electricity by 2030.

    In any case, we in UKIP can’t implement our plan while we’re in the EU, because we’re hog-tied by EU climate policy and emissions rules.

    So the positive message is simply this: after Brexit, we’ll be free to implement a rational energy policy that can deliver the secure and affordable energy we so desperately need.

    But of course Brexit doesn’t deliver that policy by itself.  We still have to fight what Owen Paterson calls the Green Blob, in Westminster.

    But fighting the green blob is not as hopeless as it sounds.  In this area, as in so many others, UKIP policies are starting to gain traction.  We’re already seeing signs of the alarmist consensus breaking down.  There’s been no global warming for eighteen years.  The costs of renewables are increasingly unaffordable.

    We have a Prime Minister who’s given up hugging huskies, and who reportedly wants to “Get rid of the Green Crap”.  We’ve seen wind farm subsidies cut, and wind farm plans knocked back, including most recently the enormous Navitus Bay offshore project that would have despoiled the Jurassic Coast in Dorset.

    Amber Rudd, described as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, came into office last year with ambitious plans to cover the nation’s roofs with solar panels.  Someone – maybe it was George Osborne — must have talked her through the costs of solar power, because she’s just announced a dramatic cut in domestic solar subsidies.

    As I recently tweeted: “Not so Green?  Amber Rudd gets the Red Light on Solar Subsidies”.

    More generally, there’s a recognition that many of the assumptions behind the rise of renewables were just plain wrong.  We were warned of the threat of “Peak Oil”, which was predicted to be happening by now.  But instead we see a world awash with new oil and gas fields.

    Of course fossil fuels are finite and will one day be exhausted, but that event is so far off that it has no bearing on today’s policy debates.  We need to be worrying about pensioners with hypothermia today.

    An underlying assumption of the dash for renewables was that as fossil fuels became scarcer, they would get more expensive.  In fact the reverse has happened.  We’ve all seen what’s happened to oil prices recently.  And in the USA, gas prices have dropped by two thirds, thanks to the shale gas revolution.

    With Brexit, we can sweep away the threat to our security of supply issues, we can exploit indigenous coal and gas resources, and we can eliminate our over-dependence on intermittent renewables.  But stuck with EU rules, as we are today, serious industry commentators are warning of blackouts in the winter of 2016.

    Under the terms of the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, we’ve seen a series of coal plant closures – with consequent job losses and threats to generating capacity.  Kingsnorth in Kent; Longannet in Scotland, and Eggborough in Yorkshire, with Ferrybridge not far behind.

    These closures will make not a scrap of difference to the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, nor to the climate.  There are reportedly 1200 new coal-fired power stations in the global pipeline.  Perhaps surprisingly, even über-green Germany is building or refurbishing a couple of dozen – and importing dirty brown coal from Poland into the bargain.

    Our closures will make no measurable difference in the overall picture.  The IEA predicts that coal use will rise for decades.

    We’re currently seeing a haemorrhage of production and jobs and investment out of the UK – and out of the EU – as a direct result of energy prices.  I’ve often quoted former Energy Commissioner Antonio Tajani, who famously said “We are creating an industrial massacre in Europe”.

    We in UKIP don’t want to be a part of that European massacre.

    You’ve heard me talk before about energy-intensive businesses.  Recently we’ve been losing steel companies.  Tata Steel cut 500 jobs in North­umberland.  It’s mothballing its plant at Llanwern in Wales. This affects Bill Etheridge as well – there are knock-on job losses at Tata’s plant at Wednesbury in the Black Country.

    Since I started drafting this speech, we’ve had an even bigger blow to the steel industry.  In the North-East, Redcar, the second largest blast furnace in Europe, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.  Its Thai owners have failed to meet scheduled repayments, and 2000 jobs are at risk.  My message for those 2000 steel-workers: you’re being sacrificed to climate hysteria, and to Brussels bureaucrats.

    We’ve lost several aluminium smelters, like Anglesey Aluminium in Wales, and Alcan Lynemouth in Northumberland.

    It’s the same with petroleum refineries.  Petroplus closed Teesside in 2009, and Coryton in 2012.  Murco closed Milford Haven in 2014.  Research commissioned and published by the British government shows that overseas refineries typically emit 35% more CO2 per unit than UK refineries.

    According to Jim Ratcliffe, the CEO of INEOS, the chemicals giant, twenty-two UK chemical plants have closed since 2009, and he says that unless we resolve the energy price problem, there’ll be no chemical industry left in Europe in ten years’ time.  And remember they use gas not only for energy but also as a feedstock.  The list goes on – glass, cement, paper.  All these industries, all these jobs, are under threat from energy prices.

    Across Europe, there are increasing concerns about the costs of renewables.

    Denmark is scaling back climate and emissions targets which are proving just too expensive to deliver.

    Meantime in Germany, Der Spiegel reports that the German renewables business is in crisis.

    But despite these concerns, you can bet that the EU will cling doggedly to its perverse energy policies for years to come.

    The good news is that with Brexit, we can stop the haemorrhage.  We can keep those jobs here at home.  We can reverse the tide, so that industry and jobs and investment come back to Britain.

    That means that outside the EU, we in Britain will have a dramatic competitive advantage on energy prices against the rest of Europe when it comes to inward investment.

    Britain after Brexit will become the manufacturing capital of Europe.

    That’s the story from industry — but there’s the issue of domestic prices as well.  As we get into the referendum campaign, you may find people on the door­step who care about jobs – but don’t always enthuse about the problems of companies.  But they all get electricity bills, and many are suffering.  Maybe they – or their elderly relatives – are struggling to make ends meet.  For them, Brexit means the lower energy bills they desperately need.

    That’s the positive message of Brexit for the voters of Britain.  Lower domestic bills.  More jobs.  More investment.  More growth.  More prosperity.  Not a bad prospectus.

    So Conference, I think it’s time for us to speak up for those 2000 steel-workers in Redcar, and for all the other British workers whose jobs are threatened by perverse climate and energy policies.  It’s time to send a message to our Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Amber Rudd.  And to the Chairman of parliament’s Climate Change Committee, John Gummer, now ennobled as Lord Deben.  And to George Osborne and David Cameron.

    Let’s send a message from this hall in Doncaster, from this Conference, from this Party, that will reverberate in the Palace of Westminster.

    Do we want secure and affordable energy?
    Do we want Britain to become the manufacturing capital of Europe?

    Do we want our country back?

    Colleagues – thank you so much.  And if I may borrow David Steel’s famous rallying cry: Let’s go back to our constituencies and prepare for independence!

  • Priti Patel – 2015 Speech at ERSA Conference

    piritpatel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Priti Patel, the Minister of State for Employment, at the ERSA annual conference on 8 December 2015.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at this flagship event.

    You have played an important role in the success of the labour market over recent years – around half a million job outcomes across the Work Programme and Work Choice. Thank you.

    I’m grateful for your work and look forward to continuing to work closely with you.

    I welcome and share the sentiment of this conference: ‘Ambitious Futures: upping our collective game’.

    It is right that we are ambitious and my message to you today is that the focus should be on outcomes, not just inputs.

    My challenge is for you to think outside of the traditional approaches of provision – and to think innovatively.

    There is much we need to do, but it is worth reflecting on what changed over the last Parliament.

    Legacy

    Since 2010, we have made great strides reforming the welfare system – ensuring it better supports the people who need it, and remains affordable to the taxpayer in the long term.

    The labour market is in a much stronger position than it was 5 years ago:

    • the claimant count is nearly 700,000 lower and is at its lowest level since 1975
    • the unemployment rate is close to pre-recession levels
    • long-term unemployment has fallen by 274,000
    • 1 million fewer people on the main out-of-work benefits since 2010
    • the employment rate and number of people in work are at record highs

    I appreciate the role you have played in this….

    ….helping to deliver our shared goal of supporting those who need help back into work, and helping to drive performance improvements across our key provision.

    Building on success in this Parliament

    So, we’ve seen huge progress, but we know there is more to do.

    The government is committed to moving this country to a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare society.

    So, we will press ahead with our reforms over this Parliament and we will continue to be ambitious.

    The overall position following the Spending Review is that the funding for employment support will remain broadly stable.

    However, within this, we have aimed to improve the effectiveness of our spending, reflecting our key priorities.

    That means:

    • continuing the roll-out of Universal Credit and extending the same support that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants get to around a million more people by 2020
    • improving support for people with health conditions and disabilities through a real terms increase in funding
    • and ensuring value for money, with interventions that we know work

    This approach focuses on what our labour market most needs today whilst retaining flexibility for the future.

    I want to deal with each of these in turn.

    Universal Credit and refocusing employment offer

    Firstly, Universal Credit – the key plank of our welfare reforms.

    It marks a distinct shift in our approach and is transforming lives through more personalised support and by making sure work always pays.

    Under Universal Credit, people can expect early and continued support looking at what work they can do and what support they need to do it.

    Unlike in the past, Universal Credit stays with someone when they enter work and continues to support them until they leave the benefits system.

    Today we have published Universal Credit at Work.

    The independently reviewed research shows that Universal Credit is making a real difference.

    It shows that people who are on Universal Credit are:

    • more likely to be employed in the first nine months of their claim, spending twice as much time looking for a job than under the legacy system
    • work on average 12 days more than Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants
    • and are more likely to be earning more

    This is welfare reform in action, making things simpler, ensuring the right incentives are in place – and ultimately, changing culture and changing lives.

    The report also shows we are on track in terms of roll out.

    Universal Credit is now available in three quarters of all jobcentres, and by April next year it will be available across the country.

    Building on this, we are testing a digital service in 3 London jobcentres.

    This will expand nationally from May next year, initially to 5 jobcentres every month, as part of the gradual, safe and secure delivery plan.

    Health and disability focus

    Secondly, this renewed approach also represents the start of genuine integration between the health and work sectors, with a focus on supporting people with health conditions and disabilities return to and remain in work.

    Your input has been invaluable in helping us to set out our strategy here.

    I firmly believe that the perspective from the frontline – the perspective from people and organisations like you all who are helping people into work day in and day out – is essential to developing successful interventions.

    That’s why I so value the input you have been providing on the development of future employment support, and that’s why we’ll be taking those views on aboard as we design the new programme over the next few months.

    In particular you’ve told us that we need to target support more effectively.

    So, I have asked my officials to develop better ways of targeting and preparing people for employment programmes so that we can ensure that you have a good chance of supporting every person that walks through your door.

    Once people are with you, you should have enough resources to give them the support they need to make a difference to their lives.

    We will make sure the right incentives are there for you to deliver a first class service to everyone on the future programme, not feel the need to pick winners.

    You’ve also said that it is really difficult to find a way through the maze of services offered through different government departments and agencies.

    That is why my priority is to remove these roadblocks and prompt genuine integration of services across government, so you can better integrate services on the ground.

    Nowhere is this more important than in how we support people with health conditions and disabilities, which is why we have set out such an important programme of reform in this area.

    This work includes:

    • the launch of the new contracted Work and Health employment provision in 2017
    • an expansion of Access to Work, enabling up to 25,000 additional disabled people to receive support through Access to Work
    • and at least £115 million of funding for the Work and Health Unit, including a Work and Health Innovation fund

    The government will publish a White Paper next year setting out more detail of our plans to improve support for people with health conditions and disabilities.

    Good value for money for contracted employment

    Thirdly, we need to build on the success of current contracted employment provision and design support that helps today’s labour market and delivers good value for money.

    The decision on the level of central government funding to employment programmes in the recent Spending Review followed comprehensive consideration of our strategic direction against the current market; the economic climate and our manifesto commitments.

    Work has started on the design and structure of the new programme and draws heavily on all the best experience and consultation work we did over the summer.

    Senior officials also met with many of our prime providers last week and held an open, constructive dialogue around how we can continue to work in the spirit of partnership to ensure the most effective delivery of the Spending Review announcements and the best possible support for claimants.

    We will be working closely with providers both individually and collectively in the coming weeks and months.

    Devolution deals and integration

    We will also be capitalising on the expertise of local authorities.

    Local authorities know their local labour market and often have access to services which claimants may need alongside employment support. Help finding accommodation for example, or advice on budgeting and debt management.

    We have already collaborated with Manchester, Glasgow and Clyde Valley, and London to develop the Working Well, Working Matters and Working Capital programmes. And we will be looking carefully at whether the localised key worker approach being delivered in those areas improves outcomes for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants.

    We know that providing holistic support can be key to supporting the hardest to help claimants into work. It is therefore crucial that the design of the new programme supports providers, local authorities and other local organisations to better integrate services.

    So all local authorities will have the opportunity to comment on the national design of the new programme. And we will be testing different approaches to jointly designing and commissioning programmes across the 7 devolution deal areas – Greater Manchester, London, Sheffield, Tees Valley, Liverpool, West Midlands, the north-east.

    This approach will enable us put integration at the heart of the new programme. And accordingly, we will expect providers to demonstrate how they will forge strong partnerships with local organisations to deliver the integrated support that claimants need.

    Employers

    More often than not, we know that providing claimants with the support they need entails equipping them with the skills that local employers demand.

    It is the job of everyone in this room to engage with local employers, employer representatives and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to understand that demand. This means working in partnership with them to: to:

    • identify sustainable job opportunities
    • create and support apprenticeships
    • nurture skills that aid progression
    • and improve the way that the labour market works in low employment areas

    Together, we must listen to what employers in varying local labour markets need.

    Together, we must understand their skills and progression challenges.

    And together, we must be innovative in reaching out to new employers and engaging with those who may have overlooked the employment services we can provide.

    So think about how you currently work with employers, and consider how you can engage with them more effectively to ensure the support you deliver to both claimants and employers reflects local labour market demand.

    Conclusion

    Today’s challenges are different to those of 2010.

    We have largely overcome the issue of long-term unemployment.

    Our focus now is on the nearly 3 million people who are on ‘inactive’ benefits.

    The majority of sick and disabled benefit claimants want to work, but there is a large gap between the proportion that want to work and those that feel able.

    We worked effectively together on the labour market challenges of 2010 and witnessed significant improvements in the labour market.

    I see ERSA and its members being key partners to support people that can work into work. This is a shared challenge – delivering more integrated support to those with some of the most significant barriers to work, particularly those with health conditions and disabilities.

    Our role is to embrace that challenge….to integrate and innovate…..to support people into sustainable jobs.

    Thank you.

  • Matthew Taylor – 2001 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matthew Taylor to the Liberal Democrat Party Conference held in Bournemouth on 25 September 2001.

    Before the appalling events in America, the row between the Prime Minister and the TUC (and many Labour backbenchers) over the Private Finance Initiative looked set to dominate the news.

    Introduced by the Conservatives, PFI has been pursued by Labour in their “private is best” footsteps.

    Liberal Democrats oppose this dogma – but not as members of the old-left’s “public is always best” camp either.

    In theory, private involvement can, sometimes, encourage lower costs and better service, and real innovation.

    For example, a company building a road can be paid for each day it is available. Therefore the designs minimise maintenance, meaning fewer traffic jams for you and me.

    Similarly, in some PFI prisons bonuses are paid if re-offending rates fall – an incentive to concentrate on helping prisoners go straight.

    Of course, some want private involvement ruled out altogether.

    They claim the cost of borrowing is higher for the private sector than for government, and so it is always more expensive.

    But the government is paying a little more to, in effect, insure against the risk of something going horribly wrong. Then it’s private companies, not you and me as taxpayers, who get landed with unexpected costs and overruns.

    In any case, other savings may, may outweigh the interest costs.

    Critics also mention that government is often tied into PFI contracts for 25 or 30 years.

    However when government borrows for a conventional project it is also tied into contracts of 25 or 30 years – albeit for the repayment of debt rather than the provision of a service.

    Either way, if the original service provided turns out to be mistaken, the taxpayer will still be paying for that mistake many years later.

    In truth, neither private finance nor public service can rescue the taxpayer from bad decisions in the first place by the politicians.

    But if the opponents sometimes exaggerate their case, the zealots in favour go further. Much further.

    Both Conservative and Labour Politicians have suggested PFI magics up “extra” public investment.

    But PFI is a form of debt just like government borrowing. It incurs charges for the service built, rather than interest on the money borrowed to build it.

    Either way, the taxpayer pays.

    Even if it doesn’t show in the Treasury accounts that way.

    In truth, it only makes the Government’s figures look better – it doesn’t save taxpayers a penny.

    Extraordinarily, the Treasury openly admit that they are willing to pay for more expensive forms of finance just to keep the cost out of the official statistics – a pure waste of public money.

    When they did this for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link it cost us £80m extra – to make the Chancellor look prudent.

    For the London Underground it will cost £700m extra for Gordon’s Brown’s obsession with appearing – just appearing – prudent.

    That’s a shocking scandal. It’s one reason why we will put a stop to London Underground’s part-privatisation if we can.

    Because of this, the Government usually refuses to publish their public sector cost comparisons with PFI.

    For the NHS these show an average benefit of just 1% – which usually depends on unproven assumptions of long-term efficiency savings.

    Claims of commercial secrecy are sometimes used to justify this cover-up.

    Only because the Government was forced by a court to publish the Deloitte & Touche report, could we prove that the London Underground PPP calculations had been rigged, and that the bond scheme is clearly cheaper.

    It is a shocking scandal. And we will put a stop to it.

    Worse still, government Departments often get their sums wrong.

    I can announce today that we have now examined all the National Audit Office’s reports on such schemes.

    More than half show major errors in the calculation of costs – all favouring PFI.

    At the very least this is gross incompetence.

    Frankly, we believe the figures are being fiddled.

    If it was cricket Gordon Brown would get a life ban.

    We will put a stop to it.

    So no surprise, there are problems with accountability.

    Most PFI contracts replace unaccountable and over-centralised publicly run services with even more unaccountable and over-centralised privately run services.

    Democratic accountability is actually diminished, particularly if information is treated as “commercial – in confidence”.

    So it is time to sweep away this secrecy.

    To expose private involvement in public services to proper scrutiny.

    To knock it off its pedestal

    To allow real choice. Examine every option.

    Throw out the ideology.

    This motion rightly doesn’t say it is always wrong.

    It can, at the right time, in the right place, bring real benefits.

    But rigging the system at the expense of democratic accountability, value for money or quality of service is wrong.

    Totally wrong.

    We won’t rule out using the private sector. To do so would be for us to say that even if a project could be proven to substantially improve public services then we would not use it.

    But we do demand proof.

    Scrutiny.

    Accountability.

    When public services are developed, all the options must be tested.

    With the Liberal Democrats they will be tested.

    So a word on the main amendment:

    It implies that even when a partnership can be unequivocally demonstrated to be better, by our tests, we should not use it in the NHS.

    That doesn’t make sense. If we believe these tests are right, we should have the self-confidence to use them. If NHS schemes don’t match up we’ll put a stop to them.

    On the evidence.

    But, by testing alternative provisions, the public sector is itself opened up to scrutiny of its costs, its quality of service, and its ability to innovate.

    Liberal Democrats in local authorities and the devolved administrations have often delivered greater accountability and transparency in PFI projects.

    The challenge now is to ensure that all public private partnerships are tested in this way.

    Freeing local authorities and devolved administrations to borrow on financial markets, subject to the same rules as central government, would further level the playing field between PFI schemes and other alternatives.

    Labour have wedded themselves to PFI, whatever the cost.

    The Conservatives can offer no opposition to this, only support.

    They invented it.

    So it falls, yet again, to Liberal Democrats to lead the only effective opposition.

    Let us be absolutely clear today.

    Liberal Democrats are not ideological about private finance or public service.

    But we are implacably opposed, ideologically opposed, to secrecy, dogmatism or fixing.

    We will root it out every time.

    We will put a stop to it.

    Throwing out the ideology. Putting people first.

    Now that’s effective opposition!

  • Charles Kennedy – 2001 Speech on Terrorism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy on 24 September 2001.

    We meet against an unimaginable backdrop.

    It is hard to find words adequate to give proper voice by way of response, far less respect.

    How can day-to-day vocabulary, measure up to such sheer criminality?

    For me, watching those grim images on television – again, and again and again – there were all the normal, human reactions.

    Disbelief. Then alarm.

    Horror – as the truth sank in.

    Compassion for all those people and their families, so many of whom were British.

    Can you imagine that last mobile phone call from your husband, or wife or child?

    The helplessness. And with it, the hopelessness. We’re here because we don’t believe in hopelessness. We actually believe in hope. But hope requires purpose. And purpose requires direction.
    When I spoke again with the Prime Minister earlier today,
    we were clear on a number of matters.

    First, common resolve to root out terrorism wherever it may be. Second, the need to balance legislation with the interests of domestic civil rights. Third, vigilance against anyone who seeks to target and attack any of our ethnic communities. Fourth, no ruling out of a further recall of Parliament, if events require it.

    Now immediate emotions inevitably begin to subside, but they will never go away. Nor should they. We Liberal Democrats must be clear about our intentions.

    Resolve. There cannot be capitulation to the terrorist.

    Determination. That we strike at the heart of international terrorism.

    And equal determination that in combating terrorism we do not lose sight of the fact, at one at the same time, that we live – actually – in a liberal democracy, and the principles of democracy are what we’re all about. So as we gather here this week, this is one of the challenges facing us as Liberal Democrats.

    One of our particular duties, is to make it clear that short-term knee-jerk responses, never provide long-term solutions.

    We have to be especially vigilant against those people who would seek to make scapegoats of Muslims in Britain.

    Let us be quite clear, we have no quarrel with the Muslim community and no quarrel with the Islamic faith. Last Friday, when I visited a Mosque in London, that was the message I took to our fellow citizens on all our behalves. And that message went out loud and clear from this conference hall this morning.

    But let us also remember. There will be particularly difficult dilemmas ahead for our party. Those difficulties will involve a gauging between the balance of the liberty of the individual against the threat that the terrorist presents to that very liberty.

    Do not underestimate the real, ongoing pressures and the public scrutiny that goes with that, which will be upon us in the times ahead. Proportionate response is not just about military measures.

    Proportionate response is also about civil liberties. The scandal that is terrorism is all about civil liberties. In facing those dilemmas, we are best to remember our first principles. We subscribe to the rule of law, violated over the skyline of the United States, on September 11th.

    But that subscription, as the very word implies, comes with a price tag attached. It involves realism and risk.

    Realism means facing the stark truth, that the terrorist will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing. Risk is about the consequences of your response.

    So let us be clear about these first principles.

    Civil liberties – yes.

    The rule of international law – yes.

    Co-operation amongst sane-minded peoples across the globe – yes.

    All underpinned by a philosophic and fundamental commitment to the integrity of the individual, and the supremacy of that individual over the power of the nation state. But recognising also that people need and are looking for security and reassurance, and that the proper role of the state is to provide that.

    Now that’s where we stand. And that defines our response and our reasoning in the wake of these dreadful events. When Parliament was reconvened, I couldn’t help but cast my mind back to such a happy year as a student in the mid-West of the States.

    Friendships were made there. What struck me then, what I didn’t understand properly, was the extent to which the mid-West can almost be a country which is very different
    from the rest of the country, which, when you think about it, itself is a continent.

    But what is so striking now is the remarkable degree of spontaneous unity right across America. A unity of understandable anger. But the fear that can flow from that can be dangerous.

    That’s where a candid friend comes in. Standing shoulder to shoulder, but always there for the occasional cautionary tap on the shoulder.

    The most special relationships, in my experience, are based on a combination of trust and mutual respect.

    And as America’s candid friend, we are able to say: there are no blank cheques to be issued to the United States.

    The way to defeat international terrorism, is through international co-operation, based on international law, clear intelligence and a measured and appropriate military response.

    And let me say this where military response is concerned: we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that where our armed forces are involved, the risks to them are quantified and minimised.

    We cannot shelve or abandon that requirement.

    That means supporting American actions only in the knowledge that Britain will be involved in all planning and risk assessment.

    All that, we owe that to our armed forces.

    And let me also, incidentally, pay tribute to the BBC World Service. As ever, one of the key contributions that Britain can make to the coalition against terror and suppression is to offer accurate information and rational analysis.

    But do remember. War is not the word. Nor is crusade. Resolve is.

    We have got to fashion a mindset, to find that approach which begins to address the roots of such evil.

    We do need to get back to those first principles.

    In the face of such violation, be inviolate.

    Don’t flinch.

    Democracy must prevail and it will.

  • Menzies Campbell – 2001 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Menzies Campbell, the then Party Foreign Affairs spokesman, to the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Bournemouth on 26 September 2001.

    With the exception of some ritual skirmishing over the single currency, Foreign Affairs were noticeably absent from the general election campaign of 2001.

    Foreign Affairs hardly seemed to register in the collective mind of the British electorate.

    But as the events of two weeks ago show, there is no other area where policy is more influenced by external events over which we have no control, than the conduct of our relations with other countries and institutions.

    It has become trite to claim that “the world will never be the same again” or that we have reached a “defining moment” or that we have reached a “watershed”.

    We do not know any of these things are true.

    But what is true is that before the 11th of September there were and still remain foreign policy issues which are urgent and acute;

    Such as our military commitments in the Balkans and Sierra Leone;

    The proper British response to American proposals for ballistic missile defence;

    Or the impact of the slowdown in the Japanese economy on the inward investment upon which 65,000 jobs in the United Kingdom depend;

    Or the political and economic consequences of remaining outside the single currency.

    We have not suspended all political activity in the United Kingdom since 11th September but I sense that the electorate has little stomach for the partisan political exchanges which normally characterise the party conference season – and that least of all in Foreign Affairs.

    So, let me today adopt a more reflective tone and try to set out a purely Liberal Democrat view of Foreign Affairs – leaving others to conclude how and to what extent that view conflicts with the policies of the other parties.

    Our aim must be to offer a clear, constructive and credible foreign policy in which, by means of effective international and regional organisations, we can help to promote prosperity, peace and freedom, combat poverty and disease, and tackle global environmental problems.

    Our natural inclination is towards internationalism – celebrating diversity, recognising that state borders provide no defence to environmental threats – accepting that the desperation of asylum seekers knows no boundaries – always holding to an unwavering commitment to the universality of human rights.

    Freedom should not be the prerogative of the well governed, the well off, or the well connected.

    A Liberal Democrat view embraces freedom from want and disease, freedom from oppression and fear, freedom of assembly and expression.

    In short – a foreign policy with an ethical dimension.

    But neither we nor any other country will fashion a foreign policy which meets these objectives unless by multilateral action; by acknowledging our dependence and by supporting international institutions; by collective and not unilateral action.

    If the events of the last two weeks have taught us anything it is surely that no nation however powerful can hope to defend its citizens or seek redress on their behalf unless it acts in concert with those of like mind.

    However much a sense of national pride may seduce us to believe we have the ability to stand alone, the truth is that our survival depends on our allies and our alliances.

    It is no accident that in seeking legitimacy for prospective military action, the USA was compelled to seek the support of the United Nations, of NATO and of the EU.

    It is no surprise that in order to maintain the coalition of support it has gone outside even of these institutions to try to forge an alliance of those who will look neutrally, at least, on a military response.

    In renouncing unilateralism the USA has been compelled to cede to allies old, new and improbable, a measure of influence over its own decision-making.

    When we argue as we have for a military response based on clear intelligence, precise and proportionate to the need, and consistent with the principles of international law this is not an over-cautious response, as it is crudely characterised by some, it is no more than the cement necessary to keep together the newly constructed coalition.

    Abandon these principles and the coalition will be impossible to maintain.

    Such ad hoc coalition may be a matter for congratulation, even astonishment, but it is no substitute for the permanent coalition of interests which a reformed, effective and fully funded United Nations would provide.

    The mechanism for crisis management needs to be in place before the crisis erupts.

    The United Nations will only fulfil these aspirations when it commands the unqualified support of all the nations, no matter how powerful.

    A system of international justice will only be effective if all nations no matter how powerful accept the universal jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court.

    And if we put our trust in a reformed and revitalised United Nations we must here also assert our belief in the web of mutually reinforcing treaties for arms control and disarmament which have maintained the strategic balance.

    We are not signatories to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but we have been its beneficiaries and we have a legitimate interest in the stability it brings and the consequences of its abrogation.

    We are entitled to call upon the declared nuclear powers to fulfil their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    We support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – we want all nuclear powers to do so too.

    Landmines and biological weapons verification, measures to control the global trade in small arms and the Kyoto protocol – how shall we make a success of these unless we approach them from a collective and not a unilateralist standpoint?

    Today is the 15th day after the events in Washington and New York, but it is also the 30th day of NATO’s operation to collect up weapons in Macedonia – a collective successful action in which the United Kingdom has played a prominent and leading part.

    But if we are to go on playing such a role – if we are to go on being a force for good – if we are to assert and implement the right of humanitarian intervention where there are systematic breaches of human rights, I simply do not believe that we can do all this on the existing defence budget.

    I lost the argument inside our party for a commitment to increase defence spending in our budget proposals for the general election.

    But I was in good company.

    So did Iain Duncan Smith and Geoff Hoon.

    No UK political party campaigned in the General Election on the footing of increasing defence spending.

    And yet every party wants the armed forces to do more, to be better equipped, better manned, to make a better contribution to our foreign policy objectives – just plain better.

    It can’t be done without better resources.

    The Labour Government’s Strategic Defence Review was supposed to provide conceptual stability for defence policy and it largely succeeded.

    But without adequate resources to match its objectives we shall be driven to a further review before long.

    We shall find it difficult to deal with turbulence abroad if the armed forces are facing financial turbulence at home.

    And finally let me turn to Europe.

    A party of reform in Britain has to be a party of reform in Europe.

    Better scrutiny, better control of expenditure, less waste, less bureaucracy, more subsidiarity, more transparency.

    Our commitment to Europe will not survive sceptical challenge unless it is accompanied by frank acknowledgement of Europe’s weaknesses and credible proposals to put them right.

    But let us acknowledge the burgeoning foreign policy influence of the European Union.

    In its achievements as a partner with Nato in Macedonia and its mature political response to President Bush, it is coming of age in foreign affairs.

    These last two weeks have been a curious time in foreign affairs.

    So much of what seemed certain has been disproved.

    So much of what we took for granted has been destroyed.

    In uncertain times a political party confronts challenges by rigorous adherence to its principles.

    Be in no doubt, our principles and our resolve will be tested as never before.

  • John Major – 2001 Speech to Young Conservatives Conference

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Major, the then Prime Minister, to the Young Conservatives Conference held in Scarborough on 9 February 1991.

    In each of the last three General Elections well over a million young people voted Conservative – three times as many first time voters supported us for every two who voted Labour in 1987.

    That is good, but not good enough.

    Why did we enjoy that support? It was because young people shared the values that we care about. I believe we want to strengthen and deepen that commitment.

    I want them to know that the Conservative Party is open to them and to their ideas.

    They will be welcome – and we need them.

    Their idealism.

    Their willingness to challenge accepted wisdom.

    Their readiness to try new ways. And we must respond to their hopes as well.

    To their concern for the sort of life they want to build for themselves.

    Today the world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We cannot be immune from that.

    Our principles and our philosophy are firm. But we must still adapt in order to thrive.

    We must be open to originality, to innovation, and to change. And so long as I am able to ensure it, we will.

    In a few moments I want to share with you some of my thoughts about our priorities for the future.

    But first I want to speak of one group who are uppermost in our minds at present – those in our armed forces in the Gulf.

    A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting many of them. They made a lasting impression.

    They had no doubt that the task they had been set was just. And they left me in no doubt that they were wholly equal to that task.

    And since then – night after night and day after day – we have seen them prove that with a skill and courage we can only admire.

    They deserve all the support they can get – and they will get from us all the support they need.

    And when they have done their job we will bring them back home – as soon as we can.

    For here, at home, there are deep anxieties faced by their families.

    I have received in recent weeks many letters from them.

    Some are worried. Some emotional. All proud.

    I believe the whole nation shares those feelings.

    We did not want this war.

    But we have it.

    And we face a difficult period ahead.

    But Saddam Hussein must know what he faces.

    He faces defeat.

    The timing maybe uncertain.

    But the outcome is absolutely certain.

    Because we intend to complete the job they have begun.

    The British people understand very well the key principle underlying the Gulf conflict.

    Throughout history the instinct of Britain has always been to defend freedom.

    To uphold the rule of law.

    That above all is why our troops are in the Gulf.

    For our troops back home and all over it is not enough simply to protect the rights and freedoms that we have inherited. We must look beyond the present.

    We must extend them.

    In the last ten years tremendous advances have been made. Now we must move forward again.

    We must look now at the opportunities that should be there and are not.

    At the choices we do not yet have.

    And at the people who have not yet benefited from change. The success of our Party since 1979 has sprung from our readiness to reform – our willingness to make the changes necessary to produce a better quality of life.

    And I promise you today that great programme of reform will continue in the years ahead

    In our Party we know you have to produce wealth before you can use it.

    Like many other nations, Britain faces economic difficulties at present.

    The next few months will be uncomfortable.

    I regret that.

    But short term expedients won’t do.

    They will only lengthen and worsen the problems themselves.

    We must follow a policy that will cure those problems, not simply mask them.

    That is precisely what people expect of us.

    Every time we have faced economic difficulties we have brought the country out of them.

    We have a good track record.

    And we will come through our problems yet again.

    The centre piece of any strong economy is low inflation. And in that there are good signs for Britain.

    Inflation is coming down, and will continue to fall throughout the year.

    It will halve from its peak.

    And we will still be driving it down.

    There are some who that say inflation doesn’t matter so very much.

    What that shows is that to them people don’t matter so very much.

    Well, people matter to me.

    I know that inflation is the enemy of personal security and peace of mind – for people of all ages.

    It gnaws away at the hard won savings of the pensioner. It disrupts business and destroys jobs.

    It betrays the basic trust in the value of money that lies behind every transaction in our daily lives.

    That is why we must and will defeat inflation as our first priority

    But, you know, when we talk of efficiency, of competition, and of economic success, we do it not for its own sake.

    Not for material reasons only.

    But for what we can achieve with the resources we create.

    In the year ahead we will set out our ideas for the 1990s and beyond.

    We have an agenda to work through.

    Some of those ideas will be tried and tested.

    Some will be new.

    Some will involve novel concepts.

    But all of them will have one thing in common – the long-term needs of this country and the people that live in it.

    Our Party exists to give more people more choice, more independence, more control over their daily lives.

    We know that the role of government should be limited. At present it is still too big.

    But let there be no question about one thing.

    We must never accept the contention that limited Government means lower standards.

    That state services must be second-best.

    I want to see an unending search for better quality in all our public services. When we deprive people of their money in never taxes, they have a right to ensure that it is never wasted in government.

    So I want to see new ideas flowing into public service. More privatisation, yes, of course.

    But also more partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.

    More use of the best private skills.

    For far too long we have tolerated public services that are just not good enough.

    Council house repairs that are shoddy and slow.

    Hospital appointments that take all day.

    Trains that run late and buses that travel in packs. Children refused admission to the schools to which their parents wanted them to go.

    In all of these areas we have been investing enormous sums – in health, in transport, and in education.

    But are we getting proper value?

    We must make those services operate better for the people who use them.

    And operate with the same efficiency within the public sector as we would expect outside the public sector.

    At the top of my personal agenda for the 1990s is education.

    Education is the key to opening new paths for all sorts of people, not just the most gifted and for doing so at every stage of their lives. And it is also the key to the Tory ideal of a mobile, dynamic and diverse society.

    So my objectives are straightforward – improving quality and standards.

    More pupils staying on in education after 16.

    Much more choice, and better training for all young people. I want to see more vocational options in schools of equal rigour and repute to the academic courses.

    And this must go hand in hand with greater coherence and quality in post-school training.

    There has been great progress over the last ten years. Some parts of our education system are unrivalled.

    But others clearly are not.

    Right back to the 60s and before, serious mistakes were made. Tried and tested methods were swept aside.

    Unproven theories were foisted on our children.

    And as a result, standards were lowered. And as a result of that the status of teachers was undermined.

    As a nation we cannot be proud of what has been done over the last thirty years for many of our children.

    Too many of them have been allowed to expect too little of themselves and too many other people have expected too little of them.

    Over a decade ago the Labour Party recognised all this to be true.

    They launched what they called a “great debate” about education.

    But of course it was not debate that was needed.

    It was action.

    As usual, it was left to a Conservative Government to take it up after 1979.

    In 1979 we set ourselves to tackle those problems.

    And since then, we have introduced a great range of reforms in our schools.

    Given more choice and influence to parents.

    More responsibility to governors.

    Set out the building blocks of a new system with better education in the National Curriculum.

    These policies are working.

    More pupils are getting more out of their education.

    There are now five 16 year olds staying on at school for every four just two years ago.

    Ten years ago only one person in eight went on into higher education.

    Now it is one in five.

    And soon it will be one in four.

    We have many more young people graduating from our universities than ever before in the past.

    Those are the real tests of success. And the policies of the Conservative Government have passed them in the last ten years.

    And we are passing them.

    So the 1980s have seen an opening of freedom and choice.

    But I for one have no intention of resting on the Government’s achievements.

    I want to bring the benefits of the best possible education to all. We cannot accept a situation where in some places nearly 40 per cent of school leavers get at least five higher level GCSEs, while elsewhere, less than ten percent do so. The Conservative Party has never accepted the notion that excellence for the few excuses mediocrity for the many.

    It is, of course, the teaching profession that must lead the drive to higher standards and aspirations in our schools. I want to see dedicated teachers rewarded fairly.

    But I also want to see more effective scrutiny of performance in schools.

    And I want the most rigorous standards applied in teacher training.

    We must ensure that every subject is taught to a high standard.

    Teachers may need to be better trained in the subjects they are going to teach.

    It is no good having hours of study of the theory of education if you actually fall down in the practice of teaching it when you get into the classroom.

    So we want to see an educational system that is the equal of anything abroad.

    Doing the basic things well.

    It is not only a question of reading and spelling.

    Although it is most emphatically a question of every child having the right to be taught how to read fluently and spell accurately.

    And it is also teaching to a good standard with the right combination of factual knowledge and critical understanding in every subject.

    And of training people for worthwhile qualifications in job related skills when they choose a vocational course.

    And so what is it we seek? In summary we seek a system of education and training able to equip the children of today for the twenty-first century.

    That is the objective that we will be seeking in our education policy throughout the 1990s.

    And we need that for a variety of reasons, we need it because we need that education, that excellence in education to maximise our success both domestically and in Europe. And also of course, because that education equips people so much better to enjoy all the aspects of life both in work and in leisure, that will be opening up before them in the years to come.

    Above all in the 1990’s we will face a competitive future in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and most especially in a European community that will become increasingly competitive. There will be no hiding place for inefficiency, no hiding place for the shoddy and the second-rate once we get into the Europe of the 1990’s. That will all change as the reforms of 1992 increasingly come to place. Those who are well equipped and do well, work well, think well, produce well, are efficient and effective will be the leaders of the Europe in the 1990’s. And we are, and will remain, an important and enthusiastic part of the European community. It is simply not enough for some people to say, ‘I don’t really like Europe, but I will tolerate it’, for if we take that view about Europe we will never be the centre of it and can not lead it in the direction which we wish it to go.

    It may be true in some ways that we need Europe but by golly it is equally true that Europe needs us and we had better make sure we are a key part in it.

    It is not only the opportunities in Europe, though I will return to those in a moment. Look at the opportunities opening up in other parts of the world, the increasing democratisation of so much of Eastern Europe, a part of the world that for a very long time indeed we have seen subjugated, and unable to open itself up to a free enterprise system and all the opportunities that will flow from that.

    That is all changing and has been changing in the most dramatic fashion in recent years.

    And then you see the extent to which throughout the whole of South East Asia and elsewhere there are growing industrial giants with whom we will have to compete in the future and then there is the increasingly growing and important market throughout the whole of Latin America. Those are the opportunities that lie there for British industry, British commerce, and British people in the future.

    And to return to the central point, providing we have the education system, the skills and the enterprise we will be able to win in those markets and winning in those markets will mean a much higher standard of life and living for all people who live in this country in the future.

    And nowhere will that competitiveness be more needed than within the European community itself.

    And that is why I say again that we must remain an enthusiastic partner in Europe.

    It is not for nothing that we led the way in the drive for the Single Market. It was not without good reason that we took sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We propose to play a leading part in Europe’s future and no-one should doubt that for a single second.

    And Britain will have a strong voice in the new Europe. Strong because of our commitment.

    Strong because we have hard heads as well as soft hearts. Strong because Britain under a Conservative Government has firm principles and a very clear idea of where it wants to go and what needs to be done to get there.

    And we will also resist the unworkable.

    Set realism in place of impractical dreams and protect the diversity of Europe while removing obstacles to partnership and enterprise.

    Necessarily you in the Young Conservatives must look to the long-term, to the year 2000 and beyond.

    And so you should.

    It is your future for a good deal longer than it is mine. Your Government has the same instincts. We will set our sights on the same horizon and so we should because it is our responsibility to do so.

    Mr Chairman, I have a total faith in Britain and in its future.

    I don’t accept for a second the craven argument that we cannot compete with the Germans and the French.

    I don’t agree with the pessimists who always believe we must devalue in order to remain competitive and I despise the defeatists who run down this country and write off its future. Defeatism is always an excuse for doing nothing. But we have no intention of doing nothing. In the months ahead our agenda will unfold. Throughout the last decade Conservative Governments have proved successful to an extent beyond most peoples’ imagination. I believe that will be increasingly recognised.

    Throughout the past decade Conservative Government’s have shown very clearly what it is possible for the British economy and people in this country actually to achieve and do. That is a record that people will look back on, I believe, in years to come with some envy and with a considerable amount of pride.

  • John McDonnell – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John McDonnell in the House of Commons on 6 June 1997.

    I have been made aware of the conventions of maiden speeches, especially the tradition of paying tribute to one’s predecessors. I have no problem with praising many of the previous Members of Parliament for Hayes and Harlington: men such as Walter Ayles, a good socialist who took a special interest in aid to Africa; Arthur Skeffington, a superb housing Minister in the Wilson Government; and Neville Sandelson, a good man who unfortunately fell victim to the delusions of grandeur of David Owen.

    Despite my respect for the conventions of the House, I shall not perjure myself by praising my immediate Tory predecessor. Many saw him simply as a Tory buffoon, and he was once described as a “pig’s bladder on a stick”. When he chose as his election slogan, “We love Dicks”, we were not sure whether to laugh or to call in the obscene publications squad. However, Terry Dicks was not a joke. He was a stain on the character of this House, the Conservative party which harboured him and the good name of my constituency. He brought shame on the political process of this country by his blatant espousal of racism and his various corrupt dealings. He demeaned the House by his presence, and I deeply regret that the Conservative party failed to take action to stem his flow of vile bigotry. Thankfully, my constituents can now say good riddance to this malignant creature.

    My speech in this debate, and many others today, have been more than 10 years in the waiting. In the newspapers this week, we have seen pictures of 50,000 people demonstrating for democracy by holding candles in a park in Hong Kong. More than a decade ago in our capital city, more than 250,000 Londoners stood silently in Jubilee gardens on the last night of the GLC when the lights were turned out in County hall. As the GLC councillor for Hayes and Harlington council and deputy leader of the authority, I was among them, and we tearfully sang “We’ll Meet Again”. After all this time, we are about to meet again.

    The abolition of the GLC was self-evidently an act of malignant spite by a Prime Minister in the first demented throes of megalomania. Harold Laski, a good socialist and once the chair of the Labour party, prophetically explained that Britain would not experience fascism in the form of a strutting Mussolini or Hitler, but instead was vulnerable to a form of Conservative authoritarianism arrived at by the slow incremental erosion of our civil liberties and democratic institutions. Under the Thatcher regime, the institution of democratic local government was bombarded by the introduction of rate capping, the surcharging of the Lambeth councillors and the abolition of the GLC, culminating in the establishment of the government of our capital city by an appointed state: the appointment of Tories, by Tories, to line the pockets of Tories.

    What has that plethora of quangos and joint committees achieved for our city? In the custodial care of the Tory appointees, 40,000 families in London are homeless every year; up to 3,000 people sleep on our streets in winter; crime has doubled, with a terrifying and unrelenting increase in violence; our manufacturing and economic base has collapsed; our health service is in crisis; and our transport system is gridlocked, with the effect that traffic is slower than at the turn of the century. Many of us will never forget or forgive the Tories for the scale of their neglect of our city.

    For most of the past decade, I served as the chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, and latterly the Association of London Government. After 10 long years of designing blueprints for a new strategic authority in that capacity, I am naturally pleased that, at last, we have the opportunity to start the reconstruction process. I also warmly welcome the fact that, in the spirit of open government and inclusiveness, there is to be a thorough consultation process, including a Green Paper, a White Paper and a referendum before the final legislation.

    It is critical in the consultation process that views are honestly expressed and listened to if we are to avoid putting in place a structure that we shall live to regret. In that spirit, I want to set out some initial views on the basic architecture of the proposed new government for the capital.

    There was a consultation process in the Labour party on the structural options for the new authority, but it is no secret that the proposal for a directly elected mayor was the result of enthusiasm from above.

    I have tried to analyse why, deep within me, I have such reservations about the proposal; it is certainly not because of an emotive claim that the system is somehow alien to this country. It is partly because it grates against my notion of democratic socialist practice, which involves the development of a policy programme by the party for presentation to the electorate, and in which the electors vote primarily for a set of ideas and policies associated with an ideology and advocated by a party rather than voting for their impressions of an individual. That is a vote for the many, not the few—and certainly not for one.

    I also have practical concerns about accountability and the potential for the abuse of power and corruption in a mayoral system. Nevertheless, the proposal for a directly elected mayor was contained in the manifesto on which our party was elected, so I look to the detail of the design of the relationship between the mayor and the elected authority to ensure political accountability and to secure probity.

    The checks and balances that are essential to ensure accountability would at a minimum include, for example, the election of the mayor’s cabinet by, and from among, the authority members; the approval by the authority of the overall budget and major spending decisions; a system of scrutiny of policy making; the ratification by the authority of any senior staffing appointments; and the right of the authority to express no confidence in the mayor and to trigger an election—in effect, a right of recall.

    The strategic role and powers of the new authority are almost self-evident in terms of the immediate and concrete needs of Londoners: economic regeneration; an efficient integrated transport system; a decent environment; and a feeling of safety from crime and hazards.

    My plea is simply that the legislation that we pass be sufficiently flexible to enable the new authority to meet new challenges as they arise. That may require a more general power of intervention, if necessary triggered by a decision by the electorate, the Secretary of State or the House.

    On funding, I agree that the allocation of powers and responsibilities without resources is pointless. The inheritance of existing precepts and the transfer of grant from central Government without capping, combined with the ability to borrow, would go a long way towards resourcing the new authority and achieving some economies of scale that would release new money. I also plead for flexibility in the legislation, to enable the new authority to explore new funding streams, possibly by hypothecated levies again triggered by the Government, by the House or by referendums.

    Some discussions have already taken place on the location of the new authority. Naturally, I prefer the retrieval of county hall, if necessary by compulsory purchase. I would certainly welcome an inquiry into the sale of county hall under the previous regime.

    As an alternative, the Middlesex guildhall across Parliament square would be suitable. We have been informed that the Prime Minister has assured the Corporation of the City of London of its continued existence. Thus, the City’s guildhall is not available for use.

    Labour remains committed to reforming the City’s archaic and undemocratic procedures. I hope that the City corporation will produce its own options for reform. By way of an incentive to expedite matters, I give notice that, unless reform proposals are forthcoming at the appropriate stage of the Bill enacting the new authority, I am minded to seek to insert a clause to abolish the City corporation—a generally uncontentious measure, I suggest.

    On the representative nature of the authority, whatever its size and method of election, I would argue that it should reflect the gender balance and ethnic diversity of our community. We should ensure the full involvement of all the social partners, of both sides of industry in the capital, in its deliberations and decision making.

    As a child, my first political awareness came when Wilson was in Government, John F. Kennedy was President of the United States and Martin Luther King had a dream—a dream of a new society, of equality and decency for our children. I believe that the last Greater London council administration was part of that dream; it was about building a new beginning for our city. The new authority that we are putting in place will be part of the procedure that will allow us to dream that dream again; a dream of a decent civil society in which equality reigns. I am pleased that I am going to be part of the process of making that dream a reality.