Blog

Jonathan Morgan – 2003 Speech to Conservative Welsh Spring Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Morgan to the 2003 Conservative Welsh Spring Conference on 8th March 2003.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Four years since Labour’s promises of better public services.

Four years of Labour’s dogma, interference and Minister knows best mentality.

Four years of missed opportunities for getting increased funding to schools.

Four years of Labour government in the National Assembly happily supported by the Liberal Democrats who do as they’re told.

It’s a strange partnership. Labour get the blame for what goes wrong, the Lib Dems try to claim the credit for any thing that goes right, the Lib Dems say the government is driven by them, and Labour are driven to attacking the Lib Dems. A bat man and robin outfit where no one seems to wear the trousers. School teachers, pupils, parents and governors are asking, “where did it all go wrong?”

I thought that devolution would have meant new ideas and new imagination for helping our public services. Perhaps I was being too optimistic, perhaps I was being youthfully naive, perhaps I was hoping for too much that the Labour government would start seeing our education service from the point of view of teachers, pupils, parents and governors instead of Labour councillors, Labour councillors and…well more Labour councillors.

The present education Minister would make a very good local government minister. She has excellent local government credentials, former councillor, and former employee of the Welsh Local Government Association.

For my part it has been a privilege to serve as this Party’s Education Spokesman in the first term of the National Assembly, without any baggage like the minister. 4 years of constructive Conservative ideas, of renewed determination to back our teaching profession 100%, to support our pupils and provide choice and opportunity for Welsh families.

We have built up our working relationship with the teaching unions, consulted with schools on our ideas, and have produced a manifesto demonstrating our commitment to our education service, and also our willingness to be innovative and exciting in our ambitions for Wales.

Labour and their Liberal Democrat helpers are settling for second best. They do not have any ambition for Wales. During these 4 crucial years there have been 4 big missed opportunities, which could have provided crucial resources to schools. No one will doubt that education spending has gone up, but spending does not equate investment unless there is a return.

Last year the Education Act was hailed as supporting devolution with new powers to protect school budgets. The minister refuses to use powers to ring fence budgets. Because of her fixation with local government she refuses to protect school budgets.

Labour’s reluctance to act has cost Welsh schools money, but a Welsh Conservative administration would protect school budgets.

The refusal of the government to introduce a 3-year cycle of funding is stopping schools from planning for the future. How can we expect schools to run effectively when they don’t know how much money they will get from one year to the next? Head teachers want to know what resources they will require, how many teachers they can afford, and this needs certainty.

Labour’s reluctance to act is preventing schools from planning ahead, but a Welsh Conservative administration would provide that certainty.

Since 1999 the government have announced lots of little schemes, schemes with duplicated aims and huge amounts of cash. This is where a substantial amount of the money goes, hundreds of millions of pounds into various pots. These pots are there, not for the taking, but for the bidding. Schools are caught up in an endless stream of bidding cycles, begging for money. We need to see these pots merged, and money targeted at school budgets – let schools decide how to spend the money according to their local needs.

Labour’s reluctance to concentrate on core funding is costing schools money and their time, but a Welsh Conservative administration would focus on money going into school budgets and not little schemes designed by government ministers.

Lastly, Labour’s political interference in the way that schools budgets are allocated will mean that schools in Wales are set to lose money. Just ask schools in Cardiff North or in Flintshire, school budgets are about to be attacked and redistributed according to a politically correct formula. Labour don’t want to support schools that do well, that raise standards, that attract good teachers and supportive parents. Labour’s reluctance to shake off its political dogma will cost schools money and staff.

But there is an alternative.

We have a vision of a Wales where teachers are trusted as the professionals that they are, where schools are supported by a government that does not interfere, where pupils are given the chance to succeed according to ability and aspiration not background and status.

But to realise that vision the people of Wales need their eyes opened, so go out and help them.

December 9, 2015
Michael Moore – 2013 Speech at Fife Chambers of Commerce

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State of Scotland, Michael Moore, at the Fife Chambers of Commerce on 31st July 2013.

The Chambers of Commerce network right across the United Kingdom plays a vital role in growing British businesses.

I know that the network here in Fife is central to ensuring that the area attracts and supports its local businesses.

It’s a great opportunity for me to be able to talk with you about the measures we are taking to support our economy, and the future that we want to see for you and your businesses in the years ahead.

Economy

There is no doubt that the last few years have been a real challenge for us all: for individuals, for families and for businesses.

We have experienced an unprecedented global financial crisis; the UK’s largest ever peacetime deficit; and a series of external shocks, both in the euro area and to commodity prices, that have continued to make our recovery a challenge.

Returning the whole of the UK to sustainable and balanced growth was the unifying objective for the two parties who came together in the national interest to form our Coalition Government.

We remain fully focussed on delivering that.

By reducing the deficit, restoring stability and rebalancing the economy we want to equip the UK to compete in the global race.

Recent news has shown that the economy is on the mend and moving from the rescue phase to recovery.

Last week’s UK GDP figures showing 0.6% growth in the three months to June were encouraging – above forecast and double the rate of the first quarter.

We have made substantial progress in our plan to cut the deficit, reduced by a third as a percentage of GDP since we came to power.

And we have seen significant progress over the past year in job creation and reducing unemployment.

To continue to make progress, the UK Government is ensuring the right business environment is in place for you, and for the families and communities who depend on you for their livelihoods.

We are supporting the recovery, reducing taxes remains an important priority – in particular by cutting the main rate of corporation tax to 20%.

This is helping to deliver on our objective of making the UK’s tax system the most competitive in the G20.

But tax reform is only part of the story.

It sits alongside the Bank of England’s monetary activism of recent years and our programme of financial sector reform, particularly of the banks, as key components of fixing the economy.

And we are determined to invest in our future, too.

I’ve already mentioned the UK Government’s support for the Queensferry Crossing, a less prosaic name than the previous working title of ‘the Forth Replacement Crossing’.

And the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, too. These are important parts of our investment programme.

But we have also provided over 1.7 billion pounds of additional capital spending power to the Scottish Government since the Spending Review of 2010.

It is for the Scottish Government to invest that money as it sees fit – including in the ‘shovel ready’ projects it has been so keen to promote.

Where responsibility sits with the UK Government, we are working hard to improve Scotland’s infrastructure links with the rest of the UK and to get the construction sector moving again.

In the housing sector, we are introducing the Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee Scheme, which will offer up to 12 billion of Government guarantees to lenders who provide mortgages to people with a deposit value of between 5 and 20 per cent.

Helping to make more high loan-to-value mortgages available to potential home-owners who can’t save for the large deposits needed following the financial crisis.

And we have set out a clear industrial strategy to ensure that Government is working with the experts in our key industries: such as construction, renewable, oil and gas and life sciences.

We know that you – and businesses like you, right across the United Kingdom – have been working hard to do your bit too. We need to keep working together to ensure that the economic recovery gathers strength and is sustained – we are not complacent about the challenges that remain.

The Future of Scotland

In this environment I know that right now all of you remain focussed on addressing the challenges we face day to day.

But aside from that, I know that the next issue on everyone’s minds is ‘what future will Scotland choose in the referendum next year?’

It’s just over 400 days until those of us living here in Scotland will make our biggest ever collective decision.

It will be a big, bold moment.

Offering us the choice between staying within the most successful partnership of nations the world has seen, or an irreversible decision to leave the United Kingdom and go our own, separate way.

To my mind it will come down to one simple question: which of the alternatives is better for me, my family, and my country?

For me the answer to that is absolutely clear.

As a proud Scot I believe that we can enjoy a better future as a nation if we remain within the United Kingdom family.

With a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong voice in the UK Parliament giving us the best of both worlds

It is clear to me that, as Scots, being part of the United Kingdom gives us greater opportunities; greater security and an unrivalled platform on the world stage.

And I believe all that is worth keeping.

If you focus in on the economy, which I am sure will dominate your thinking, the argument for staying in the UK is a powerful one.

As part of the world’s sixth largest economy, Scotland has strength in numbers – our 5 million people have unfettered access to a highly integrated single market across the UK.

More than 300,000 Scottish businesses can sell goods and services in a domestic market of more than 60 million people.

And enjoy support from an unparalleled network of embassies and consulates boosting their trade around the world and creating thousands of jobs at home.

We have seen for ourselves the ability of the UK economy to absorb huge financial shocks like the banking crisis which devastated our two largest Scottish banks.

And, as has been debated at length – as part of the UK we have certainty about our shared currency.

Over the last decade and a half we have created a devolution settlement which maintains these inherent advantages of the UK, while developing our decision making here at home at the Scottish Parliament.

Since the landmark creation of the Parliament at Holyrood we have seen it anchored in Scottish public life and seen its powers enhanced – significantly by the Scotland Act of last year which brings major tax and borrowing powers north of the border, in the biggest transfer of financial powers from London to Edinburgh since the Act of Union sent them the other way. But it’s not just by milestone Acts of Parliament that powers have been transferred.

We have seen flexible, responsive arrangements evolve that have allowed economically important powers like the management of our railways come north, while ensuring that when it makes sense to legislate on a pan-UK basis, as we have done in relation to tackling organised crime, we can still do it in Westminster with the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

This ‘best of both worlds’ approach is a real strength for us. And I believe the settlement will develop further.

For me as a Liberal Democrat, seeing the commitment to further devolution coming from all three parties who support Scotland staying within our United Kingdom is a real milestone in our country’s development.

But before we can take decisions on changes to our devolution settlement we need to take the most fundamental decision: are we in, or are we out?

Scotland Analysis Programme

As the UK Government, our proposition is clear: Scotland should remain the integral part of the United Kingdom that it is, and has been for over the last 300 years.

That is why over the last six months we have set out in great detail on fundamental economic questions what Scotland has as part of the UK and what all of us need to weigh up as we consider our vote.

I recognise that before many people can make their choice they want information, and they want to hear the case for each option.

So far we’ve published four papers in our Scotland Analysis Programme, amounting to over 460 pages of argument and data.

I’ll admit the title isn’t all that catchy – but it reflects a really important point about the way we are approaching this debate.

Analysis. We are doing the homework,

We are examining the evidence

And we are setting out the facts.

Our first paper sets out the legal position of Scotland within the United Kingdom – and the legal realities of becoming a separate independent state.

Because it’s important for us all to be clear that independence means Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

And leaving the United Kingdom, means leaving the state that we have built together, with our fellow citizens who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It means there are no guarantees that an independent Scotland would be a member of international organisations like the EU, NATO, G8 and G20.

A separate Scottish state would need to apply to join these organisations.

For the UN that could be a relatively simple process, but it’s a process that a newly independent state would have to go through none the less.

For other organisations there are detailed negotiations that would be required before an independent Scotland could be a member.

For the EU that would mean a newly independent Scotland negotiating with 28 existing Member States.

Simultaneously asking for fast-tracked membership, but also apparently expecting favourable terms:

An exemption from the euro;

An opt-out from the Schengen Agreement for the free movement of people; and

An agreement on Scotland’s contribution to the EU budget having left the UK’s rebate behind.

But it is not just the international implications of leaving the United Kingdom that need to be considered.

Our second paper in the Scotland analysis series examined in detail the currency arrangement we have, right now, as part of the United Kingdom, and the options that would be open to an independent Scottish state.

All of the options:

Seeking a formal currency union with the continuing UK state;

Using sterling outside of the UK, like the Isle of Man;

Adopting the Euro;

Or a separate Scottish currency altogether.

None of these options is the same as the shared currency we have now.

All are sub-optimal – for Scots and Scottish businesses and for the rest of the UK – to the current system we have of a shared pound sterling and a shared Bank of England.

And as the Chancellor made clear when he launched our currency paper, it is ‘unlikely’ that the continuing UK would choose to have a formal currency union with a separate Scottish state.

We’ve published a paper on our Financial Services sector

Setting out the importance of the sector to Scotland, where financial services contribute more than 8 per cent of Scottish GDP and support around 7 per cent of Scottish employment.

And the enormous benefit that this strong Scottish industry gets from being part of the UK financial sector, not least the support that the size and strength of the UK can provide in times of trouble.

We recently produced a fourth paper that examines the benefit of our shared single domestic market.

For whilst the border between England and Scotland means a great deal historically, it means nothing for our businesses large and small that operate across that border on a daily basis: Whether that be the 300,000 people that travel into or out of Scotland from the rest of the UK each day to work;

Or the lorries that transport goods to and from Scotland providing free unfettered access to a marketplace of 60 million rather than five;

Or the shared infrastructure we have like our broadband networks and energy markets.

Through our work to date, I believe we have established the key facts in the debate.

Independence would mean the end of devolution and Scotland leaving the UK, its institutions and its place in the world;

Independence would mean a fundamental change on currency;

A big change in regulation and the bodies we interact with every day

A big change for our position in Europe;

And – as we’ve seen reported extensively in recent days – some big challenges for our pensions.

Over the autumn period we will develop these and other arguments further.

The other side’s arguments

But we’ve not just been setting out our own case over the past six months.

We’ve been looking carefully at the arguments from the other side too.

We’ve looked carefully at the Scottish Government’s approach.

And you have to give them credit for some creative thinking about what independence means.

I have always taken it to mean a separate country making its way in the world, choosing new and different policy paths, which the proponents of independence have argued are necessary.

It’s that thirst for change, and recognition of the likely divergences, that lay behind the Chancellor’s thinking when he said that a currency union between the rest of the UK and Scotland was ‘unlikely’.

‘Unlikely’ because the simple truth is that, if we break up the United Kingdom, we will have turned our backs on our shared interests, so that we can instead develop separate interests.

And as everyone in business knows – you can get along very well;

You can be the best of neighbours;

But where you have separate interests you get divergence.

Doing things differently and creating differences is at the heart of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK.

It is the inherent logic of creating a separate Scottish state.

There is no hiding the upheaval independence would bring

Even if the advocates of independence spend rather a lot of time trying to assure us that all the good things we have as part of the United Kingdom can be maintained under independence – that there will be no change to speak of.

As I say, that’s a creative approach, but it doesn’t really add up, does it?

Those who advocate independence are surely not saying to people in Scotland – vote for independence to keep everything the same as it is now?

Indeed – even people in the yes camp are starting to question this vision of independence as a pale imitation of what they dream of.

And more to the point, it is something that the Scottish Government cannot faithfully promise or deliver. Common sense tells us that.

Looking at the detail of their work throws up more anomalies and contradictions.

We’ve looked at the work of the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission.

The Scottish Government like to highlight the Commission’s finding that keeping the pound would be the best starting point for an independent Scotland – but they refuse to set out their plan B or even what the long-term currency plan is.

Instead the Scottish Government say that they will unilaterally use sterling regardless – so called ‘sterlingisation’.

But if we then go back to their own Fiscal Commission report, those same economists pointed out the downsides of sterlingisation: no central bank or lender of last resort, no influence over monetary policy – in short this would be, in the Commission’s own words, ‘no long-term solution’.

Another group set up by the Scottish Government to review welfare made clear that it was given no guidance about the principles they should work from – so no plan for what the welfare system should look like in a separate Scottish state. And far from recommending radical change it proposed that an independent Scotland should keep the same system as we already have in the UK.

That’s the system that the Scottish Government like to say is flawed, but their own experts say should carry on under independence.

If we turn to look at one of the most fractious areas of debate, over the oil numbers, this is another area where the Scottish Government lauds the role of independent experts.

But when the independent experts in the Office for Budget Responsibility came up with figures, the Scottish Government didn’t like they cherry-picked the highest, most favourable figures to base their public arguments on.

Something their own Fiscal Commission warned against doing.

But of course we know from the leaked Scottish Government Cabinet paper that in private they are rather closer to our position on oil numbers and future spending than they care to admit in public.

In private they say that, quote, ‘there is a high degree of uncertainty around future North Sea revenues’… and

‘that Scotland would have a larger net fiscal deficit than the UK’

They also acknowledge, and I quote again, that ‘at present HMT and DWP absorb the risk…in future we will assume responsibility for managing such pressure. This will imply more volatility in overall spending than at present.’

I think that is a fair assessment by Scottish Government ministers – it’s just a shame they won’t face up to it in public.

Concluding remarks

I gave a speech at the start of 2013 saying that I wanted this to be the year we moved from process to substance in the independence debate.

That 2013 had to be the year of evidence and not assertion.

And that is exactly what we, as the UK Government, have done and will continue to do.

We are setting out the benefits we continue to enjoy and the contribution we have made working together for the last 300 years.

And we are setting out the opportunities and prospects that lie ahead if we choose to remain part of the United Kingdom family.

Our Scotland analysis papers are setting out the analysis and facts.

Together they make the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

We strongly and passionately believe that Scotland is better, safer and stronger within our United Kingdom.

That’s our case.

We don’t shy away from that – we don’t pretend to be arguing for anything else: we are making the case that we believe in, and we are making it clearly.

And that’s what I am going to be doing throughout the Summer – to groups like yours – right across Scotland.

Making the case that I am proud of.

The case that I believe in.

Thank you for the opportunity to set it out to you here in Dunfermline today.

December 9, 2015
Michael Moore – 2013 Speech on Scotland’s Future

Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, in Edinburgh on 18th January 2013.

2013 is the year that the debate about Scotland’s future moves from process to substance. Many people – including some of you, I’m sure – feel that the process discussions have gone on for too long.

I share that frustration: I certainly want to get on to the real issues as soon as possible.

But it’s important that we recognise the centrality of getting the process right. On 15th October the Prime Minister and I signed what’s become known as “The Edinburgh Agreement”, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That Agreement saw both Governments commit to ensuring that there is a legal, fair and decisive referendum on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

In December the Scottish Parliament backed this Agreement. And this week, both Houses in the UK Parliament gave their unanimous approval. There can now be a legal referendum. In recognition of the Scottish National Party’s election pledge to hold a referendum on independence, it will be the Scottish Parliament that sets out the detailed rules for that referendum. This will make sure that the “Made in Scotland” principle which lies at the heart of devolution also lies at the heart of this referendum.

The Referendum Bill is promised in March and will set out the question, the date, the franchise and the rules about how money is raised and spent during the campaign, in light of recommendations from the Electoral Commission. This is the body that has unparalleled expertise and unquestionable neutrality in these issues and whose recommendations aim to ensure an unbiased and impartial referendum process.

I am pleased that the Edinburgh Agreement commits the Scottish Government to hold the referendum according to the highest international standards. And I pleased that the crucial role of the Electoral Commission is now recognised by all. The referendum must be regarded as fair and reasonable: not only by those on the different sides of this passionate debate, but also by each and every person living in Scotland whose choice will determine our nation’s future.

This referendum is too important to get wrong. Too important to see either side accused of using the rules to gain political advantage.

When all the votes are counted, this must be a referendum result that is decisive and that is accepted by all. A referendum result that allows Scotland to move on.

The eyes of the world will now be on the Scottish Government as they bring forward their proposals and the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for scrutinising, challenging and approving the final legislation. That is a serious job. But I am confident that it will be fulfilled. All of us here will look to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to act on behalf of all of us, irrespective of our views on Scotland’s future.

Some argue that the SNP’s dominance of the Parliament means they will simply railroad through a one-sided referendum process. But in the referenda established by the Westminster Parliament in recent years the governments concerned, of different political complexions, have always had majorities and could have abused their position to suit their preferred outcome. But they did not. And so UK referenda have been recognised internationally for their exemplary processes.

Central to that reputation has been the role of the Electoral Commission and the respect shown to its advice by successive UK governments. These governments, including ours, could have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice. But to do so would have called into question the fairness of these referenda. Time after time the wording of the question has been altered to respect the thoroughness and impartiality of the Electoral Commission.

They offered advice. No more than that.

But it would have been a foolhardy government that ignored that advice and used their majorities in Westminster to bulldoze through a biased referendum. The Scottish Government and Parliament are now placed in exactly the same roles as the UK Government and UK Parliament have been. The same expectations are placed on the Scottish Government and our Parliament here as on the UK Government and our Parliament at Westminster.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So, the Electoral Commission advises and the Scottish Parliament determines. But in delivering the question, the rules and the campaign financing agreements, we are entitled to expect that our Parliament sets aside party or campaign advantage and acts for all Scots, whatever their views. Following the Electoral Commission’s advice will give everyone confidence in the process and allow nobody to cry foul.

So 2013 starts by resolving the process that took centre-stage in 2012.

And we sorely need to move on from process alone. We need a loud, clear and robust debate about the impact that independence would have on Scots’ lives. Those who support independence must bring forward a detailed proposal of what they would hope to achieve through negotiations.

Over the last few days, we’ve had the First Minister speculating about the new written constitution of a separate Scotland. And the Deputy First Minister blogged on Tuesday that “All parts of the Scottish Government will be working on a transition plan considering what needs to be done to give effect to the decision of the Scottish people when they vote yes”.

Nicola wants talks about talks. Not talk of what an independent Scotland would be.

I really don’t think that this is where the debate should be. We cannot have the Scottish Government fast forwarding through all the difficult bits to their longed for ending where they clinch a referendum victory. People want to know what independence would mean for them, their families, and their communities. It is on that basis that they will decide how to vote.

Planning the summits and designing the constitutional apparatus is like framing and hanging a picture that is yet to be painted. No matter how gilded and fancy the frame, the missing image is the essential part. I know that it is also the most difficult part for the SNP.

But, to be blunt, that is their problem. They must treat all of us with respect and start painting the independence picture. 2013 must be the year of evidence, not assertion.

So today I want to set out what the UK Government is going to do to help inform this debate.

Last summer, I announced that the UK Government was embarking on a programme of analysis to consider how Scotland contributes to and benefits from being part of our United Kingdom. Our work will be comprehensive, open and robust. We are engaging with experts in order to flush out the issues and establish the facts. We want you to examine our work and we want you to scrutinise it.

Over the next few weeks and months we will publish a series of papers that look at Scotland’s position in the UK today and make clear the choices that would face all of us as Scots if the UK family were to break up. The first paper will be published in February. I believe that this work will show not only that every part of the UK makes a valuable contribution to the whole, but that, together, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Together our economy is stronger and more secure. Scotland’s five million citizens are part of the UK’s economy of 60 million people with no boundaries, borders or customs, but with a common financial system, rules and currency. Together we have shown that we can withstand global economic challenges, pool our resources in the good times and manage our risks together in the bad. By working together we have a stronger place in the world. We have a great and wide consular network with over 14,000 people in nearly 270 diplomatic offices, projecting our values around the globe and looking after Scots abroad. And as an integral part of the UK Scotland benefits from significant levels of influence in the EU, UN, G8 and other international institutions.

But it’s not just on the international level that you can see the integration and benefits that being part of our shared United Kingdom brings. We also have close social, cultural and family ties across the UK. More than 800,000 Scots live and work in other parts of the UK. Each year, around 50,000 people move to Scotland from the rest of the UK. One common passport, one national insurance system and one shared tax system that allows the free movement of people, goods and investment. Together providing a level of prosperity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

There is no-one in this debate who says Scotland couldn’t go it alone.

What we – and those who share our view – are saying is it is better for Scotland and the rest of the UK to stay together in our United Kingdom. Devolution ensures power is practised as close as possible to the people it affects whilst keeping the strength and security of the United Kingdom. Important decisions on health, education and justice are made here in Scotland, but Scotland enjoys the economic strength and security of being part of our United Kingdom, working in our interests, for us all.

We enjoy the best of both worlds.

Our papers over the course of 2013 will set out the evidence about how devolution works in 21st century Britain, the facts about the way in which it benefits us as citizens and the analysis of what would be lost by leaving the UK family. In this debate, I want all of you to be active participants. Many of you are already involved in the UK Government’s work. But for those of you who aren’t, I say: please get involved. We want you to read our papers; ask us questions in the same way that you will ask the Scottish Government questions about their proposals.

The next period of this discussion must not just involve politicians and business people. I want charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises to be at the heart of this great debate as well. You have a crucial role to play. But most of all, you must help each and every voter in Scotland to seek out the evidence and find the information that will allow them to reach an informed decision in the referendum.

Over the course of the next year, you, Scots, all citizens in our United Kingdom, have a right to expect both of Scotland’s governments to deliver in our national interest.

Over the course of the next year you have a right to expect your UK government to demonstrate its commitment to Scotland and prove its value and relevance to Scotland’s future.

And over the course of the next year you have a right to expect those who doubt that value and question that relevance to set out how things would be better if Scotland goes it alone.

In tough times, and in the heat of constitutional battle, these are big challenges.

I relish meeting them.

I hope others do too and I look forward to the debate.

December 9, 2015
Michael Moore – 2012 Speech at City UK Event

Below is the text of a speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, in Edinburgh on 29th November 2012.

We’re here today to discuss the contribution that the Scottish financial services sector makes not just to the Scottish economy but also to the wider UK economy;

To think about how we make sure that government – whether that be in Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels – is supporting this vital industry;

And to consider how the industry and government, working together, can best ensure that the sector continues to seize the opportunities and respond to the challenges we face.

I want, this morning, to set the scene with the steps that the UK government is taking in London and Brussels;

The steps we are taking to promote a stable and internationally competitive financial services sector through our regulatory reforms;

And our wider economic reforms.

You will not be surprised to learn that I will also argue that Scotland’s place in a strong and stable UK provides the industry with the certainty it needs in a competitive, global environment.

The financial services sector has of course experienced some tough times in recent years.

Governments, industry – we must all share responsibility for this. We must be candid about what went wrong, but more than that, we must work together to find the right way forward.

One thing that remains true, past, present and future, is that this sector is of vital importance to all of us.

Your sector provides direct employment for more than 95,000 people in Scotland.

A quarter of UK life insurance and pensions employment is based in Scotland, and 13% of UK banking sector employment.

Scotland plays host to renowned homegrown companies such as Standard Life, Aberdeen Asset Management, Baillie Gifford, Alliance Trust and Scottish Widows.

And its strengths have persuaded many others from outside Scotland to base themselves here – including companies such as State Street, Citibank, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Barclays and Virgin Money, to name but a few.

The sector provides the banking and investment services that households and businesses rely on in everyday life;

It provides life and general insurance service to protect us when things go wrong;

And it provides pensions and long-term savings to support us in the future.

These services are important to millions of people and thousands of businesses;

And that is reflected in the significant contribution the sector makes, with the industry accounting for around £8.5 billion, or 7% of Scottish GDP.

I understand the importance of this industry. And I want to make clear to you today that the UK government understands it too.

Of course, the UK government had to take rapid, and historically unprecedented, action to support the financial sector during the crisis. And of course we have all had to learn hard lessons as a result. But the UK government is now looking forward.

We are not shying away from fixing the problems, but we are also implementing policies that will enable the Scottish financial sector to support jobs, provide vital services and contribute to the Scottish economy over the long term.

We aim to strike the right regulatory balance to deliver an acceptable level of risk to government, shareholders and consumers.

We are determined to make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business;

A crucial part of this is to ensure that we have a robust and stable financial system.

Our programme of regulatory reform aims to ensure that Scotland has a reformed, fair and competitive financial services industry.

The new system of regulation that we are putting in place will give the Bank of England – and as announced by the Chancellor earlier this week, its new Governor, Mark Carney – responsibility for overseeing the financial system.

We are creating the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise all firms to ensure that business across financial services and markets is conducted in a way that advances the interests of all involved.

Within the EU and other international forums, we are working closely with our key partners to ensure that the legislative framework fully supports the unity and integrity of the single market, and creates the right environment for stable and sustainable growth in financial services and the wider economy.

This is a hugely important point – the industry should be in no doubt as to the benefits that accrue as a result of the UK’s influence and voice on the international stage.

Being part of the UK allows Scotland’s voice to be heard on such key issues as Solvency II, where we are urging EU institutions to act decisively and agree a credible process for resolving disagreement on the treatment of long-term products, and commit to a realistic timetable for Solvency II implementation.

We are strongly opposing the imposition of Solvency II-inspired capital requirements on the pensions industry. These would negatively affect millions of Europeans, by reducing growth, investment, competitiveness, jobs and pensions income.

We are a vocal opponent of attempts to ‘water down’ international agreements on issues like tough bank capital requirements, in order to avoid regulatory arbitrage and financial instability.

And we have pushed back hard against unworkable proposals for a Financial Transaction Tax.

Of course, we are not only acting in the area of regulation.

Elsewhere, we are taking decisive action to ensure that the Scottish financial and professional services sector can flourish. That action includes:

Working with the banking industry to improve competition.

We are removing barriers to entry and growth for mutuals and credit unions, to help foster diversity in financial services;

And we are working to introduce a more competitive tax regime for funds, including special taxation rules to facilitate tax transparent funds, allowing UK-based asset management companies to thrive.

In the area of professional services, some of you may have attended an event last week at which the Advocate General set out the work the UK government is doing in support of the Scottish legal services sector.

The UK government is ensuring that the Scottish legal sector has promotional opportunities through the unique UK government network around the world. We recognise that the sector is of huge importance, underpinning strong economic growth in all sectors, including financial services.

Of even greater importance to the financial and professional services sector, we are working to help return the wider Scottish economy to growth – we understand that, just as the financial services sector is vital to the health of the wider economy, so the health of the wider economy is fundamental to the prospects of the sector.

So we are reforming the tax system to help promote growth.

We will introduce a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax to 22% in 2014, the lowest in the G7.

We are taking action to support bank lending to businesses, including through initiatives such as the Funding for Lending Scheme.

We have introduced the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme to encourage investment in new start-ups and in businesses with the highest growth potential.

The UK Guarantees Scheme will help dramatically to accelerate investment in infrastructure.

And we are reducing regulation and making procurement processes simpler to help small businesses gain access to government contracts.

Let me now turn to the final issue I will speak about today – Scotland’s place in the UK, and the benefits our United Kingdom brings to the financial and professional services sector.

I mentioned at the outset the historic strength and enduring place of the financial services sector here in Scotland.

But I know from meeting and talking with many of you that those working in this industry would be the first to acknowledge the benefits that we derive from close ties with the rest of the UK and the City of London in particular.

Under the current arrangements, the Scottish financial services sector benefits hugely from the strong and credible Bank of England as its central bank, lender of last resort, and – as demonstrated with HM Treasury in recent times of crisis – the rapid and coordinated action between strong, credible fiscal and monetary authorities.

Coordinating the Bank’s monetary activism with the greater fiscal firepower that the UK, as a larger and diversified economy, is able to leverage, has been absolutely crucial to our financial system.

The UK government spent £45 billion recapitalising RBS. In addition, the bank received £275 billion of state support in the form of guarantees and funding. In total, this would have been more than 200% of Scotland’s GDP on any measure – including the Scottish government’s preferred one that includes a geographical share of North Sea oil.

The UK government was able to deliver a coordinated response that mitigated the significant harm that could have been caused to the UK economy and our families and businesses if the 2 banks had collapsed.

It’s unclear to me how an independent Scotland, which the First Minister wanted to be more light-touch in its regulation of the sector, could have achieved that.

Let’s also look at the benefits of a highly integrated UK financial services marketplace. Taking 2 examples; the mortgage and life insurance sectors, in the last financial year:

Fewer than a fifth of mortgages provided by Scottish firms were for Scottish properties, with the remainder – four fifths – for properties in the rest of the UK.

Eight out of 10 life insurance products sold to Scottish postcodes were from rest of the UK firms; and

Only 1 in 10 life insurance products sold by Scottish firms were to Scottish postcodes – 9 out of every 10 sold went to the rest of the UK.

One of the main factors underpinning this integration is that we have a single regulatory environment covering the whole of the UK.

Why would anyone wish to put a barrier in the middle of these transactions? Doing so could surely only harm competition and choice, and drive up costs for Scottish consumers.

The plans and consequences of leaving the UK are based on shifting sands and enormous doubt.

Gone are the days where we heard about the differences that independence will bring – now apparently everything will definitely remain the same.

It’s not just the pound sterling that the Scottish government claim they now want to adopt, but also the UK’s financial regulatory framework.

The Scottish government like to tell us that banks and financial services in an independent Scotland would remain under the UK regulatory regime because “that framework is solid and substantial” – John’s own words.

But as you in this audience know, under European rules every member state must have its own regulatory system.

The Scottish government tell us that they will be part of Europe, but they have yet to explain how their proposal to adopt the financial framework of another state would work. (Never mind how they will become part of the EU!)

Now there are those who say that Scots need not worry about these problems because the Referendum Agreement states that Scotland’s 2 governments will work together.

That Paragraph 30 is a magic paragraph that will erase all the difficult questions.

Well, let’s be crystal clear this morning about what this agreement does – and does not – mean.

And let’s begin by hearing the Paragraph 30 text itself.

“The United Kingdom and Scottish governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect.

The 2 governments have reached this agreement in that spirit.

They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.

The 2 governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”

This means that the 2 governments will conduct the referendum on the same constructive terms as they work today.

It means that if the referendum follows the path set out in the Order and Agreement, its outcome will be decisive.

And it means that, regardless of what the result is, that constructive relationship should continue as we move forward.

That is good practice and common sense.

But what it does not mean is that, in the event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would facilitate Scotland’s every wish – any more than an independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate the wishes of the remaining UK.

Inevitably, when there are 2 separate countries, there are 2 sets of interests – sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds.

So it is in the UK’s relationships with its closest allies today.

And so it will always be between separate, sovereign states.

Nor does it mean that the difficult questions that would face a newly independent Scotland would all be within the UK’s gift to resolve.

Membership of the EU, participation in NATO, international regulation of our financial services.

These deeply complex issues would require resolution on the international stage, and Scotland alone would take responsibility for tackling them.

This too is common sense.

So the Edinburgh Agreement – particularly its Paragraph 30 – are a statement of our determination to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive.

They do not – cannot – pre-empt the implications of that vote.

I know that this is what the words mean.

Because I negotiated them.

This all matters because the key to a strong financial services sector is confidence and stability.

And not just to this sector but to the whole economy.

So we need more than optimistic assertions of what might be, without evidence, analysis, or support.

That approach will not help the Scottish financial services in a global industry where confidence and stability are hugely important.

That is why the UK government is setting out what we are doing now to support the financial services in Scotland; and we will continue to do so over the next few months.

It’s also why the Scottish government must set out what the details of its independence proposal would be for this sector

And why each and everyone of you should examine statements from both governments and test them, in just the same way that you would examine and test your own business models.

Where we do not have all the answers – we must be honest and say that. Where the Scottish government cannot give the financial services industry or the Scottish people a guarantee – for example where matters need to be negotiated, and agreed with others – the Scottish government must be clear of the limits of what they can promise.

It is only by doing so, by us all being candid, that we ensure the facts are heard, and that everyone is able to make an informed choice in the referendum.

To get the right outcome for the financial services sector.

And the right outcome for Scotland.

December 9, 2015
John Monks – 2001 Speech to the AEEU

Below is the text of the speech made by John Monks to the AEEU on 12th June 2001.

Last Thursday, the British people spoke – and spoke up strongly – for the values which run through the heart and soul of the best of British trade unionism. They voted for better public services especially a better health service, a better education service and a better transport service.

They voted against narrow nationalism – of Welsh, Scottish and the English Conservative varieties. They voted for a decent, friendly relationship with the European Union.

They confirmed the Fairness at Work agenda – the minimum wage, trade union recognition, family friendly policies, workers learning, trade union education and partnership at work.

The result is plain. Trade unionism can now advance with a spring in its step, confident that much of our agenda can be implemented with the incoming Labour Government.

I stress the word with. Its not just a matter of what we want. Its not an annual pay claim. Instead its a matter of what we can do, how we can help, where we can make a difference.

Because we all know that the key test that the electorate will impose on Labour in four years time is has it delivered? Has the health service improved? Is education better? And can we move ourselves and our goods more efficiently, more quickly, more reliably round this country?

So the next four years will be a challenge to us. We need to rise to the occasion, to prove our worth to the nation and to demonstrate our crucial importance in achieving the results that the British people are demanding.

This must be a two way relationship. I want to pay tribute right away to Estelle Morris and David Blunkett who have made clear their wish to work in partnership with their unions. I know Alan Milburn has also made clear that will be his approach – and I am sure Stephen Byers and John Spellar in local government and at transport will take the same line.

It is important that they do. At the moment, too many public servants are demoralised. They feel that the 18 years of Tory insult and attack have not been adequately addressed.

They worry about the decline of regard for public service and the power of the belief that only the private sector can deliver.

In too many areas, there are desperate shortages of the right kind of people to carry out the jobs so essential to society. Relative pay levels have slumped. A friend of my sons said to me the other day – only mugs go into teaching nowadays.

The concerns of public servants have been heightened in the election campaign. There were some in Millbank who were said to relish an early confrontation with a major public sector trade union. I could not believe it.

I say to them – look at the lessons of history. Look at 1978/79 when there was such a confrontation and it was an electoral disaster for Labour and for trade unionism. We still walk with those ghosts of 20 years ago. We still live with the memory of being out of office for a generation and with the collapse in public regard for trade unionism, I say never again.

Remember too the early Thatcher years. Year after year, she took on groups in the public service and this union was involved several times. We still bear the scars. For example, primary and secondary education still has not recovered in key areas from the teachers dispute of 1983 – look at the continuing decline of out of school activities like school sports and the problems of attracting enough bright teachers.

So my message on this is clear – no-one will deliver better public services by seeking bruising confrontation. Although the private sector will have an important place in many areas of public service, privatisation must not be the key way forward.

The watchwords the Prime Minister adopted in redefining Clause 4 – ‘it is what works that matters’ are dead right. Lets not be ideological about privatisation.

What will work will be the partnership approach that many of you aim to pursue with your employers but which is all too rare in the public services. What will work will be a restoration of the public service ethos – that strong sense of serving the community.

Most of my family have been public servants – mother a teacher, father a district parks superintendent, brother another teacher. The approach was dedicated, honest and hardworking. I grew up with that ethos and I want to see it recover, thrive and be appreciated.

What wont work is wholesale privatisation or a new set of rail style complex contractual arrangements or those best value systems which allow work to go private at rates of pay and other conditions under the agreed standards in the public sector. Labour have made commitments to end the two tier work forces. We want them honoured swiftly.

Of course what also wont work is obstructionist trade unionism intent on protecting the status quo when the need is for a great step forward together.

So today I endorse the approach of those ministers who have called for partnership. I call on them to turn those into hard plans and deals. If public servants are regarded as second class, the services will remain second class.

Of course, while there must be a huge improvement in public services, the next four or five years must address other issues crucial to the importance of our nation.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech on Condition of Britain Report

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, at the launch of the IPPR Condition of Britain Report. The speech was made on 19th June 2014.

Along with Rachel Reeves and the Head of Labour’s Policy Review, Jon Cruddas, I am delighted to be here with you launching the IPPR’s Condition of Britain report.

For years, IPPR has done brilliant work to help us respond to the challenges Britain faces.

And they have done it again with this important report.

So I want to thank the report’s authors Kayte Lawton, Graeme Cooke and Nick Pearce for the work they have done.

And all those – voluntary group leaders, campaigners and community organisers – many of whom are here today who helped IPPR with their work.

The issue that motivates this report is the same one that brought me into politics.

A belief that the deep inequalities of income, wealth and power in our country are damaging, wrong and can be tackled.

In each generation, we must seek to tackle these inequalities.

And today this belief means there is one question, over-riding all others, that matters to the future of this country.

It is a question that goes beyond one party, one government or one election.

It is a question that countries all around the world are grappling with:

How can we make the country work not just for a few at the top but for the security and success of ordinary families?

When I went round the country in the recent elections, so many people told me the country didn’t work for them.

They were talking about the basic fundamentals of work, family and community.

Things many people at the top of our society just take for granted.

The basic bargain that if you work hard there would be a degree of security, an ability to make ends meet, has been broken.

Low paid, low skill, insecure work that doesn’t give people any sense of fulfilment: that is the reality for millions of people.

That is not good enough for me.

And it is not good enough for Britain.

For the first time in generations, parents from all types of background, fear that their children will do worse than them.

That is not good enough for me.

And it is not good enough for Britain.

And all round this country people who are doing the right thing don’t seem to be rewarded anymore.

That is not good enough for me.

And it is not good enough for Britain.

For my Party, in everything we do, in every reform we make, in every decision we take, in opposition and in government, our job is to tackle this challenge.

And no vested interest, no orthodoxy, should stop us changing the country for this cause.

The importance of this report is that it shows there is a distinctive and compelling answer to addressing this issue, in particular when it comes to our welfare state.

This report shows we can change things at a time of scarcity.

Because we know the next Labour government won’t have money to spend.

It starts with work.

And a welfare system that helps all our young people to succeed.

For decades we have known about the problem of young people with no or poor qualifications entering adulthood, facing little chance of being able to get on.

But it hasn’t been addressed.

Indeed the perversity of the system means that the one thing we most discourage those young people from doing is getting the skills they need for a decent career.

Because we tell them that they should sign on for benefits not sign up for proper training.

And we say, at the same time, to those who go to university that they are entitled to financial support to improve their skills and qualifications.

There can be no better example of a divided country which seems to value the 50 per cent of young people who go to university and fails to value the untapped talents of the 50 per cent of young people who don’t.

It is about people like Danny who I talked to yesterday.

I asked him whether the Job Centre had been good enough at getting him in to training.

He said it had been completely useless.

And that’s because of the rules and the system.

How can he have faith in the system when that happens?

It is no wonder that people feel that politics doesn’t serve them.

It is not good enough for me.

And it is not good enough for Britain.

We can’t succeed as a country with unskilled young people going from benefits to low paid work and back again without proper skills.

Because it doesn’t give business the productive workforce they need.

And it costs the taxpayer billions of pounds in extra welfare spending and lower productivity.

So we’re going to change it.

What the proposals in this report show is that we can address these issues and reform welfare in a way that is progressive not punitive.

And a Labour government will get young people to sign up for training, not sign on for benefits.

So for 18 to 21 year olds, we will replace Job Seekers’ Allowance with a new youth allowance.

An allowance dependent on young people being in training

And targeted at those who need it most.

These are the right principles:

Britain’s young people who don’t have the skills they need for work should be in training not on benefits.

We should abolish the limit on training that has for decades held young people back.

And to pay for these changes in tough times, we should say young people will be entitled to financial support only if they really need it.

Assessed on the basis of parental income, as we do for those young people who go to university.

This is the right thing to do and it doesn’t cost money, it saves money.

So with this proposal and others, this report says to those worried about work in Britain that there are answers.

And we can restore the link between hard work and reward.

And to properly reward hard work and effort, we need contribution to be at the heart of our welfare system too.

We talk about the problem of people getting something for nothing.

And we are right to do so.

But there is a problem that politicians rarely talk about of people getting nothing for something.

How many times have I heard people say: “for years and years, I paid in and then when the time came and I needed help I got nothing out”?

Rewarding contribution was a key principle of the Beveridge Report.

And it is a key intuition of the British people.

But it is a principle that has been forgotten by governments of both parties.

Aside from pensions, less than one tenth of social security spending now goes on entitlements that are based on contribution.

We should not allow the contributory principle to recede still further.

Instead, we should strengthen it.

That’s why as one example, the next Labour government will change the way Job Seekers’ Allowance works.

To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years.

And we will pay for it not by spending more money in social security.

But by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify.

And this report faces up to the tough reality that my party understands.

We won’t be able to ensure the security and success of ordinary families in the years ahead with higher benefit spending.

Instead, we must do so by tackling the problems at source.

That’s why we have set out proposals to tackle low pay, increasing the minimum wage.

Saving money on benefits.

Supporting childcare to help mums and dads get back to work.

Reducing the costs of worklessness.

And this report shows also how we can start to tackle a historic problem in Britain, a problem which has developed over decades: a housing benefit bill going up and up and investment in housing itself falling further and further.

Higher housing benefit spending is not a sign of progressive success.

It is a sign of failure.

And again in this report shows the right vision for how we can start to turn this round.

Moving from benefits to bricks by empowering local authorities to use the money they save on housing benefit and reinvest it to help build homes.

And this report is right also that if we are to tackle the generational challenge our country faces of inequality, we cannot do so simply by pulling levers at the centre.

We can’t make the country work for people again by relying on Whitehall and Westminster.

We can only do it by devolving power.

Whether it is getting work for our young people.

Creating the jobs of the future.

Supporting business.

And in public services:

Giving more powers to parents in shaping the future of their schools.

And patients in shaping the future of their hospitals.

People-powered public services.

That is why devolving power is a key part of this report and other reports that are being published in the coming months.

Anyone looking to bring change to Britain today is confronted with a huge problem.

People’s desire for change is enormous, just as it was at the time of the Beveridge Report in the 1940s.

But their belief that this change is possible has been profoundly shaken.

There is a deep sense of pessimism about whether Westminster politics, or anyone within a million miles of it, has any of the answers.

People see a country that doesn’t work for them and hasn’t done so for a long time.

And they believe nobody really gets it.

And it is not just that people think the problems are huge, it is that they don’t believe they can be solved because of the financial challenges the country faces.

I know we must meet the cause of our time, the cause I came into politics for, while confronting a fiscal situation the like of which we have not seen for generations.

The result of a financial crash the like of which none of us have ever seen.

What this report shows is that we do have answers.

Distinctive answers that are right for this time.

Above all the situation means we can’t just hope to make do and mend.

We can’t just borrow and spend money to paper over the cracks.

The old way of doing things won’t work anymore.

Instead, we need big, far-reaching reform.

Which means big changes, not big spending.

Reform that can reshape our economy, so that hard work is rewarded again.

Rebuild our society, so that the next generation does better than the last.

And change our country so that the British people feel it is run according to their values.

That kind of reform is going to be tough.

No one said it would be easy.

I know that.

And you know that.

But it is a cause worth fighting for.

It is the way we change Britain.

That is our mission.

That’s what the Condition of Britain teaches us.

And I congratulate IPPR on your report.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech to Labour Friends of Israel

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Labour Friends of Israel on 17th June 2014.

Friends, it is once again a privileged to have the opportunity to address the annual LFI lunch.

I would like to thank everyone from LFI for organising today’s lunch, and I am sure you would like to join me in thanking Sir David Garrard and Isaac Kaye for helping make it happen.

I am delighted that Ambassador Daniel Taub is with us today and I would also like to take this opportunity as we approach the first anniversary of his induction to say how much I have admired the humanity and generosity of spirit shown in his tenure by Chief Rabbi Mirvis.

I am proud to be a supporter of LFI.

You play a vital role in promoting Israel and passionately campaigning for a two state solution for two peoples.

We are committed to working with LFI to further deepen the relationship between my party and the Israeli Labour Party led by Isaac Herzog, who I was delighted to welcome to my home during his recent visit.

I would also like to play tribute to Anne McGuire who has done an excellent job in chairing LFI over the last year.

I also want to welcome Adrian Cohen to his new position as chair of LFI and I am sure we all want to show our appreciation for the tireless efforts of Jennifer Gerber who joined us on our recent trip to Israel.

Let me say before I get into the main part of my remarks, I am sure all of our thoughts today are with the 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach and their families. We all profoundly hope for their speedy and safe return. And it is a measure of this community’s concern that on Sunday afternoon the Chief Rabbi led a service attended by over a thousand people to pray for their safe release.

Today I want to talk to you about my reflections following my recent trip to Israel.

And what it meant to me as a Jew, as a son, a grandson and a father.

And what it means for Labour in government and our approach to Israel.

We travelled out on the El Al flight LY316 three days before Passover.

Justine and I had not entirely anticipated something, which I am sure will be more familiar to so many in this room, and Chief Rabbi I am sure in particular to many of your congregants – that every other passenger on the plane seemed to know each other.

And it wasn’t long before complete strangers were coming up to Justine and me to ask the same question – “So where will you both be for Seder?”

On our trip we would witness the candour of Israelis and the willingness to speak their minds.

I particularly enjoyed the moment at a briefing given by a group of Knesset Parliamentarians, one of whom, in a state of complete exasperation, turned to me and referring to his colleague said, “Mr Miliband, please don’t listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about”.

It makes the Parliamentary Labour Party appear positively benign.

As we touched down on that pre-Passover plane, it immediately took me back to being a young boy and travelling to Israel for the first time.

For the next two days, I would have the most vivid reminders of the deep roots that I have in Israel: like visiting my cousins at the Nachshonim Kibbutz, where I had picked oranges as a child, and having dinner with my extended family in Tel Aviv, arguing and debating, with love and affection.

And there were three particular things which made this visit not only an official trip but a deeply personal journey:

First, being approach by the assistant to the President of the Hebrew University, who said to me: “My grandmother was in hiding in the same Belgian village as your grandmother”.

I can truly say to you, that experience would be unlikely to happen to me in any other country in the world.

That is just one of the reasons why Israel has special meaning for me and a special place in my heart.

Second, my visit to Yad Vashem.

A moment of reflection, mourning and discovery.

Reflection on the loss of so many millions of Jews.

Mourning for so many members of my family that were lost.

And discovery. As I left Yad Vashem I was handed a collection of documents about my family including new information, 70 years later, about what happened to my grandfather and where he perished.

It was an extraordinary feeling, so many years after he died, to make new discoveries about his death.

The new Yad Vashem tells an overwhelming story of the greatest single stain on the conscience of humanity – the Holocaust.

But it also tells, in a way that I was not expecting, a story of life; the richness and the colour of life for European

Jews before 1939. And of course, it also tells how Israel became a miraculous affirmation of life in the face of death.

Finally, I would also say that it was a joy for me to have Justine with me on my trip to Israel. And for her to have a chance to meet my family.

She was moved and delighted to be there.

And I look forward to travelling to Israel with my children, Daniel and Sam, when they are older.

So these are some personal reflections about my trip.

But I did not simply go as a Jew returning to his family’s roots, but also as someone who wants to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

So I also want to reflect on the lessons I learn as the person wanting to do that job.

And my theme, the promise I want to make to you today, is about the priority the next Labour government will attach to its relationship with Israel.

Because of its importance to the Jews of Britain, because of the democracy it represents, because of its economic lessons, and because of the importance of a Middle East peace process for the stability of the world.

I specifically chose this as one of my first official overseas visits because of all these reasons and more.

The priority that I attach to our relationship with Israel, is not just a promise for Opposition, but a commitment for government.

And today I want to tell you where that sense of priority leads me on the major issues that matter.

Israel: economic power with social challenges

As LFI has repeatedly argued, the world needs to get to know Israel better for its economic achievements, as well as its security and diplomatic challenges.

And what struck me is that while Israel is an amazing economic powerhouse, it also faces the common challenges of inequality that so many countries around the world are wrestling with.

The Israel I experienced on my trip was one that is seizing the future: like the young people at Hebrew University and the thrilling innovation and entrepreneurship of new and high tech businesses.

Israel is a major world innovator and I was inspired by the work of the high tech hub, organised by the British Embassy.

We learnt some of the interesting lessons about Israel’s success: the rate of graduate entry, immigration bringing new skills, the availability of venture capital and the collaboration between private and public enterprise.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of our brilliant Ambassador Matthew Gould.

And I can tell you that a major priority for a Labour Government would be to further collaborate, building stronger working relationships between British and Israeli companies.

And yet for all the innovation, and economic success, it is impossible to ignore the security challenges that Israel faces.

Indeed, they are an economic issue, holding back investment and preventing Israel from achieving even greater things economically and socially.

And they are not simply issues for Israel, because we all have an interest in a stable and secure Middle East.

Visiting Israel brings home the security challenges that it faces very starkly.

We visited Sderot and I saw the rockets that had been fired from Gaza and landed in that town.

I heard from the Mayor about the reinforcements against rockets they had to build for their local schools.

And Justine and I met children, no older than my own, who don’t get the luxury of playing outside as ours do, but are assigned to an inside bunker playground.

And we met the parents of Daniel Viflic, who had been killed in a rocket attack just before Passover in 2011.

He had simply been visiting his grandmother.

The Viflics are the bravest people, but nothing can change the grief and loss they face.

And after 10 years of continuing rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza, of course there remains deep concern amongst Israeli citizens about their security.

So attaching the right priority to our relationship with Israel means fully understanding its security concerns and the threat to its people.

Therefore, we must ensure Israel’s security and right to protect itself.

With the unfolding situation in Iraq, we are also reminded of the security situation that Israel faces beyond its borders.

Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability.

ISIS is a violent and brutal military group posing a threat to the entire region. As we have seen in a horrifying way in the last few days.

Their advances in Iraq and their growing base in northern Syria should be seen by all as extremely grave developments.

As Douglas Alexander said yesterday the priority now must be to promote the political integrity of Iraq, to help the Iraqi government through support and advice and do everything we can to provide humanitarian assistance.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation and the priority it demands from the world.

Given all of our interests in stability in the region it is right also to be seeking dialogue with other countries in the wider area.

Which brings us to Iran.

I want to be clear about Labour’s position: we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime.

It has supplied thousands of missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah which have been used against Israel.

If Iran continues its illegal nuclear programme and develops a weapon, it poses a grave threat to Israel and to the stability of the region.

That is why the world has such a strong interest in preventing this happening.

The interim agreement brokered by Cathy Ashton is a step forward. We should take nothing for granted about Iran’s behaviour but that route represents by far the best hope for avoiding what we all fear: Iran with nuclear weapons.

But while it is absolutely right to remain deeply sceptical about the nature of the regime, we support the Government’s decision today to reopen the Embassy as a means of engagement.

All of us are conscious, especially at this moment of the instability of this region. Not just in Iraq but also the unfolding tragedy in Syria and the consequences that is having for neighbouring states.

For us that reinforces the importance of a successful peace process.

Our trip to Israel turned out to be just prior to the collapse of the talks.

We can all see the considerable challenges to the peace process. And there is a growing sense as to what those challenges are.

Settlement building in the occupied territories is a significant threat to a negotiated agreement.

The daily reality of all this was brought home on our visit.

We had the chance to visit a Bedouin camp in the Occupied Territories.

People there lived difficult, impoverished lives, and are faced with the potential threat of eviction.

As we heard during our trip, the real fear is that settlement activity makes the viability of a two state solution more challenging.

And those significant challenges to the peace process include the role of Hamas, not just its failure to renounce violence against Israel but to accept its very right to exist.

These deep concerns about time running out represents reasons for pessimism.

They lead some to say that support for a two-state solution should be abandoned.

I don’t agree.

After all what is the alternative?

So we should step up, not abandon, our support for a two state solution.

We should do so deeply conscious of the pressure of time.

But having set out the reasons for pessimism, there are reasons for optimism too.

Most conflicts are unresolved because we do not know what an agreement looks like.

What came home to me on this trip was reasonable people on both sides have a sense of what a resolution looks like.

Two states for two peoples, based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, and with each state enjoying self-determination, security and mutual recognition.

We know that compromises in key areas must be made on both sides.

We must also do nothing that will get in the way of peace.

So we are clear that the threat of boycotts of Israel is the wrong response. We do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel. And my party does so.

No one in my party either should question Israel’s right to exist.

And what is our role in all this? As friends of Israel.

We must, as LFI is, be persuaders for peace and the two state solution.

We can’t deliver peace unless both sides in the conflict want it.

The international community can set high expectations of both sides.

That is what Secretary Kerry has sought to do in an outstanding and brilliant way, winning the trust of both sides.

That will be how a future Labour government approaches the peace process, passionate and engaged in a successful outcome.

I am reminded of the words of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin used twenty years ago next month at a joint session of both houses of Congress:

“We all love the same children, weep the same tears, hate the same enmity and pray for reconciliation. Peace has no borders…here is where we were born. Here is where we created a nation. Here we forged a haven for the persecuted and built a model of a democratic country. But we are not alone here on this soil, in this land we have neighbours, the Palestinian people – we who have seen you in your difficulties, we saw you for generations; we who have killed and been killed are walking beside you now toward a common future and we want to be good neighbours.”

So let me make this pledge today: in that spirit, we stand with Israelis and Palestinians in their pursuit of peace.

It was meeting extraordinary Israelis and Palestinians that made my recent trip an extraordinary journey.

And a complete privilege for me.

The Jewish community in Britain is also extraordinary: civic minded people of the charity world, dynamic business people, committed public servants, people from every walk of Jewish life with deep love and affection for Britain.

Over these four years, I have learnt a lot from you.

And I hope you have found me willing to listen and learn.

I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech to GMB Congress

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the GMB Congress held in Nottingham on 12th June 2014.

I want to pay tribute to the fantastic work that the members of the GMB have done over this year.

The GMB takes a stand for the values of our movement, even when that is hard.

And we have seen that in the work you have done.

Leading the campaign against blacklisting in our construction industry.

Standing against tax avoidance by some of the world’s biggest and most powerful firms.

Doing all you can to make work pay, with your campaign for a Living Wage.

And I also want to thank you for playing your part in the fight to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

And let us also stand for this debate being conducted in a decent way.

We have seen over the last 24 hours the most unpleasant and unseemly attacks on JK Rowling for her speaking out.

All leaders should say that this has no place in the debate about independence.

Friends, I want to talk today about the country we can begin to build in less than 11 months’ time if we win the next general election.

And I want to talk about Labour’s cause between now and that election.

And, more important than that, the crucial cause for our country.

You know how your members are feeling.

They have been at the sharp end of the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.

More and more people who are working all the hours God sends and are still being left behind.

One in five people are now working for poverty in the 4th richest country in the world.

Millions more struggling to make ends meet.

And a deep sense of unfairness about how Britain is run.

Friends, it’s not good enough for Britain.

And the Labour Party I lead will not let it stand.

And these aren’t just problems for today.

They are problems for our country’s future as well.

For the first time we can remember, parents in Britain are worrying that their children will have a harder life than they did.

Young people are unable to get the best start in life.

The apprenticeships and secure jobs people used to rely on, just don’t seem to be there anymore.

There aren’t flats or houses that young people can afford to rent or buy.

What I call the promise of Britain, that the next generation does better than the last, has been broken.

What does all this tell you?

This country doesn’t work for most working people.

The vital link between working people’s family finances and the wealth of the nation as a whole has been broken.

And it is the task of the next Labour government to restore it.

The bond between hard work and fair reward has snapped.

And it is the task of the next Labour government to mend it.

Inequality has been on the rise.

And it is the task of the next Labour government to turn the tide.

These are our tasks.

And that is why we need big changes.

Big changes in how our country is run.

And who it is run for.

And that is what One Nation Labour is all about.

And there’s one thing we can be certain of.

We’re never going to see the kind of action Britain needs from David Cameron and George Osborne.

Friends, the Tories can never be the solution to the cost-of-living crisis.

Because they are part of the problem.

It is because of how they think an economy succeeds.

They really do believe in the old ideas.

If a few at the top do OK, it will be all right for everyone else.

That’s why they give the millionaires their tax cut.

While to everyone else they say:

Keep your wages down.

Put up with insecurity.

Trade in your rights at work.

Accept the zero-hours contracts.

A race to the bottom.

Friends, what you know, what I know is that Britain doesn’t need a race to the bottom.

It needs solidarity, fairness and a country that works for all.

And don’t let anyone tell you UKIP are the answer either.

They say they want to be the champion of working people.

But what do they stand for?

Charges to see your GP.

Attacking the minimum wage.

Bring back the 11 plus.

Tax cuts for those at the top.

Keeping the flame of Thatcherism alive.

These aren’t the values of working people.

And they offer no solution for Britain.

So it will fall to Labour, as it has fallen to us before, to make the changes we need.

To have the determination to rebuild the economy.

I’m not going to pretend it will be easy.

Because it won’t.

We will face tough an economic situation.

That’s why we’ve said we won’t borrow more for day-to-day spending in 2015-16.

And we will balance the books in the next Parliament with a surplus in current spending and the debt falling.

But don’t let anyone tell you that it means we can’t make a difference.

We can.

And we will.

On every aspect of inequality, of the cost-of-living crisis, of the break between hard work and reward – we will act.

And I want you to know, your members to know, your friends and neighbours to know, the difference a Labour government will make.

We will take action on wages, on jobs and on prices.

It starts with wages.

The next Labour Government will write the next chapter in the battle against low pay.

For the first time since records began, most of the people in poverty in Britain today are in work, not out of work.

There’s a low pay epidemic in this country.

It has not happened overnight.

It has been coming for generations.

And it shames us all.

A Labour government would start to turn it round.

Let’s today congratulate the 26 Labour councils who are already leading the way in moving to a living wage.

A living wage is good for employees as it means they can better afford to bring up their family.

It makes sense for government, saving money on subsidizing the cost of low pay.

And leading businesses are showing it makes sense for them too,

improving productivity and reducing turnover of staff.

That’s why in government we want to help more employers become living wage employers.

Why for the first time we will give tax incentives to employers who do the right thing.

Because we know the living wage is an idea whose time has come.

And working together we’ll strengthen the minimum wage too.

We all need to take action – government, trade unions and businesses together – to stop those who abuse the minimum wage.

Exploiting workers who come here from abroad and driving down wages for everyone else.

I’m the son of immigrants and I believe that immigration has benefited our country.

But it is part of a progressive, Labour agenda, a trade union agenda, to say it is right to tackle exploitation whoever it affects, including when it undercuts wages.

You know your members are concerned about immigration.

Because you hear it in the workplace.

Let us tell them Labour doesn’t stand for cutting Britain off from the rest of the world.

But Labour stands for fair rules.

Enforcing the minimum wage, stopping employers putting 15 people in a house to sidestep the minimum wage, regulating the gangmasters operating in industry.

And it means something else as well.

It took too long for the last Labour government to introduce rules on agency workers.

The next Labour government will act on the loopholes in those rules that mean agency work can be used to undermine the pay of permanent employees.

And we will set our sights higher as a country too.

With a clear ambition for the minimum wage at the start of each Parliament.

Because we know the single most important truth:

A country can only succeed if those who work hard and do the right thing get a fair day’s pay.

That’s why I guarantee today: the next Labour government will increase the minimum wage.

And we won’t just increase it, we will narrow the gap between the minimum wage and average earnings.

So we can make hard work pay again in our country.

These are the values of the British people, that if you work hard you should get a decent reward and be able to bring up your family.

And these will be the values of the next Labour government too.

Securing good wages for the working people of Britain is also about creating the jobs of the future.

The principle of the next Labour government is that we must not just secure full employment but decent jobs with decent wages.

That means successful businesses, making profits, creating wealth in a dynamic economy.

After the next election the route to social justice lies through the creation of these well paid, private sector jobs.

Jobs that help people build a career, a future for themselves and their families.

Secure. High skill.

Like those you have been campaigning for in the construction industry.

Getting Britain building again.

I believe in a simple idea: there should be a future for all of our young people including the 50 per cent who don’t go to university.

Decent qualifications.

Apprenticeships.

And careers for all our young people.

We can’t build the good quality jobs of the future, when zero-hours contracts are spreading like wildfire through our workplaces.

There’s no place for exploitative zero-hours contracts in Britain today.

So the next Labour government will have a simple rule:

If week after week, you do regular hours, you deserve a regular contract not a zero-hours contract.

And creating the jobs of the future, means backing Britain’s small businesses too.

The businesses that invent and create and sell, that make the opportunities, but so often can’t get a break themselves.

That’s why we will cut and freeze business rates for Britain’s small firms.

And why we will take on the big banks that still refuse to lend.

Breaking up the banks on the high street.

Establishing a British Investment Bank.

And creating regional banks in every part of the country.

So that there are successful companies creating good quality jobs in every single part of Britain.

Not just in the City of London.

Because I believe in the same principle that you do.

We don’t want businesses serving our banks, we want banks that serve our businesses.

Tackling inequality and the cost-of-living crisis, also means dealing with the costs families face.

The next Labour government will have a simple principle: we will take action on the broken markets that have held our country back for so long now.

Driving prices too high, ripping people off.

It starts with the energy companies.

We’ve seen the problem this very week.

The wholesale price goes up, your bills go up.

The wholesale price comes down, your bills still go up.

Not under a Labour government.

We will freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017 to stop them rising.

And we will give new powers to the regulator to cut prices too.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Isn’t it time we had a government that faced up to one of the biggest causes of the cost-of-living crisis in our country?

The price of renting or buying a home

There are nine million people renting their homes.

Think of the million families in this position, with kids starting the school year this September.

Who don’t know whether they will be in their house in 12 months time.

That insecurity is bad for them and bad for our country.

That’s why we will give those who rent, three-year secure tenancies, with rent rises that are stable and predictable.

The government might think that reminds them of Venezuela.

But I think it is the minimum sense of decency and fairness that the nine million people of Britain who rent their homes have the right to expect.

And we will get homes built again in this country.

We all know why house prices are out of reach for so many families.

Because there are fewer house completions in Britain today that at any time since the 1920s.

That’s why the next Labour government will make sure that 200,000 homes a year are built by the end of the next Parliament.

We’ll give local authorities the right grow.

And at the same time, we’ll tackle the problem of developers buying up land, getting planning permission, and then just sitting on it waiting for it to rise in value.

Half a million homes part of the landbanks in our country.

We won’t let it continue.

And to those developers, we’ll have a simple message:

You either use the land, or lose the land.

And we know we can only make this country strong for all and not just a few if we have strong public services.

People have lost faith in lots of institutions in Britain.

Politics.

The press.

The banks.

But amidst all that, there is a public service, an institution, that people still have great faith in.

And that’s our National Health Service.

We created it.

We invested in it.

And brought it back to health after 1997.

And it will be our job to save it once again.

The NHS is going backwards under the Tories.

The highest waiting times in A&E for a decade.

Longer waiting lists.

Longer waiting times to see your GP.

And creeping privatization of our NHS.

David Cameron said the NHS was safe in his hands.

He has betrayed the trust of the British people.

It will be up to the next Labour government to protect and improve our NHS.

Stop the Tory privatization.

And repeal their terrible Health and Social Care Bill.

Friends, we face a generational challenge in Britain right now.

For years, for decades even, we’ve had a country that works well for a few.

But that leaves most working people behind.

We’ve got to turn that round.

We face the fight of our lives in less than a year’s time.

We all know how the Tories will fight that election.

We all know the tactics they will use.

How desperate they will be to cling to power.

But I have to tell you.

We have a bigger opponent at these elections.

Bigger than the Tories.

Bigger than UKIP.

And it’s certainly bigger than the Liberal Democrats.

It is the sense that nothing can be done.

The sense that Britain’s problems are too big.

And politics is too small.

We all heard it time after time during the election campaign last month.

“You’re all the same. In it for yourselves. You don’t keep your promises.”

Friends, we know that’s not right.

We know we are different.

We have to show people.

We can do it.

Remind people that we came into this party, and this movement, for a reason:

Show that we can change Britain.

That we can rebuild our economy.

Save our NHS.

That we can make our country a fairer, more prosperous, more equal place.

And that we can do all that even when times are hard.

Friends, that is our mission.

A fairer society.

A more just society.

A more equal society.

That is our cause.

And together, we can make it happen.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech on One Nation Labour

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, in London on 17th January 2014.

Today I want to tell you what the next election is about for Labour.

It is about those families who work all the hours that God sends and don’t feel they get anything back.

It is about the people who go to bed anxious about how they’re going to pay their bills.

It is about the parents who turn to each other each night and ask what life their sons and daughters are going to have in the future.

It is about those just starting out who can’t imagine they will ever afford a home of their own.

It is about the most vulnerable in our country who feel they are just being tossed aside.

And it is about all those who are doing OK but still feel Britain should be doing a lot better.

It is about who we are as a country.

And who we want to recover to be.

It is about all those who believe that we’re Britain and we should never settle for second best.

All those millions of people who believe, like I do, like you do: We’re Britain, we’re better than this.

But we can only do better if the conversation in politics catches up with our country.

For too long politicians acted as if when something wasn’t talked about in politics or wasn’t big on our television screens, somehow it wasn’t happening.

The banking crisis.

The problems in the eurozone.

Ups and downs on the stock market.

They are the daily stuff of politics.

But all the while something just as important, something even deeper, has been going on.

And we have been far too silent about it.

That is the cost-of-living crisis.

Some people in Westminster still ask me: is the cost-of-living crisis really such a big deal?

Isn’t it just a short-term problem?

This shows they just don’t understand.

The cost-of-living crisis is the single greatest challenge our country faces.

Not since the century before last have we seen such a sustained fall in living standards.

What is the cost-of-living crisis?

On my very first day as leader of the Labour Party, I talked about the squeezed middle.

I realise now that back then I didn’t grasp the full scale of the problem.

It only really came home to me later.

And since then we’ve had three more years of that squeeze.

It is why I focused on it in my Labour Party conference speech this year.

And today, I think about the fragments of the conversations I have had since then, about the problems people face.

“My wages are stuck but all the bills carry on going up.

I just can’t get the hours I need so everything is a struggle.

The weekly food shop.

Gas and electricity.

Petrol for the car.

I just can’t afford this government.

I don’t know how much I am going to earn from one week to the next.

Work sixty hours a week.

I have to do two jobs.

I don’t have time to see my kids.”

“Of course, life’s going to be hard,” people say, “but surely it doesn’t need to be this hard?”

“And what’s going to happen to my kids when they grow up?

Will they get a regular job?

What about when they want to start a family?”

“They tell me on the news the economy is fixed.

And the people at the top they certainly seem to be doing OK.

But why isn’t that happening for my family?”

It is used to be that this country worked for ordinary people.

It just doesn’t seem to any more.

You see, this cost-of-living crisis is about the pound in people’s pocket today.

But it is not just about that.

It reaches deeply into people’s lives.

Deeply into the way our country is run.

Deeply into who our country is run for.

And because the problems are deep, the solutions need to be too.

That is the task for the next Labour government.

What is going to happen?

At least, politicians are finally talking about the cost-of-living crisis.

But talking about it isn’t enough.

People need to know that we’re going to do anything about it.

This government think it is all going to be OK.

Because this year the forecasts say that average wages will finally overtake prices.

Let’s hope that happens.

But I really warn this government:

If they think a few months of better statistics will solve this crisis, they are just demonstrating again that they have absolutely no idea about the scale of the problem or the solutions required.

This cost-of-living crisis is about who gets the rewards, not just the averages: ordinary people or just those at the top?

It is about the nature of work and whether it is secure or insecure.

It is about the prospects for people’s kids and the quality of jobs.

It is about decent homes at affordable prices.

It is about a strong sense that this cost-of-living crisis has been coming for a long time.

And that there are some big things need to change if we’re going to sort it out.

This government says: “the job is not even half done.”

You might think that’s a good sign.

But when they say that, they are not talking about your living standards.

The work you do.

The prospects for your kids.

They are just talking about the deficit.

Of course, we need to reduce the deficit.

That’s why Labour won’t borrow more for day to day spending in 2015/16.

But deficit reduction alone can’t fix our economy.

Deficit reduction alone can’t make hard work pay.

Deficit reduction alone isn’t a vision for the country.

And why does their vision fall so short?

It is not an accident.

Because they think low wages, insecure work, the hope of a bit of wealth trickling down from the top, is the way Britain succeeds.

Their economic policy is not the solution to the cost-of-living crisis.

It’s part of the problem.

They believe in a race to the bottom.

Low wages, low skills.

Not the race to the top Britain needs to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

High skills and high wages.

The symptoms of their failure to make the long-term changes that Britain needs are there for all to see.

Personal debt for ordinary families rising again, as wages are squeezed and productivity remains low.

The largest deficit in traded goods since records began back in 1955, because there’s no proper industrial policy and no plan for growth in every region.

Investment 159th in the world because reforms haven’t been made so firms can take the long-term view.

Over-reliance on insecure, low paid jobs, not enough of the secure, high paying ones that used to keep our middle class strong.

Millions of people unable to afford to buy or rent a home, because the homes just aren’t being built.

Broken markets, from gas and electricity to transport, which are not being reformed.

And a banking system that still doesn’t serve Britain’s firms.

Higher personal debt.

Uneven growth.

Low investment.

Insecure jobs.

House prices out of reach.

Bills still too high.

Banks not serving the wealth-creators.

And David Cameron and George Osborne want congratulation.

This is not a recipe for building the new economy that can tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

It is a recipe for clinging on to the old economy.

I say: Britain can do better than this.

How we earn our way to a higher standard of living

Over the coming months, Labour will be setting out the long-term changes we need.

So we earn and grow our way to a higher standard of living.

A One Nation industrial policy serving every region of Britain.

An end to the fast buck with a new culture of long-termism, from our infrastructure to our takeover rules to the stock market.

An education policy to help provide skills, training and a career to all of our young people, not just the 50% who go to university.

A plan to build 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament, so we can tackle the housing crisis.

Taking on the vested interests in every broken market to get a fairer deal to help consumers.

And building a banking system that serves the real economy.

At our party conference in September, I talked about how we will reform Britain’s broken energy market.

As you may remember, the big energy firms didn’t like it.

But it is broken.

And only Labour will put it right.

Today, I want to talk about another broken market.

Britain’s banking system.

Because there can be no bigger test of whether we are serious about building a new economy and tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

Part of the reason as a country we rely too much on low paid, insecure work is that the small and medium sized firms that could create the good, high paying jobs of the future can’t get the finance they need.

Of course, financial services is an important industry in itself.

But for an industry that calls itself a “service”, it has been a poor servant of the real economy.

And it has been an incredibly poor servant.

Not just since 2010.

Or 2008.

But for decades in this country.

We need a reckoning with our banking system not for retribution but for reform.

Labour has already laid out important plans to change our banking system.

A Green Investment Bank, with proper powers to invest.

A new British Business Investment Bank, supported by a network of regional banks in every region of the country.

And we’ve said very clearly if the big banks can’t demonstrate real culture change by the time of the next election they will see their high street and casino arms broken up.

But to really change our banking system, we have to tackle a decades long problem in British banking: too much power concentrated in too few hands.

Britain has one of the most concentrated banking systems in the world.

Just 4 banks control 85% of small business lending.

Not lending to firms.

Poor customer service.

High charges.

The old economy.

The next Labour government will act.

On day one of the next Labour government, we will ask the Competition and Markets Authority to report within six months on how to create at least two new sizeable and competitive banks to challenge the existing high street banks.

I want to be clear about the difference this will mean:

This is not about whether we should have new banks.

The question this government is still asking.

But about how.

It is not about creating new banks that control some tiny proportion of the market.

But new banks that have a substantial proportion and can compete properly with existing banks.

And we are not asking whether existing banks might have to divest themselves of significant number of branches.

We are asking how we make that happen.

And we will go further too.

In America, by law, they have a test so that no bank can get too big and dominate the market.

We will follow the same principle for Britain.

And so under the next Labour government we will establish for the first time a threshold for the market share any one bank can have of personal accounts and small business lending.

Preventing mergers and acquisitions over this threshold.

After decades of banking becoming more and more concentrated, Labour will turn the tide.

I want to send a message to our small and medium sized businesses: Under a Labour government, you will no longer be serving the banks.

The banks will be serving you.

You will have a better chance of getting the support you need to grow your business, employ more people, at decent wages, making profits and helping Britain succeed.

Only if we take on powerful vested interests, from energy to banking, and reform broken markets, can we make the long-term changes Britain needs.

And tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

Conclusion

All of us face a choice about how we want to fight the next election.

Optimistic about Britain and its future.

Or pessimistic.

Giving people a sense of hope.

Or trying to win by fear.

In the next 16 months, I want you to tell people:

About our belief that Britain can do better than this.

About how we believe we can tip the balance away from struggle and towards hope.

And tell them exactly what we will do to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

An energy price freeze.

Strengthening the minimum wage.

Tackling the payday lenders.

Better childcare.

Abolishing the bedroom tax.

Alongside the long-term changes our country needs:

New banks on our high street.

Skills for all our young people.

A new culture for long-termism.

An industrial policy for every region.

Building homes again in Britain.

I say Britain can do better than this.

To build the new economy.

And leave the old economy behind.

To tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

That’s what the next Labour government will do.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2013 Speech on the Cost of Living

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, in Battersea, London, on 5th November 2013.

Introduction

It is great to be here in Battersea with you today.

Last Friday, I was in my constituency, at the local Citizens Advice Bureau.

And I talked to some people who had been preyed upon by payday lenders.

There was a woman there in floods of tears.

She was in work.

But she took out a payday loan for her deposit so she could rent somewhere to live.

And then disaster followed.

A payday loan of a few hundred pounds became a debt of thousands of pounds.

She still faces bullying, harassment and threats from multiple payday lenders.

Like the young mum I met who described sitting at home with her daughter and seeing an advert on the TV for a payday lender.

She said she was down to the last nappy for her baby.

She took out the payday loan.

And one led to many more, with her ending up spending most of the money she had each week on repayments and charges.

She was so frightened by the harassment she faced that she had given her mobile phone to her mum.

Her mum showed me the phone and told me that she’d had fifteen calls that day.

The woman who worked at the CAB said the problem had got far, far worse in the last couple of years.

She said: “payday lenders are running riot through people’s lives in this community.”

Yesterday Wonga released a film all about themselves.

And last night the boss of Wonga said he was speaking for the ‘silent majority’, who are happy with their service.

But the truth is he wants us to stay silent about a company where in one year alone their bad debts reached £120 million.

An industry in which seven out of ten customers said they regretted taking out a loan.

With half saying they couldn’t pay it back.

Payday lenders don’t speak for the silent majority.

They are responsible for a quiet crisis of thousands of families trapped in unpayable debt.

The Wonga economy is one of the worst symbols of this cost of living crisis.

And as I listened to these stories, my overwhelming thought was: how is this being allowed to happen in Britain, 2013?

Because these stories of payday lenders are just one part of the cost of living crisis facing families across our country.

Low skilled jobs.

Wages that are stagnating.

Predatory behaviour by some companies.

This isn’t just an issue for the lowest paid, it affects the squeezed middle just as much.

A country where a few at the top do well, but everybody else struggles.

This is not just an issue facing Britain.

It is the issue facing Britain.

It is about who our country is run for.

How it is run.

And whether we believe we can do better than this.

I do.

The Nature of the Problem

Now, David Cameron said recently that I wanted to “talk about the cost of living” because I didn’t want to talk about “economic policy.”

So we have a Prime Minister who thinks we can detach our national economic success from the success of Britain’s families and businesses.

He doesn’t seem to realise that there is no such thing as a successful economy which doesn’t carry Britain’s families with it.

And he obviously doesn’t get that the old link between growth and living standards is just broken.

Growth without national prosperity is not economic success.

The first and last test of economic policy is whether living standards for ordinary families are rising.

And the scale of the problem is familiar to millions of people in our country.

The official figures say that on average working people are £1,500 a year worse off than they were at the election.

And it has happened because prices are rising faster than wages.

In 39 out of the 40 months that David Cameron has been Prime Minister.

But the average doesn’t tell you the whole story.

We don’t just need average wages to creep higher than prices.

For people to be genuinely better off, we have to do much better than that.

Ordinary families are hit harder than average by higher prices.

They rely more on expensive basic necessities, like electricity and gas.

And ordinary families do worse than the average when it comes to wage increases.

Because those increases are scooped by a few at the top.

Chief executive pay went up by 7 per cent last year.

When everyone else’s wages were falling.

We can’t just make do and mend.

We need to do much better than we are.

Can Anything Be Done?

And that means we can’t just carry on as we are.

We have to permanently restore the link between growth and living standards for all of Britain’s working people.

This Government can’t do it.

And the reason is because they are wedded to Britain competing in a race to the bottom.

Listen to their silence on our plans for a living wage.

Nothing to say.

On the falling value of the minimum wage.

Nothing to say.

On zero-hours contracts.

Nothing to say.

On the exploitation of low-skill migrant labour which undercuts wages.

Nothing to say.

They’re silent because of what they believe in.

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, George Osborne described my argument that they believed in a race to the bottom as something straight out of “Karl Marx” and “Das Kapital.”

No.

He’s wrong.

It is about what is happening in this capital city.

Right here.

And towns and cities across the country.

Right now.

Now, they think that this low wage economy is the best we can do.

Because they believe doing anything about it means intervening in markets in ways that we shouldn’t.

I disagree.

A dynamic market economy, with profitable private sector companies is essential for creating the wealth we need.

But markets always have rules.

The question is: what do those rules allow?

And what do they encourage?

Do they encourage companies to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, as part of a race to the top?

And provide the support they need to do so?

Or do they encourage a race to the bottom of low wages and low skills?

Do the rules mend broken markets?

Or allow some firms to take advantage of broken markets at the expense of everybody else?

All governments set rules for what they want to see.

This Government does intervene in markets but in the wrong way.

They make it easier to fire people.

Water down rights for agency workers.

Turn a blind eye to the failure to pay the minimum wage.

Pushing companies to compete on low wages, low skills and worse terms and conditions.

They introduce tax cuts for the richest.

Defend bonuses for the bankers.

Stand up for a powerful few.

Supporting their belief that wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everybody else.

Don’t believe it when they say they are stepping away, they are stepping in all the time, stepping in to stand up for the wrong people.

High hopes for those at the top.

Low expectations for everyone else.

A race to the bottom.

When what we need is a race to the top.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Jobs

To win that race to the top, we are going to earn and grow our way out of this cost of living crisis.

Not by spending money we don’t have.

Because we have to bring the deficit down.

But by building a different kind of economy.

One that really works for working people.

That starts with the jobs our country creates.

David Cameron is still on his lap of honour.

To celebrate how brilliantly he has done.

In the slowest recovery for a hundred years.

We still face a massive challenge of creating jobs in this country.

There are still nearly two and half million people unemployed in Britain and nearly a million young people are still looking for work.

And when we look at the jobs in our economy, too many are low paid, part-time and temporary.

Half of new jobs have been in low paid sectors of the economy.

We have 1.4 million people working part-time when they want full-time work.

More than ever before.

And we’ve got more people in a temporary job because they can’t find a permanent one.

The Tories don’t think we can do anything about it.

They think it is the way we compete with China and India.

But they are wrong.

A Labour government will put all our country’s effort into winning a race to the top.

And that means taking action on both the quantity and quality of jobs that we are creating.

We can only win a race to the top if we transform our vocational education system and apprenticeships in this country, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we radically transform the way we support business in every part of our country, with a proper regional banking system learning the lessons of Germany, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we support the small businesses that will create the jobs of the future, by cutting business rates, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we help parents get back to work and start earning to support their families by extending childcare for working parents to 25 hour a week, which is what we will do.

And we can only win a race to the top with a proper industrial policy, including for environmental jobs, which is what we will do.

All this is about re-engineering the British economy so that we make a difference to the kinds of jobs we create.

You can’t do it if you believe in a race to the bottom.

You can only do it if you believe in a race to the top.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Wages

So dealing with the cost of living crisis starts with jobs.

But it is also about wages.

Wages for millions of people have been in decline for far too long.

I am talking about people battling to do the right thing and struggling and struggling.

Hard, honest work, in supermarkets, on building sites, in call centres.

Working harder, for longer, for less.

We have a low pay emergency in this country.

Five million people now paid less than the living wage.

Working for their poverty.

Up at least 1.4 million in just the last four years.

To one in five of all employed workers.

More of Britain’s poor children today are being brought up in working families than in jobless families.

And low wages aren’t just bad for working people.

They cost money in benefits too.

As the country has to subsidise more and more low paid jobs with higher and higher tax credits and benefits.

The government now pays more out on tax credits and benefits to those in work than it does for who are unemployed.

So to those who say we can’t afford to do anything about wages in our country today:

I say we can’t afford not to.

And many businesses now recognise that a low pay economy is bad for them too.

I was in Bristol last Thursday night talking to cleaners who are paid the living wage.

They told how proud to work for a firm like that.

Better pay means lower turnover of staff.

Higher productivity.

So we have to end the scandal of poverty pay in this country.

We would strengthen the minimum wage, which has lost 5 per cent of its value under this government.

We are looking at the case for higher minimum wages in particular sectors of the economy, like financial services, where they can afford to pay more.

And we will go further than that too.

That is why the next Labour government from its first day in office, will offer “make work pay” contracts to employers all over Britain.

It is a simple deal.

For the first year of a Labour government, we will say to every firm:

You start to make work pay, through a living wage.

And we will give you a 12 month tax rebate of 32p for every extra pound they spend.

Make work pay contracts will raise wages, keep the benefit bill down and tackle the cost of living crisis.

It is a good deal for workers, business and the taxpayer too.

And by tackling low pay we won’t just strengthen our economy, we will strengthen our society as well.

It is not good for our country for people to be working 60 or 70 hours a week, doing 2 or 3 jobs, not having time to see their kids.

We will change it.

Under a One Nation Labour government: work will pay.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Broken Markets

And tackling the cost of living crisis is also about ensuring markets work for working people.

And that means fixing markets when they are broken.

This power station was built in the 1920s after a Conservative government intervened to fix a broken energy market.

That government, of Stanley Baldwin, knew that if government didn’t fix broken markets, nobody else was going to.

Stanley Baldwin knew it.

John Major seems to understand it.

But David Cameron doesn’t.

His response to Labour’s energy price freeze shows how out of the mainstream he is.

He took issue with the whole idea of government intervention in a broken market.

Ever since, on energy he seems to have had a different policy every day of the week.

But what we know is that we can never expect him to stand up to the energy companies, because they are a large and powerful interest.

It is not who David Cameron is.

It is not what he does.

He stands up to the weak, never to the strong.

For the next eighteen months, people will hear scare stories from the unholy alliance of the energy companies and David Cameron.

The Big Seven.

It will just reinforce in people’s minds who he stands up for.

The six large energy companies.

Not the 60 million people of Britain.

Today, new figures confirm that most of the recent price rises weren’t caused by government levies or by a rise in wholesale prices.

But are the direct result of a broken market.

For the average increase in the price for electricity and gas since 2011, over half went straight to the costs and profits of the companies themselves.

This shows exactly why we need a price freeze now.

Because only a price freeze will protect customers while we re-set the market.

A price freeze until 2017 will happen if Labour wins the election.

A freeze that will benefit 27 million families and 2.4 million businesses.

It is workable and it will happen.

And tomorrow, Parliament will vote on that price freeze.

So Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs could vote for it now.

And if they line up against it, the British people will know the truth:

This Government is on the side of the big energy companies not hard-pressed families.

And our price freeze until 2017 will pave the way for us to radically improve the energy market for the long term.

We will publish an Energy Green Paper for:

A regulator that can cut unjustified price rises.

A ring fence between the generation and supply businesses of the energy companies, so there is proper transparency.

Forcing energy companies to trade the energy they produce in the open market.

And a new simple tariff structure that people can understand.

So we will change the way the energy market works.

In a way that will provide long-term confidence for investors and a better deal for consumers.

And we will mend other markets that aren’t working in the public interest.

Opening up competition in banking.

A cap on the cost of credit in payday lending.

Proper regulation of our train companies.

Ending unjustified charges and fees in the private rented sector.

And new social tariffs in the water industry.

The Conservative Party defends broken markets and the few people that profit from them.

I am proud that the Labour Party stands up for markets that work for working people.

Conclusion

The next general election will offer a big choice.

A choice about whether we tackle the cost of living crisis or shrug our shoulders.

A choice about whether we run a race to the top or a race to the bottom.

A choice about whether we reform broken markets or defend them.

A choice about how we succeed as a country.

Above all, the choice will be about who our country is run for.

There is a Tory vision for Britain that has low expectations for what most people should be able to expect.

Payday lenders can prey on the vulnerable.

Millions of families see stagnating living standards.

Energy companies can just carry on as they are, ripping off consumers.

My vision is different.

We can run Britain in a different way.

Different from the past.

Building a different future for our country.

Where ordinary people feel the country is run for them.

In their interests.

And for their future.

Earning our way to a better standard of living.

Sharing rewards fairly.

And making markets work for people, not the other way round.

Britain can do better than this.

And that’s what One Nation Labour will do.

December 9, 2015