Blog

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the National Policy Forum on 25th June 2011.

We meet today thirteen months on from the General Election.

I am proud to be speaking to you in Labour Wales.

Labour Wales showing there is a practical alternative.

Where tuition fees are not being trebled.

Where the health service is not being broken up.

And where we have a Government with a vision for the future.

And what have we learnt about the Government back in Westminster?

After this week, I’ve lost count of the u-turns, the handbrake turns, and the three point turns:

– Forests

– School sport

– The NHS

– Sentencing

– And this week’s highlight? Circus animals.

I know David Cameron doesn’t do detai l, but for goodness sake.

They couldn’t even get their policy right on Nellie the elephant.

What a bunch of clowns.

These changes in direction show this Conservative-led Government is already losing its way.

But they show something else.

Why is it that David Cameron and this Government get themselves into these problems in the first place?

The answer is that they are reckless.

Reckless with the future of our young people.

The next generation on whom Britain depends.

From cuts to Surestart, to £9,000 tuition fees, to almost a million young people out of work.

Reckless too with the lives of families already struggling to get by; now seeing their household budgets squeezed ever tighter.

And reckless with what we value in our communities as well.

With our National Health Service.

With the local services on which people rely.

The home help, the meals on wheels, the drop in centre for the elderly.

And they are undermining the responsibility that is so vital.

Just in the last couple of weeks, cancer patients who have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system, have been told they will have their help cut.

Women in their 50s who have worked hard all their lives are now seeing their plans for a dignified retirement undermined.

What have we learnt about this Government?

They have no clear idea where they want to take our country.

They are reckless.

And the only thing they have to offer the British people is a deficit plan that goes too far and too fast.

Driven by dogma not sound economics.

Pessimism, austerity and no mission for the future.

That is this Government.

But you know, the next election won’t just be about the Tories.

It will be about us as much as them.

None of us should be in any doubt about the scale of the task in front of us.

To go from losing a majority at one election to regaining a majority at the next is something that no political party has achieved for a generation.

And the challenge is greater because our starting point is the aftermath of one of our heaviest election defeats.

During our thirteen years in office we did many great things.

We should be proud of all of them.

The new schools in our communities.

The hospitals we rebuilt.

The extra police officers, who helped cut crime by 43%.

The millions who got a job.

I will never turn my back on our record.

Britain did get better under Labour.

We also, though, must face up to the truth of what happened to us.

We are in opposition today, because in addition to the many good things we did, we also made mistakes.

Over the last nine months, we’ve gone out and listened to the country.

Our policy review hasn’t been focussed on what people are saying at Westminster, but on thousands of conversations with people right across Britain.

We’ve gone direct to the British people – some Labour supporters, others not.

And a lot of it wasn’t easy listening.

People were blunt with us.

You’ve all heard it.

Because week in week out, you are out there on the doorsteps.

Talking to people about their concerns.

You know they were livid about the banks.

Worried about the squeeze on their incomes.

Frustrated that their concerns on immigration were not addressed.

Angry when they thought some could work, but didn’t.

And you know we lost trust, including because of what happened in Iraq.

We must prevent this happening again.

And you know it’s not just about policy, it’s about the way we do politics too.

A party created by working people for working people lost touch with them.

We need to be honest about the way we operated as a party.

Because only by being honest can we rebuild.

We need to confront some hard truths.

And if we ever doubt why we need to do this, if you find what I say today difficult, think of the people in your communities suffering today as a result of this Conservative-led Government.

These truths may be uncomfortable for us; but life is more uncomfortable for the people we serve suffering under this Government.

It’s not their fault; it’s ours that we lost the last election.

We owe it to them not to shy away from any of the difficult changes we need to make.

And I want to say how we will build a party fit for the future.

Above all, my message is that Labour cannot hope that power will come automatically.

That all we need is one more heave.

We can only win if we change.

I became your Leader to change our country.

But to do that I know we need to change our party.

So that once again we are a party in touch w ith people.

Once again, the party standing up for a fairer country, for those who do the right thing, for the grafters.

So painful as it is, we need to understand how we got to this point.

In the 1980s, people in our party argued that for too long, we had been centralised, top-down and dominated by the leadership.

They argued for giving more powers to our members.

Some of it was right, some of it was wrong.

But one crucial element was missing: the connection between our party and the public.

As the leadership and the members slugged it out over policy, it was the British people that got left out.

Three election defeats followed.

New Labour got us back in touch with the hopes and aspirations of the British people.

It was right to change Clause 4.

We gained hundreds of thousands of members.

And millions of voters.

We won three elections.

But let’s be honest, the leadership believed its role was to protect the public from the party.

It never really believed the party could provide the connection to the British people.

And we didn’t build a genuine movement.

By the end, it was our party members that were trying to tell the leadership what people wanted it to hear.

You were telling us about immigration, about housing, and about the 10p tax.

But the leadership did not listen enough.

So we went from six people making decisions in a smoke-filled committee room in the 1980s to six people making the decisions from a sofa in Whitehall.

Old Labour forgot about the public.

New Labour forgot about the party.

And, by the time we left office, we had lost touch with both.

That wasn’t all.

We talked about the importance of solidarity and respect, but too often looked inwards, distracting us from the task of serving the country.

The internal squabbles damaged our reputation and distr acted us from the task of serving the country.

And some of our MPs let down our party too – because of what they did on expenses.

People expected higher standards of Labour, and rightly so, and that is why they were so disappointed.

We’ve got to change the way we work as a party.

We cannot go back to the 1980s, simply making decisions within our own four walls.

We’ve got to knock those walls down.

We need to build a party which is rooted in the lives of every community in this country.

Our consultation, Refounding Labour, only closed yesterday, but today I want to provide a down-payment on some of the ideas that I believe are necessary.

And there will be more to come in the weeks ahead.

The responsibility on our elected representatives needs to be clear.

The idea of Shadow Cabinet elections was supposed to be about accountability.

But it didn’t work out that way.

I have talked to some of our old hands in the party about this.

As they have told me, all it did when we were last in opposition was to force members of the Shadow Cabinet to look inwards not outwards.

Jockeying for position, spending months campaigning against colleagues, and organising to get elected.

All of this was a huge distraction and only emphasised differences.

If we are serious about moving on from the patterns of the past, and never returning to the factions that divided us, we cannot persist with this system.

That is why I am therefore proposing that in future the Shadow Cabinet should be chosen by me rather than the Parliamentary party.

I want us to be an alternative government.

The only election members of my Shadow Cabinet should be worrying about is the General Election.

Just like I want the focus of every party member to be on the public, so too it must be for my top team.

Just like the football manager picks his team, so it is right that I pick mine.

And I will keep in place a requirement to ensure that the proportion of women in the Shadow cabinet at least reflects the Parliamentary Labour Party.

We currently we do better than that and I want to keep it that way.

We will also set out a simple set of principles based on transparency, accountability and representation for all our local representatives too.

Many good Labour groups already do this, making sure local councillors serve their constituents to the best of their ability.

I want every one of our elected representatives to be the best: the most active, the most in touch with their communities, the most involved in the life of their local parties.

Second, policy-making has got to change.

Let me say it plainly.

This policy forum and party conference do not have sufficient legitimacy in the eyes of members.

Too often, they submit ideas with great enthusiasm, and never hear anything again.

That has to change.

But equally, we don’t simply need ideas from party members.

We need ideas that are based on real conversations with the public.

What can we learn from community organisations like London Citizens?

The best policy does not come from a few people locked in a room; it comes from conversations, on the doorstep, at the school gate, in our workplaces.

The living wage came from conversations among working people in America.

Or take the idea of safe havens, being pioneered in South London – shops, community centres, churches, places where young people worried about gun or knife violence can go and seek help.

This idea came out of conversations with those young people and their communities.

Much more of our policy needs to come from the everyday experiences of people.

So we do need more of a voice for party members.

But those we should hear the most, are those who do the most in their communities.

If local parties get enough support for a particular cause, it should be debated at the National Policy Forum or conference.

Here’s the offer: the more support from the public you get for your ideas, the more weight they will have.

I don’t promise all of them will become policy, but I do promise they will be taken seriously in a party that does policy in a different way.

And just as we need to change the way the policy forum works so too party conference.

In the 1980s, conference was just about us talking, sometimes fighting, with each other.

Let’s not romanticise the way policy was made: late night deals, thrashed out in locked meeting rooms by a handful of people.

A local party going into conference with a motion they wanted to debate and returning home, at best, with one word in someone else’s resolution.

It was no way to make policy.

By the 1990s conference had just become a rally fo r the leadership.

Neither is right for the 21st Century.

That is why I want members to have more of a voice.

But to those who want conference to have a greater role, it must be a two way street.

If we want conference to have more legitimacy inside the party with the leadership, the conference must be more legitimate in the way its decisions are made.

We can’t modernise our party and make it fit for the 21st century unless we look at the way conference works and that’s what we are going to do.

I also want to open up conference to the public.

We should reach out to the thousands of organisations of civil society.

Charities, pressure groups and community organisations should come and speak at our conference.

And members of the public should too.

Thirdly, we have fantastic local Labour parties.

Which make real change in our communities.

But we all know every local party could do more to reach out and we all know we’ve got to change.

Let’s confront the most difficult fact for all political parties.

I am so proud of our 65,000 new members since the general election.

I want tens of thousands more, if possible hundreds of thousands more.

But membership of political parties has been declining since the 1950s.

Only one voter in a hundred is a member of any of the three main political parties – a third of the level only 20 years ago.

So we have to find new ways to reach out to people as well.

Nearly three million ordinary men and women – we call them trade union levy payers – are linked to this party.

Nurses, call centre workers, engineers, shop workers.

We are unique in having that relationship with working people.

But for years we have done nothing to reach out to these men and women.

When did any of us see substantial numbers of them involved in our party?

All of that has to change.

Let me tell you.

Many of them did not vote for us at the last general election.

Every local Labour Party should be holding regular meetings open to them and make them genuinely part of our movement.

And we need to reach beyond union and party members.

A few years ago, Labour had a good idea: the supporters’ network, for people that didn’t want to be a fully paid up member of our party but wanted to be involved.

But this network was undermined because it was centralised.

Let’s congratulate those MPs and local parties, like Gisela Stuart in Birmingham Edgbaston and Andrew Smith in Oxford East who have, under their own steam, managed to sign up local supporters.

It’s not about undermining the membership offer, but it’s acknowledging the fact that many people aren’t by instinct joiners anymore; they are supporters and doers.

I want every local party to be able to sign up their strong supporters a nd then involve them in party activities.

And I believe that once those supporters know what we are about, many of them will want to join us.

Let me end with this thought.

I am determined we win the next election.

I am determined we are a one-term opposition.

I know where we need to take this country.

We need to uphold the promise of Britain that the next generation does better than the last.

We need to build a new economy that stops the rising inequality that we see between those at the top and the rest.

And we need to build communities where we look after each other and strengthen the responsibility that holds our society together.

But I know this also.

We cannot change Britain in the ways we want to unless we become a genuine movement again.

A movement that starts with party members

That reaches out to our supporters in the country.

That goes beyond them to new recruits.

Millions of people that argue our case up and down Britain.

We cannot do that either with central control from the top.

Or a party that looks inward to itself.

Let me be clear what my ambition is:

For Labour to be:

A cause not just a party.

A mission not just a programme

A movement not just a government.

Then, together, we can build the country people deserve.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to Reuters on 8th July 2011.

I want to thank Reuters for hosting this speech this morning.

This has been a tumultuous week for British journalism.

With allegations that have shocked the British public’s sense of decency.

And the largest circulation newspaper in the country, the News of the World, being forced to close.

But it is right to take a step back from the daily revelations and to reflect on what it all means.

And I am glad I can do it here at the London headquarters of an internationally renowned news organisation that for more than 160 years has maintained its independence and its integrity.

Today I want to talk to you about why now is a time for strong leadership from both politicians and those in the newspaper industry who feel passionately about its integrity and ethics.

We must deal with the immediate issues but also ensure we use this crisis of public trust and confidence as a catalyst for a better future.

So I want to deal with the choices we must make now to start to chart a path back to British journalism being the envy of the world.

This is my argument today.

A strong, vital press is at the heart of our democracy.

We must protect it and defend it.

We all know politicians must be wary of tampering with the precious institution of the free press.

Yet there come moments when it is up to us to defend, not ourselves, but the public from parts of the press.

We must not only speak for the public, but also show we can act on their behalf.

Let me start with what might seem obvious: why a free and buccaneering press matters.

British journalism has been – and is – some of the best in the world.

Our newspapers are part of our way of life.

Very few countries have so many titles redolent with history, vying with each other for a place in the home of tens of millions of British families.

Great titles. Great newspapers. They come in many forms.

They reach different markets. They have different politics.

I want to defend them all in doing their work.

And we in this country have a long and proud tradition of journalism exposing what needs to be exposed.

From campaigns on Thalidomide, to the investigation of match-fixing in cricket by the News of the World.

When people talk about the idea of democracy, we mean much more than the right to vote.

We can think of countries round the world where people have the vote, but we know the press is not truly free.

People are intimidated from expressing their view.

Journalists are jailed for what they write.

Newspapers are closed down – not by proprietors but by government.

All of that represents a gross interference and perversion of what we think of as a true democracy.

What is more, within our democracy, a free press is an essential part of what makes political change happen.

Too often, we think of politics as being about politicians.

In fact, political change happens often because of people outside politics, including our newspapers.

So, precisely because one of the roles of the press is to hold politicians to account, we need to take the greatest care when addressing the issue of press freedom.

And the relationship between politicians and the press has always been fraught.

The history of politicians complaining about bias, character assassination and falsehoods in the press goes back a long way and certainly predates the invention of the internet, or the arrival of Rupert Murdoch in Britain.

One of my predecessors as Labour leader said that the outstanding mark of modern times was “A snippety press and a sensational public”.

It was Keir Hardie, a century ago.

So, newspapers often campaign on their readers’ behalf, speak truth to power and stand up for the people against politicians.

But what happens when journalism does not do right by the public?

What happens when newspapers, who claim, and often rightly claim, to be the protectors of the rights of the people, themselves infringe those rights?

When those who claim to protect the public from the arbitrary workings of power indulge in arbitrary, cruel, even criminal abuse of power themselves?

And at such a time, our job must be to stand up for people against those who exercise power without responsibility.

For too long, political leaders have been too concerned about what people in the press would think and too fearful of speaking out about these issues.

If one section of the media is allowed to grow so powerful that it becomes insulated from political criticism and scrutiny of its behaviour, the proper system of checks and balances breaks down and abuses of power are likely to follow.

We must all bear responsibility for that.

My party has not been immune from it.

Nor has the current government and Prime Minister. All of this is difficult because of his personal relationships and the powerful forces here.

But just because we didn’t get it right in the past, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put it right now.

Putting it right for the Prime Minister means starting by the appalling error of judgement he made in hiring Andy Coulson.

Apologising for bringing him in to the centre of the government machine.

Coming clean about what conversations he had with Andy Coulson before and after his appointment about phone-hacking.

The truth is that all politicians been lagging behind the public’s rising sense of anger and indignation about the methods and culture of sections of the press.

There are moments in our national life when the public looks to political leaders not just to express sentiment, but to accept the responsibility for leading the call of change.

There has been a pent up demand for change for many years.

But this week the dam burst.

We should stand up for the public, without fear and without favour.

The full horror of the revelations of the last few days has shocked and disgusted people across this country.

I know it has shocked many journalists, including many journalists at News International.

We have heard allegations, that in the pursuit of a story, people working for the News of the World hacked into the phone of Milly Dowler, an abducted child, even deleting some of her messages.

Hacked the voicemail messages of the grieving parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, the two girls murdered in Soham.

Hacked the voicemail messages of victims of the 7/7 bombings.

Even allegations of the hacking of the families of fallen soliders.

Each and every one of these has rightly sickened the country.

They can’t simply be dismissed as isolated examples committed by a rogue reporter.

There appears to have been a systematic pattern of activity.

Affecting not simply members of the Royal family, the cabinet and celebrities, but also private people who never expected or wanted to see their names in the papers.

And the activities don’t seem to have been limited to phone hacking.

It is now also alleged that it included payments being made to police for stories.

In so many cases there was absolutely no conceivable public interest.

Clearly in a highly competitive media market, the ethics of those involved come under pressure.

In too many cases, people lost a sense of right and wrong.

Papers which prided themselves so much on speaking for their readers lost touch with the British public’s sense of decency.

As I have already said, part of blame for this being allowed to go unquestioned for too long must be shared by politicians of all parties.

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with politicians engaging with the media at any level.

Editors, proprietors, reporters, columnists, whoever.

What matters isn’t whether these relationships exist.

It’s whether they stifle either the ability of the press to speak out against political leaders, or political leaders to speak up for the public when the press does the wrong thing.

Looking at these events, some have insisted the answer is merely to leave it to the police.

It is, of course, right that a proper police inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, and prosecutes those involved.

But this is not enough.

Why?

Because it seems to be part of a culture in parts of the industry.

And because it is absolutely clear that the system of self-regulation we have has hopelessly and utterly failed.

All of us have an interest in a press that can be trusted by the British public.

It is right that we restore that reputation of decent, hard-working journalists who have professional integrity and the highest standards.

So what is to be done?

We need a judge-led inquiry to shine a light on the culture and practices which need to change.

This should be establised immediately with terms of reference agreed before the summer.

The inquiry should cover the culture and unlawful practices of some parts of the newspaper industry, the relationship between the police and media, and the nature of regulation.

However, public confidence will not come simply from a judicial inquiry but also from fair dealing in all major decisions concerning the media.

Most immediately, the decision on BskyB has significant implications for media ownership in Britain.

The public must have confidence that the right decisions are being made.

That is why we have consistently said there should be a reference to the Competition Commission, the proper regulatory body.

The government has chosen a different path which relies on assurances from executives at News Corporation.

Given the doubts hanging over the assurances about phone hacking by News international executives, I cannot see, and the public will not understand, how this can provide the fair dealing that is necessary.

I strongly urge the government to take responsibilty and think again about how it is handling the BskyB decision.

Those who were in senior positions at the News of the World at the time phone hacking was taking place must also take responsibility.

I talked recently about the need to restore the principle of responsibility throughout society.

From the benefits office to the boardroom.

This principle cannot stop at the door of the newspaper boardroom.

When the banks precipitated the financial crisis, politicians were quick to demands head needed to roll.

If an oil company was found to have contaminated the coastline, I have no doubt its chief executive would have faced calls from politicians, including the Prime Minister, to resign.

The practices at the News of the World have harmed innocent victims and contaminated the reputation of British journalism.

I welcome James Murdoch’s admission of serious errors.

But closing the News of the World, possibly to re-open as the Sunday Sun, is not the answer.

Instead those who were in charge must take responsibility for what happened.

And politicians cannot be silent about it.

Finally, we need wholesale reform of our system of regulation.

The Press Complaints Commission has failed.

It failed to get to the bottom of the allegations about what happened at News International in 2009.

Its chair admits she was lied to but could do nothing about it.

The PCC was established to be a watchdog.

But it has been exposed as a toothless poodle.

Wherever blame lies for this, the PCC cannot restore trust in self-regulation.

It is time to put the PCC out of its misery.

We need a new watchdog.

There needs to be fundamental change.

My instincts continue to be that a form of self-regulation would be the best way forward. That is a debate we should have.

But it would need to be very different to work.

Let me make some initial suggestions, drawing on many of the debates about the inadequacies of the system.

A new body should have:

– Far greater independence of its Board members from those it regulates

– Proper investigative powers

– And an ability to enforce corrections.

Change should be led by the many decent editors and people in the industry who want to see change.

I call on journalists, and those concerned with decent journalism, to put the reform of the system of self regulation at the centre of their concerns.

To see in that a way of regaining and retaining the trust of those you need most: your readers.

The inquiry is one place from which this reform can be made.

But change does not need to wait for the judge-led inquiry.

If we can make change in the meantime, we should.

The press would be showing to the public that it was taking the first steps to cleaning up its act if it started to make change now.

Today, I want to call on all the many decent people in the industry to take the initiative and start to make this happen.

So there are four essential things that need to happen — that all political leaders must stand up for — if we are to start to restore trust.

The right kind of public inquiry, accompanying the police inquiries.

Proper decisions in respect of media ownership, in particular the BSkyB bid.

The taking of responsibility by those at News International.

And reform of our system of press regulation.

Nothing less will do.

Let me conclude on this point.

The mainstream media, what some people call old media, is fighting ever harder to protect its shrinking share of a market which now demands updated information minute-by-minute, 24 hours a day.

Many British newspapers are in the lead in making this change.

But despite this there is a crisis of economics in a newspaper industry under threat from the availability of free information on the internet and unsure of whether it can generate a sustainable income from its own online services.

This creates new pressures on newspapers, seeking to produce ever more journalism on ever lower budgets.

It is incredibly important that British journalism survives and thrives in the new world.

But what we know after this week is that journalism must deal not just with a crisis of finance, but with a crisis of trust.

Political leaders should be prepared to work with those in the media to make change happen.

If we do so I am convinced Britain can have the frank, free and fearless, and trusted press, the public deserve.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the 2001 Federation of Small Businesses conference.

I’d like to start by apologising for the changes to your timetable today.

I have come to you straight from the House of Commons where the Prime Minister made a statement about last night’s UN resolution on Libya and set out how the UK would play a part in implementing that resolution.

This is an approach that the Labour Party fully supports as part of an international effort to protect the Libyan people from the actions of the Libyan regime.

Given the commitment of UK forces, I thought it was right that I was in Parliament to respond

I hope you will therefore understand the reason for the delay in arriving here this afternoon.

Turning to the business of your conference.

I want to offer my thanks to the Federation of Small Businesses – and your chairman, John Walker – for inviting me here today.

The Federation continues to make a huge contribution both to the national debate about the future of our economy but also day by day in its support and services to businesses.

And I particularly want to thank a company called Sentry Doors, in my constituency that I have been able to spend some time with, so I better understand how the small business environment looks from the inside.

It’s a great privilege to be given the opportunity to speak with so many of Britain’s leading small businesses, which make up such a diverse and vibrant part of our economy.

I come here today above for a dialogue with you.

We lost the election ten months ago and part of my job is to learn the right lessons and plan for the future.

What I want to do today is this:

First, explain how I understand the role of small business in creating the country I believe in.

Second, say something about my party and the journey I believe we need to go on to win the confidence of small business.

Third, highlight some particular issues that I have learned from you are important and chart how I hope we can move forward on them.

My beliefs

Let me start by saying something about why I am in politics because as someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of the country, you deserve to know how small business fits into my vision for Britain.

My politics –and who I am—are defined very much by my background. The child of two refugees fleeing from the Nazis, people who saw the difference that governments could make.

People who out of the darkness of the second world war constructed a home for me and my brother.

My parents were not in business, although my father’s father was.

First in Belgium, including during the depression of the 1930s, and then in a small shop in London after the war.

I never met my grandfather because he died before I was born.

But I do remember my Dad telling me what hard times he went through-and yet how devoted he was to his business.

Like most parents, my Mum and Dad taught me right from wrong, they taught me to work hard, but they taught me something else: that you had a responsibility to leave the world a fairer, more just place than you found it.

That is why I am in politics.

And what I know is that we cannot create that more just society, without creating the wealth that is necessary for it.

You are incredibly important wealth creators for our country and I salute what you do.

If we are to pay our way in the world and succeed as a country, all the evidence I have seen says our future success will come from small, fast growing enterprises.

But what I know also, from the time I have spent talking to small businesses, is that what you do is not simply about the creation of wealth, important though that is.

It is about something more.

It is about, in a different way, what my politics is about: ensuring that as many people as possible can have life which has meaning and fulfilment.

As I said at the outset, recently I spent some time with a firm call Sentry Doors in my constituency.

Run by Gordon Yates.

Gordon set it up in 1989 in a garage with just a couple of thousand pounds. He has grown it to employ about 60 people.

There is a huge amount of loyalty – flowing both ways – between the employees and those running Sentry Doors.

I’ll tell you as the local MP, I know Sentry Doors is part of the fabric of the local community.

And what you know is that the five million small businesses of this country are all part of the fabric of our communities.

Now Gordon told me that these days he would be able to get by renting out his building as a warehouse.

That might be an option with lower risks and with less heartache.

But he doesn’t want to because he feels an obligation and responsibility to the company, to the people who work for him and to what they do.

For him, and for millions of you, running a small businesses is not just about making a living, it’s a labour of love.

And when I think about the young people in my constituency just down the road from Gordon, I care about the meaning and fulfilment they can have in their lives

Whether we can pass on greater opportunities to them than their parents had.

What I call the British promise.

And I want them to see the possibility of setting up a small business as central to that, a route to social mobility and a better life.

So that is something about me and why I believe so much in what you do.

Now let me say something about my party.

In the 1990s New Labour took the very important step of reaching out to business.

It was essential to showing we understood the modern world and cared as much about a good economy as fairness.

We spent a lot of time reaching out to big business then.

For me in the months and years ahead, I want to see an equal effort by my party, as we begin our policy review, to understand the needs of small business.

When we have been at our best as a party, in my view, it has been when we have stood up for those who are up against vested interests, private and public, that prevent them fulfilling their ambitions for their own lives.

Fundamentally, I hope we can be a party that has something to offer small business, because our values speak to your concerns.

Talking to small businesses round the country, I’ve heard the issues people are facing:

From the banks suddenly calling in the overdraft.

To big firms who delay payments to you by 60, 90, even 100 days.

To the government inspectors who didn’t seem to listen.

You tell me that too often small businesses have missed out because of a system which is stacked against your interests.

Let me say immediately, I know many politicians have come to this Conference and said they will do better on all of the issues I have mentioned.

Then failed to act.

I am not going to make you promises we can’t deliver.

What I do want to say is I will listen and then act where I can.

And as part of the listening process, we are establishing today our small business taskforce, led by Nigel Doughty with the FSB’s own Stephen Alambritis.

I have asked the taskforce to spend the next few months consulting with businesses from across the country on what gets in the way of you achieving.

It will report back to me and John Denham, Labour’s shadow business secretary, as part of Labour’s policy review.

Thirdly, then, let me say something about the wider context we currently face.

We need to get the macroeconomy right.

I won’t rehearse the arguments between us and the government, except to say, we do care about getting the deficit down and would have halved it over four years.

But I am worried about the Government’s decision to go too far and too fast.

The risks to growth are only too clear.

And we have seen only too often that it is small business that are affected first, and worst, when growth slows.

The squeeze on families’, on your customers’, living standards is a real problem for our society today.

And the impact of the VAT rise on fuel is only the most visible aspect of that.

For businesses the cost of loans – where they are available – are a serious issue.

Causing cashflow problems in far too many cases.

In the months ahead we need to address these problems.

But if we are to succeed we need to aim at more than simply getting back to business as usual before the crisis hit.

I think that starts with our finance sector and the way the banks work.

When even the Governor of the Bank of England says that banks are exploiting their customers, there clearly is a problem.

I’m concerned that the Govenremnt’s new lending targets won’t make much difference to how banks work with small businesses .

It’s precisely because of the difficulty of implementing lending targets that we proposed an independent small business adjudicator.

I still hope the Government takes up that idea.

But I also think these problems go back further and deeper than just the global financial crisis.

Britain’s banking sector has become too disconnected from the communities it serves.

We have a chance to address that with the Independent Banking Commission and as we consider how to dispose of the stakes we own in banks.

Here I think Britain can learn lessons from abroad.

The Small Business Investment Company programme in the United States has used government-backed guarantees to expand access to finance.

It has provided critical, early-stage financing to some phenomenal business success stories, such as Apple, Intel, and FedEx.

And in Germany, the KFW state bank has a strategic objective of investing in small- and medium-sized companies.

As part of our policy review, I want us to look seriously at whether we can make public-private models of financing work here in Britain, building on the

Enterprise Finance Guarantee – something the FSB rightly fought for.

Second, there are real issues in public procurement.

How government spends money is a key determining factor in the kind of economy we have.

Government should be leading by example.

But I know procurement can be so bureaucratic and complex that it effectively locks out small businesses from bidding for publicly-funded contracts.

John Denham, Labour’s shadow business secretary, recently met FSB members here in Liverpool.

One of the stories that stood out was of a family-owned small chain of nurseries effectively being excluded from tendering for local contracts to run nurseries by the high costs of certification.

And I know that story is probably reflected in hundreds of stories round this room.

I also know that there is a lot of concern about the impact deep spending cuts will have on procurement budgets, particularly in local government.

There is a danger they will choose to consolidate their purchasing from larger suppliers rather than supporting local small businesses.

So we will certainly focus on holding the Government to account over the next few years on the shared goal that small businesses should get an increased share of government contracts.

Let me say one other thing about the way government works with you.

We were right to introduce prompt payment terms of five days for businesses that contract with government departments.

But these are normally large firms.

I believe we should go further and require those firms to meet prompt payment terms of five days to the thousands of businesses with whom they sub-contract to deliver for government.

We must end the situation where government procurement works for big businesses but doesn’t do enough for small businesses.

I want to ensure that in every contract, government gives the same deal to small businesses as we give to large businesses.

And third, there is the issue of how government interacts with you – on tax, and on regulation.

I started by talking about my belief in social justice and wealth creation.

I know that sometimes the two appear to be in tension, particularly when it comes to the regulation of small business.

From the living wage to the end of the default retirement age, we can all see the benefits to society.

But of course you can see better than us the hit to the narrow margins under which you operate.

I’m not going to pretend that we can wish these tensions away, but I do want to say that I understand the need for balance.

I also understand that there is too much bad, and poorly implemented, regulation out there.

That is why the big issue at stake is about the very process of how government makes and implements legislation.

That is why I want us to do the thorough work with you through our taskforce on how we can make a difference.

And we recognise too the importance of a favourable, and simple, tax environment for small business.

That’s why we introduced HMRC’s time to pay scheme in Government.

A common sense, practical approach, to helping businesses manage tax bills.

Let me end with this thought:

I am fundamentally an optimist about our country and what it can achieve.

I see big challenges around us:

How we ensure that all families and not just a few, benefit from prosperity.

How we fulfil the promise to the next generation in Britain.

And how we protect the things people value in our communities.

Small businesses are central to all of these challenges.

That is why I hope we can have a successful dialogue between my party and you so that together we can meet our common goals for a prosperous and fair country.

I look forward to making this happen in the months and years ahead.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Local Government Association Conference in Birmingham on 30th June 2011.

Thank you for inviting me to address your conference here in Birmingham today.

I want to thank all of you – councillors and officials, people of all political parties and none – for the work you do on behalf of your local communities.

I see the work of my own local councillors.

So much of it unrecognised.

Men and women, young and old, who know their neighbourhoods.

Who make that extra call on behalf of the family who desperately need a home.

Who make it possible for young people to have somewhere to go and something to do.

Who back the community group who need new changing rooms at the sports ground.

At a time when politics gets a bad name, let me thank every councillor in this country for your work.

And I want to pay particular tribute to one person, not from my party.

For the work she has done and her willingness to speak truth to power, the outgoing chair of the LGA, Margaret Eaton.

Margaret, we all thank you.

Your job in local government has never been more demanding than today.

Because you are the ones in the frontline.

Today I want to talk to you about my priorities for our country and how we can achieve them together.

I see three big challenges, and in each local government has a vital role to play.

The first is to honour what I call the “Promise of Britain” –that each generation should have the opportunity to do better than the last.

That promise is in doubt for the first time in living memory.

You hear it in your communities:

Can my son or daughter get a job?

Can they even afford to get the qualifications they need?

How can they buy or rent a house?

We can only honour the Promise of Britain with strong local government delivering the Sure Start centres, the good schools, and the affordable housing.

The second challenge must be to address the crisis of living standards facing so many people in this country.

Struggling to make ends meet.

The plight of the squeezed middle is holding our economy back.

That’s why Ed Balls and I have called for a temporary cut in VAT to secure stronger economic growth and create jobs.

And it’s why central and local government must ensure all tax payers get value for money.

But the squeeze on families is not just financial.

People are finding themselves squeezed between the demands of looking after their kids, and caring for their aging Mum or Dad.

Again local authorities are on the front line.

From nursery places to meals on wheels.

The third challenge is how we help people build a life beyond the bottom line.

Strong communities are not built by market forces or Whitehall targets.

They are built by people working together at local level.

But this is a world changing so fast that people ask, who will be there to protect the things we value?

Local government should be empowered to be that champion, so you can shape and improve your communities.

How we address these three challenges is my test for our generation of politicians.

If we pass on to our children diminished life prospects, stagnating living standards, and weakened communities, then we do risk national decline.

But if we pull together as a country, as we have done so often in the past, I believe we can meet the challenges head on and emerge stronger as a result.

Of course there are difficult decisions to be made, including on public spending.

But we should set our deficit reduction plans in a way that supports our vision for the kind of country we want to be.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the Government has chosen that course.

That is why they have failed to build a national consensus for their plans.

Nothing symbolises that more clearly than the strike action by hundreds of thousands of public sector workers taking place today.

I understand the anger of workers who feel they are being singled out by a reckless and provocative government.

But I believe this action is wrong.

Negotiations are ongoing.

So it is a mistake to go on strike because of the effect on the people who rely upon these services.

And it is mistake because it will not help to win the argument.

The Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the Mums and Dads who know the value of a day’s education.

But as I have also said, strikes are a sign of failure on both sides.

This disruption could have been avoided if ministers had been willing to engage with the concerns of those affected by changes to public sector pensions.

The Government’s handling of the issue has been high-handed and arrogant.

And as the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, showed this morning, ignorant of the facts as well.

As you know when we were in government, we made significant changes to public sector pension schemes.

We did so without strike action.

With an ageing population, there is a need for change.

But the Government has gone about making that change happen in exactly the wrong way.

Announcing a 3% surcharge on public sector workers before John Hutton had even published his report setting out sensible starting points for reform.

Then announcing their final position, when negotiations were still going on.

My message to both sides is this:

What the British people want and expect is that you now get back to the negotiating table and redouble your efforts to find an agreed solution.

Put aside the rhetoric, and avoid any further disruption to parents and the public.

Unfortunately we see the same high-handedness, the same unwillingness to work for a national consensus in the Government’s approach to local authorities.

No government has been immune from taking high handed decisions when it comes to local government.

But I cannot be alone in being appalled by both the substance and style of this Government’s approach.

The way you have been singled out for disproportionate cuts.

The front-loading of those cuts, making it nearly impossible for local leaders to sensibly plan ahead.

The unfairness so that poorer communities will be hit hardest.

On top of that, the breathtaking arrogance.

The decisions you are making will profoundly affect the lives of millions.

So people deserve a grown up politics.

You deserve a grown up politics.

You know that you need to bear down on the costs of consultants and senior pay.

But it’s not grown up politics for the government to pretend that this will deliver 28% savings.

You know that it’s important to save money on back office functions. That’s what many of you have been doing.

But it’s not grown up politics for the government to pretend that the 9% that is spent on the back office can deliver all the savings.

You know that we should be protecting frontline services.

But it’s not grown up politics to blame you for the cuts being imposed too far too fast by central government.

It’s not grown up. It’s grotesque.

They singled out one council, and claimed that the council were making people redundant as a political gesture.

What a disgraceful slur.

But let’s be honest, it could have been any of you if it had suited them.

It’s the politics of arrogance and smear.

None of us, from whatever party we come, should have any truck with it.

It’s an insult to you, the people you represent, and to your communities.

Let’s say today from Birmingham, end the insults, end the smears, it must stop.

And the Big Society idea that volunteers will simply fill the void left by these cuts is being exposed as a fantasy.

Those of you who have devoted your lives to local government know that civic improvement needs more than goodwill.

They talk about volunteering.

But the Government’s plans have turned into the biggest attack on the voluntary sector in living memory.

The same applies to the Government’s much heralded commitment to localism.

It has ended up devolving responsibility for the cuts and little else.

A reduction in the number of top down targets is something I support.

But has the Government really given power away to local authorities and communities?

If anything we are seeing the opposite.

The Secretary of State for Local Government is creating a hundred and forty two new powers for himself in the Localism Bill.

It’s the same in education – 50 new powers for Michael Gove, including the right to micro-manage individual teachers.

And by attempting to cut local government out of education we know what their goal is.

To manage Britain’s 20,000 schools from Whitehall.

So much for localism.

This Government has used the language of localism, simply to centralise power while devolving blame.

We can do better than this.

What you know is that many councils across the country have improved year on year on year.

And more and more it is to innovative Local Authorities that people turn for inspiration.

So now is exactly the wrong time to return to the distrust, and disempowerment of the past.

How do we get it right in the future?

Let me set out the key arguments that underpin our thinking, and the work Caroline Flint is leading in our policy review.

First, we need a genuine partnership between central and local government.

One based on mutual respect.

Above all, getting away from the idea that it’s clever to shift blame to local government while hoarding power.

When government makes tough decisions at the centre, it should be candid about them.

The government at Westminster does need to set national priorities.

The answer won’t always be local discretion.

But in my experience if central government sets priorities, then from Sure Start to safer neighbourhood teams, we can work together with great success.

And central government should recognise there are things you can do that it can never do and should never do.

Co-ordinate the work of your local schools.

Give voice to local health priorities.

And shape the character of the local community on behalf of your citizens.

Second, we need to devolve real powers to the local level, including city regions.

Let me say it plainly: Britain is still far too centralised as a country.

We should ask ourselves why it is that many European cities and regions seem to find it easier to develop dynamic economic futures and generate jobs.

What is it that constrains some of our own cities from achieving this?

One vital factor is leadership with real powers over issues which matter to local people – transport, economic development and policing.

Different people have different views about the Mayoral system.

But I do believe done right, especially in major cities, it can make a positive difference.

It is right to give people that choice.

Because, in the end, it is for local people to make the decision.

And it is right to say that local leaders, with clear accountability, should be given real powers to drive economic growth and create jobs.

That is why Caroline Flint and I welcome the ideas coming forward from the leaders of our big cities to learn the lessons from London of devolving housing, transport and wider powers over economic development.

Let’s devolve real power to our cities, and towns across England.

Thirdly, strong local leadership should have a wider role in championing your communities far beyond the important role of service provider.

We want to build on the idea of Total Place, which gave you that voice around all local services.

And you need to have the power to stand up for local people whenever the things they value most are under threat.

The high streets colonised by betting shops.

Inappropriate adverts that spring up on billboards close to our schools.

Local councils should be there in the first line of defence against bureaucratic or corporate interests.

It is why we proposed an amendment to the Localism Bill giving local councils power to shape the character of their high streets in line with the wishes of people.

The Government rejected our proposal, but it is something to which I am determined a future Labour government will return.

Fourthly, the partnership between Town Halls and local communities must continue to evolve.

Some of you have been leading the way in rethinking this partnership locally for many years.

In Durham, area action partnerships have devolved millions of pounds, successfully engaging and involving thousands of local people in deciding how money is spent.

Later this year, Lambeth and others will be launching the Co-op councils’ network– looking to different solutions for providing frontline services.

The real test of experiments like this should be the contribution they make to building stronger communities and delivering services that are more responsive to local needs.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband at a campaign event in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 2011.

One year ago the Liberal Democrats told voters in Newcastle that they would fight for the next generation to get fair chances, for families struggling to get by and to strengthen the ties that bind our communities together.

That is what Nick Clegg told the people of Britain exactly one year ago when he looked viewers in the eye during in that first historic TV debate and promised a different kind of politics.

But the Lib Dems have broken their promises.

A year ago the Lib Dems promised to scrap tuition fees. But they trebled them.

A year ago, the Lib Dems promised to oppose a rise in VAT. But they voted to back the Tories in raising it to 20 per cent.

A year ago, the Lib Dems promised to protect the NHS. But they backed David Cameron’s expensive bureaucratic plans which put the founding principles of the heath service at risk.

A year ago, the Lib Dems promised to support measured deficit reduction plans. But they backed Tory cuts that go £40 billion further and faster than those Labour would have made.

What a difference a year makes.

Today I want to make a direct appeal to people who voted Liberal Democrat in past elections.

Some may have voted Labour before, others not.

But day-by-day it’s becoming clearer the Liberal Democrats can no longer claim to represent the values for which so many voted at the last election.

I know that some people in the Lib Dem leadership like to claim they are making a difference inside this Conservative-led Government.

But the truth is that the Liberal Democrats are not front seat passengers or back seat passengers in this Conservative-led Government . They are locked in the boot of a vehicle which is travelling rapidly in the wrong direction.

We may have heard some shouting coming from that boot in recent days. There is, after all, an election on. But it isn’t changing either the speed or the way this Government is headed. Too many people who thought they were voting for a progressive party a year ago have been betrayed.

There may still be three main parties standing candidates but there are only two directions for our country

There is the Labour way: standing up for young people, for students, for sure start, for the next generation; standing up for families feeling squeezed; standing up for strong, safe communities.

And there is the Tory-Liberal Democrat way. Cuts that go too far, too fast. Cuts that are not only unfair on cities like Newcastle but which also threaten the jobs and the economic recovery we need.

Labour is standing up for your values. We would tax bank bonuses, not give the bankers a tax cut. We would not have imposed a VAT rise on families feeling the squeeze. We would have made sensible cuts at a speed which protects jobs and services rather than supporting reckless cuts that go too far too fast. We support  the NHS. We support keeping police on the street. We support giving our young people a fair chance in life.

I believe these are the values of the majority of voters in this country.

If these are your values, let Labour be your voice in these tough times.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, at the Royal Festival Hall on 23rd May 2011.

Thank you all for coming this morning.

I’d like to start, by saying a few words about a big event happening later this week.

Not the visit of President Obama.

But my marriage to Justine on Friday.

The most important people at our wedding will be our lovely boys, Daniel and Sam.

I suppose every father says this, but becoming a parent really does change the way you think about life.

The love you feel overwhelms you.

Like most fathers I was unprepared for that.

It broadens your perspective.

You think about the kind of future you want for your children.

For their health and happiness.

And for the kind of country you want them to grow up in.

I’d like to speak today, not just about them, but about the prospect of their whole generation.

My belief that we can and must create a better life for the next generation.

My concern, like millions of others, is that for the first time for more than a century, the next generation will struggle to do better than the last.

In the past we took it for granted that if we worked hard, if our children worked hard, they would be more prosperous, and have greater opportunities.

But the last few decades have begun to show that the promise to the next generation, the promise to our children, what I call the promise of Britain, cannot now be taken for granted.

Today I want to set out the scale of the problem as I see it, and why it matters – not just to those affected, but for the whole country.

And how I see it as the duty of my generation of politicians to answer this challenge.

As a parent, like all parents, I judge myself on the opportunities my children will have—and the happiness that can provide.

As Prime Minister, I will judge the next Labour government on the opportunities that Britain can provide for all of the next generation.

I believe this issue is so important that it must a key test for the next Labour government.

That promise of Britain is a benchmark against which we will be judged.

Let me start by talking about what I have heard from people about their hopes and fears for the future.

Some of the people I have met agree with us on the big issue that politics has focused on —the pace and scale of deficit reduction.

Others disagree with us.

But what unites everyone I meet is that there seems to be so much that politics isn’t talking about.

That’s why I say people want more from us.

People want more from our politics.

And what is happening to the next generation is one of those unspoken truths that people know about – but somehow politicians seem to refuse to discuss.

I’ve heard it from the young people I’ve met thinking about their options as they leave school or college, fearing unemployment.

I’ve heard it from the young man I met in my constituency who said he wasn’t going to go to university, even though he had the grades, because of the debt he feared he would face at the end of it.

I’ve heard it from the Mums and Dads who don’t understand, because they have done everything right – raised their children well, given them every opportunity – but their kids have no prospect of buying a home until they’re nearly 40.

Since 2007 the average age of first time buyers without assistance has risen from 33 to 37.

I’ve heard it from parents who feel like they are working longer hours than ever before and finding it hard to spend time with their family.

And they’re right because we are the only country in Europe working longer hours now than twenty-five years ago.

I’ve heard it from people in this country of all ages worried about the environmental legacy our generation will leave behind.

That’s why people think politics isn’t delivering.

Now it so happens that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and I are all about the same age.

Some people have called us the Jam Generation because of the music we grew up with.

But our generation is on course to totally fail in meeting our duty to the next: to uphold the promise of Britain from which we all benefitted.

Which we all took for granted.

The current representatives of the Jam Generation are on course to create a jilted generation.

You won’t often hear a politician say this, but I will.

It’s not all our opponents’ fault.

Some of these are big problems that are rooted in the way the country’s been changing for years, not just over the last year.

But my criticism of this government, of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, is that they are doing nothing to turn things around.

In fact on many of these issues, they are making them worse.

Their only benchmark of success is dealing with the deficit.

It is the over-riding concern.

All others are set aside.

Cutting the deficit matters.

And the argument about how we do it matters too.

But our politics cannot be reduced just to a debate about the deficit without considering the consequences for our country.

Now they claim to be protecting the next generation by making these decisions.

But their claim is blown apart by the evidence because the next generation are bearing so much of the burden of deficit reduction.

They are scrapping the future jobs fund and the investment which gets young people off the dole and into work.

Years on benefits is not just bad for them, it’s bad for Britain

They are piling debts on our students – tens of thousands of pounds – which will put people off going to University.

Those same debts will make it far harder for the next generation to start a business or buy a home.

That’s not just bad for them it’s bad for Britain.

They are making damaging changes in the tax system, with double the burden on families with children compared to those without.

If it’s harder for families to get by, harder to be a parent, that’s not just bad for them but for Britain.

And they are abolishing financial support for children staying on at school.

A disastrous reform to our educational system.

Not just bad for children at school but bad for our country’s future.

They have failed to understand the problem and that risks accelerating the decline.

It is exactly these young people whose talents Britain needs to ensure we continue to lead the world – from culture to science to great businesses.

And wasting the talents of this generation makes it harder to get the deficit down, not easier.

More young people out of work means more money spent on benefits, and less coming in with tax receipts.

It’s the ultimate in short-termism.

So when they claim that they making decisions in the interests of the next generation they’re not.

Parents know it, grandparents know it, and every young person knows it.

Let me be clear: I am not just criticising their deficit strategy, I’m criticising them for having a pessimistic, austere vision for the country.

They have no ambition, no national mission.

Normally, when new governments take power, the public start to believe the country is heading in the right direction.

Not this time.

People still believe, even after a change of government, Britain is heading in the wrong direction.

Unless we turn round the chances of the next generation, we risk being a country in decline.

Ask people whether their kids will find it easier to find good jobs, own a home, balance work and family life, have a secure retirement or fulfil their potential and they will tell you by vast majorities that the answer is no.

In these circumstances, how could people possibly believe the country is heading in the right direction?

And so when people ask me what our task will be, inheriting from this Conservative-led government the kind of country it is creating, my first answer, our first challenge, our greatest task, must be to take head on the decline in opportunities for the next generation.

David Cameron’s benchmark for his government is simply deficit reduction.

The benchmark I set for a future Labour government is much more than that.

It is about improving the chances for the next generation.

We must reverse the sense of foreboding that people feel for their children and their future.

To replace that with hope about what is possible for them and our country.

Doing so will require us, once again, to be a force for major change in Britain.

So the task I am setting for our party and our policy review is to identify how we can turn round these trends.

We already know the areas that matter.

First, we need to act on jobs for young people.

We cannot just stand by when nearly one million young people are out of work.

That is why I have said we should repeat the bank bonus tax and put young people back to work.

We also have to recognise that one in five graduates in work are not doing graduate-level jobs.

In other words they are not being given the opportunity to use the skills for which they have worked so hard.

The pessimistic answer, the apparent answer from this Government, is fewer young people going to university.

Our ambition instead must be to reshape our economy so that Britain’s firms choose a business model rooted in higher skill, higher wage jobs not in so many low skill, low wage jobs.

And for those young people who choose not to go to university we need to construct a better route through vocational training, apprenticeships, and entrepreneurship which give people fulfilling work and chances to get on.

Second, I don’t believe the government’s new university funding plans will leave Britain fit for the 21st century.

Britain will not compete in the world if we put such great burdens on the next generation’s ability to get on.

But I also know we can only meet people’s desire for a better politics if we make promises we know we can keep.

At this stage, I can’t make a promise on tuition fees, but I am clear about our guiding principles.

Genuine access for all, minimising the debt burden on the next generation, and a world-class university system.

I have to say I don’t believe the current policy will achieve these things.

Third, we need to change the way we think about what support families need and have a right to expect.

If we want the next generation to do better than the last we need to make being a parent easier not harder.

That is why our challenge is not just to grow the economy, but also to address something politicians hardly ever talk about – the culture of long working hours, low pay and insecurity at work.

Our family policy needs a better economic policy.

Fourth, all the decisions this government is making on housing – cuts in investment, removing the requirement on local authorities to allow new homes, botching the planning system – will make it harder not easier to provide homes.

Our generation of politicians must act or people will be waiting till their 40s before they buy their first home.

It is a sign of our commitment on this issue that when we said the bank bonus tax should be extended for another year, we said part of it should be used to build homes.

And a task I have set for our policy review is that we must seek to stop the inexorable rise in the average age of home ownership.

Fifth, when I think about my own children, they will judge me in twenty or thirty years time by the extent to which my generation took the environment and climate change seriously.

That is why as part of every aspect of policy – the economy, transport, homes – the environment must be a built in part of what we prioritise.

So these are five priorities which will be central to our work and our next manifesto.

But there’s one other thing.

The overwhelming majority of our young people are decent, and they want to do the best for themselves, their families and their communities.

We owe it to them to paint a fairer picture of young people in our country, and to celebrate what they do.

But it’s a two way street.

The promise of Britain is not just about the promise we make to them, but the promise they must make to themselves and our country to be good citizens.

Let me end with this thought.

When their time comes, future generations will look to our record just as we look to history.

As the child of parents who found refuge in Britain from the Nazis, I owe my life to British decency and democracy, to British freedom.

That’s why the promise of Britain means so much to me.

It’s why I’m so proud of our country, and its people.

It’s why I’m so sure of what we can achieve in the future.

Today my message is a simple one.

I am convinced from listening to people, that the public want more from us.

They want more from our politics.

They want a debate about the kind of country we are now, and the kind of country we could be.

It is our duty as an Opposition to be people’s voice in tough times.

Not just by criticising specific policies, but by setting out a distinct national mission.

To protect the promise of Britain.

A national mission that meets the hopes people have for their children and their grandchildren.

A national mission which ensures Britain’s next generation have a more optimistic future

That is my task.

The task for Labour in opposition.

And in government.

To deliver on the promise of Britain.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, on 31st March 2011 to launch Labour’s local elections campaign.

Thank you for those kind introductions.

Thank you Jo, for letting us join you this morning at your fantastic school – and to all of you for coming.

On May the Fifth it will be a year since the General Election.

For many people the local elections are the first chance for people to reflect on whether our country is heading in the right direction.

So I want to talk to you today about what I believe are the big three challenges facing our country.

– The cost of living crisis facing British Families;

– Whether we can meet the British promise by which the next generation should always do better than the last

– And how we build stronger communities.

I wish this Conservative led government was addressing these challenges.

I wish they understood that in tough times, we need to be ambitious about the kind of nation we should to be.

The problem is that because they have decided to cut too far and too fast, they are taking the country in the wrong direction.

1. From Downing Street to your Street.

We would halve the deficit in four years, and so the Tories say that there’s no real difference between us.

The local elections show how wrong they are, because up and country, we can see how Tory values, Tory choices impact our local communities.

Today we published new research that the Tory-led government’s cuts to local government will hit the average family with cuts of £182 per year.

And that’s on top of the cuts to services, the threat of redundancy, the increase in VAT and the tax credit changes which will make the squeeze even tighter, for the squeezed middle.

The scale and pace of these cuts threaten what I call the promise of Britain – the belief that the next generation must do be tter than the last.

Sure Start centres are being closed. Tuition fees trebled. Education Maintenance Allowances and the Future Jobs Fund scrapped.

The safety of our streets in the battle against crime is being put at risk by scrapping 12,000 police officers. While the youth services, leisure centres and after school clubs that help combat the causes of crime are being shut. These cuts threaten to unpick the very fabric of our communities.

No one should be in any doubt: all these cuts are coming direct from Downing Street to your street.

They go too far. And they are coming too fast.

2. Unfairness

But not only are these cuts happening too far and too fast.

We can see the values of this government in the way they make their cuts.

In our most vulnerable communities, in cities like Manchester and Liverpool, the cuts are nearly twice as deep as the national average, and nearly ten times as deep as in places like Windsor.

Communities across England face these threats. Great Yarmouth, Burnley, Corby, Thanet and West Somerset all face the highest level of cuts.

It‘s not about North versus south, it’s about fair versus unfair.

It’s the trademark of this government.

The politics of division.

3. Labour values

We can do something better.

I want us to do more than simply protest.

I want us to be able to protect.

Labour councils are focusing – and will focus – on supporting front-line services. We want to keep communities strong and safe and share the burden of cuts as fairly as possible.

Being a Labour council under this government is not going to be easy.

Labour councillors are being forced to make some hard choices.

But what matters to us is the chance to put our values into action.

We know that means tough decisions.

So Durham, for instance, facing cuts of £266 for an average family, the Labour council asked their residents, what they wanted to protect.

They said adult social care, so Labour protected those services.

But in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-led Birmingham council, where we are today, adult social care cuts will hurt 11,000 vulnerable people.

The Tories so-called “EasyCouncil” in Barnet, is closing eight children’s centres and cutting sheltered housing wardens for the elderly.

And when it comes to reducing waste, Labour’s Sandwell Council has cut the number of top managers by fifty per cent, so money can go to frontline services.

In Liverpool, ranked by the Audit Commission as having the “worst financial management” in the country under the LibDems Labour’s Joe Anderson and his team found millions of pounds in efficiency savings.

Their reward? Some of the biggest cuts in funding in the country.

So Labour councils will strive to protect what matters most.

Labour councillors will put the communities they serve first.

We will try to make things a little fairer for hard pressed families.

These are our values.

These are the choices we’d make.

If you want a strong first line of defence against cuts that are coming too far, too fast.

If you want the tough decisions taken fairly and openly.

If you want councillors who will be your voice in tough times

Then vote Labour on May the Fifth.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Fabian Society in January 2011.

We’ve just witnessed our first by-election of the Parliament in Oldham East and Saddleworth.

It was an unusual by-election not only because – I am proud to say – Labour won, but also because of the behaviour of our opponents and the great churning of votes between the parties.

David Cameron became the first prime minister in recent years to campaign in a by-election.

And definitely the first party leader that I can remember to not know the name of his own party’s candidate.

Then we saw Nick Clegg vowing to have more public rows with Mr Cameron just to remind people that the Liberal Democrats still have a separate identity.

That is an unusual, probably unhealthy, way to conduct any relationship let alone one in a government that is having such a profound impact on people’s lives.

I suspect it is a symptom of a having coalition based on political convenience rather than values.

But, as I said, it was also unusual because we saw significant transfers of votes from the Liberal Democrats to Labour. From the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats. And from Conservatives to Labour.

Above all, what the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election shows us is that people are deeply uneasy about where this Conservative-led government is taking the country.

However our party would be deluding itself if we thought that meant that the next election would fall into our lap.

The next election will be as much about us as about them—and our ability to change and become the voice and standard-bearer of Britain’s progressive majority once again.  And that’s what I want to talk about today.

Because I believe that from the very founding of the Labour party as the Labour Representation Committee through to the great reforming Labour governments of the second half of the twentieth century and the early years of this, Labour has succeeded when it has seen itself not as a narrow party of sectional interest, but when through a sense of mission, passion and optimism for the future it has become the voice and vehicle for progressive change.

We need to be honest over 13 years in government we forfeited the right in too many people’s minds to be the natural standard bearers for this progressive majority in Britain.

I want to talk today about the reasons why that happened and about the three ways we need to change and change profoundly if we are to put it right.

The first is to understand why our economy has stopped working for people – and how we can again offer a new economic model for Labour and for Britain. In particular, understanding that simply redistributing taxpayers’ money through the welfare state, important though that is, is inadequate and will not build the more just, more sustainable economy.

The second is to recognise the way our managerialism took us away from the instincts and values of the broad progressive majority in Britain.

That our communities came to see us as the people who put markets and commerce before the common good.

And many citizens came to see us also as the people who did not understand that the state could be intrusive as well as empowering.

We must respond to this by breathing new life into our sense of ideological purpose, drawing on what is enduringly good in the Labour tradition, and reaching outside it too.

And third we must accept that in how we do our politics we came to be not leaders of a broad, open progressive majority built on a coalition of values, but into a political force that was far less than that.

We must respond by putting democratic renewal and a willingness to reach out to others beyond our party at the heart of the way we do our politics.

Understanding that Labour must change the way it works and that no one party can claim to have a monopoly of wisdom in today’s politics. That Labour must earn its leadership of Britain’s progressive majority – it is not ours by right.

The Context

Before turning to my argument, let me set the context.

It’s two years since I opened the Fabian New Year Conference of 2009.

I remarked then that the Tories had never been more on the ideological defensive in my political lifetime.

The financial crash had demolished the Conservative fallacy that markets always know best and David Cameron was busy discovering that there was such a thing as society.

Two years later, we are clearly in a very different place.

David Cameron didn’t win the general election last May.  But he did end up as Prime Minister and he hasn’t let the absence of a mandate stop him from embarking on the most ideologically dangerous assault on our public services in a generation.

These changes will re-shape Britain in as profound a way as Mrs Thatcher re-shaped Britain in the 1980s. I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say that everywhere I go I see an assault on many of the things I value – from Sure Start to the way in which the trebling of student debt will kick the ladder of opportunity away from a generation of our young people.

The combination of this assault on our institutions, the global economic crisis and the formation of the Conservative-led government has marked a period of change which occurs only once in a generation.

There have been two other moments in my lifetime when economic upheaval has been followed by a dramatic break in the established pattern of British politics.

The first was the IMF crisis in 1976 and the Winter of Discontent two years later, followed by the defeat of the Callaghan government, the formation of the SDP and eighteen years of Conservative government.

The second was Britain’s ejection from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday, the emergence of New Labour and the election of the first three-term Labour government in our history.

In both cases a fundamental shift in the character and direction of our national politics proved to be enduring.

Facing Up to Defeat

On these two occasions a governing party lost power on the expectation of a quick return to office, and it ended up in the wilderness for a generation.

In both cases that was because they didn’t learn the right lessons about the changing economic circumstances, about what their values meant for their time, and the way they did their politics.

We cannot afford to sit back and wait for this Conservative-led government to fail. That is why we must seize this moment to understand these lessons and to change if we are to ensure that this is a one-term government.

This government is making costly mistakes and will continue to do so.  But it is the changes we make to ourselves that will decide whether we avoid the fate that has befallen parties in the past.

That is why “one more heave” just won’t do.

A party that slumps below 30% of the popular vote has a responsibility to face up to the scale of its loss.

Understanding why we lost touch means learning to see ourselves as the British people see us.

We began learning that lesson after 1983, but it took us far too long.  I am determined that we will not make the same mistake again.

Of course I am proud of the achievements of our last Labour government. The truth is that for a lot of people those achievements are clearer, now that they are under threat from this government.

But let’s not mislead ourselves – aspects of our record in government are also the reason we are now in opposition.

Parties don’t suffer defeats like the one we suffered last May because of an accumulation of small errors.

They do so by making serious mistakes, and that’s why I have said what I have said on issues like Iraq, failing to properly regulate the banks, ignoring concerns about economic security and not doing enough to deliver on the promise of a new politics.

We have to show that we have learnt lessons if the British people are to trust us again.

The Progressive Majority

So that is the scale of the challenge we face.

But if the result of the election showed why we need to change, it also revealed something important about the nature of British politics from which we ought to draw encouragement.

Most people cast their votes for parties that talked about the need to make Britain fairer and more equal, that warned against the dangers of cutting the deficit too early and urged a deepening of democratic reform.

It’s easy to forget today, but that brief bout of Cleggmania was animated by this progressive hunger for change.

So there is a progressive majority in Britain.  It’s just that we failed to attract enough of it to Labour’s cause to return a viable progressive government.

We will rebuild ourselves as a broad movement by understanding where the centre-ground of British politics truly lies.

I want us to become the voice and hope of those who feel squeezed by an economic system that promised to liberate them.

I want us to articulate the frustration of people who are fed up with bankers taking vast public subsidies and then rewarding themselves for failure while the rest of the country struggles.

I want us to be the party that answers the call for a fairer sharing of the nation’s wealth, strong and responsive public services and a different kind of politics.

Over the coming months, I will be talking in greater detail about how we approach the economic challenges, the challenges of renewing our values and the challenge of renewing our politics.

Today I want to set out the direction of that journey.

Economic Crisis

So let me start with the first change we need – on the economy.

The financial crisis shook the world economy, but more specifically it exposed some of the flawed assumptions on which the economic policies of Britain have been based under successive governments.

The last election saw a majority crying out for a party and a government which had learned the lessons of the crisis and could offer Britain a new economic future.  But we must accept that we failed to win the argument that it was Labour that could offer people a better economy working in their interests.

If we are again to offer a vision of hope and change to the majority in Britain it is essential that we learn the right lessons of the crisis. This is the argument that will define this decade and beyond.

The implication of much of what the Conservative-led government say is that it was high levels of public borrowing that caused the crisis. That is just not true.

In fact, it was the crisis that caused high levels of public borrowing.

The deficit rose from manageable levels of around 2% of national income to above 10% because of the global financial crisis.

And when the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are trying to propagate this myth about the past we must not let them get away with it.

The reason is not simply because of desire for truth about the past but because they are using it to shape our future.

They want to tell people that the only lesson to learn from the crisis is that as long as we simply cut back spending far and fast enough, we will contain the deficit and reach the sunny uplands of economic prosperity.

But just as we need to counter their myth about the past, we need to acknowledge what we got wrong.  Along with other national governments, we didn’t get banking regulation right.

And our economy was too vulnerable to the crisis because we were too reliant on financial services.

These are two important lessons of the crisis. But there is a deeper issue about why the crisis happened and what it teaches us about the economy we need to create.

Freer markets combined with ‘light touch’ regulation were sold to middle Britain on the basis that they would guarantee economic freedom, rising living standards and a fair reward for the hard working majority.

For the best of reasons, New Labour signed up to this vision precisely because it spoke to the hopes of aspirational voters.

Our period in office was marked by notable successes: record levels of employment, a decade of continuous growth until 2008, low inflation, low interest rates and the minimum wage.

What is more we used the proceeds of growth to both rebuild public services and tackle poverty.

Whereas before 1997, relative poverty had trebled and the public realm had crumbled, we comprehensively changed the direction in which our country was headed.

But economic growth and productivity masked a hidden truth: that life in the middle was getting harder not easier.

Real wages in the middle may have been rising but they weren’t keeping pace with the rest of the economy.

And they were wildly outstripped by the gains made by those at the top.

And though Labour did a lot to offset this with tax credits and other forms of public support, we found ourselves swimming against stronger economic currents.

The “squeezed middle”, a phrase some people might have thought I would never use again, is not a marketing concept but a reality of life for millions of people as the result of the economy we have.

It speaks to families working hard for long hours, stretching a limited family budget and who found the only way to increase their living standards was to increase their personal debt.

The lesson we must draw is that there is a connection between the inequality of a system that distributes wealth unfairly and the economic imbalances of a country that became too reliant on personal debt and financial services.

Put these parts of the argument together—about regulation, about the need for a broader industrial base and about inequality – and I come to this conclusion: we can’t build economic efficiency or social justice simply in the way we have tried before.

It won’t be enough to rely on a deregulated market economy providing the tax revenues for redistribution.

New Labour’s critical insight in the 1990s and 2000s was that we needed to be stewards of a successful market economy to make possible social justice through redistribution.  The critical insight of Labour in my generation is that both wealth creation and social justice need to be built into the way our economy works.

That’s why I think the living wage, for example, is such a powerful idea.

Because I know that tax credits for all the good they do have their limits.

If we can build an economy with more living wage jobs – and well paying jobs – we embed social justice at the heart of the way the market economy is run rather than having to make it an optional extra.

This is important for us not just because it is necessary to create social justice but because it reflects the fiscal climate we will face in the coming decade.

Why was the last Labour government too slow in the language that we used, after the financial crisis had created a big deficit, to acknowledge what our own plans implied, that there would eventually have to be cuts?  Part of the answer is that we hadn’t shown other ways of delivering social justice.

So the first part of the way we must change is to show we can build a fair economy, with wealth creation and social justice for all at its heart.

Our Values

The second part of our challenge is to understand how over 13 years of government we came to seem detached and remote from the instincts and values of families across Britain – families who share our values but saw a party that was out of touch with their daily struggle.

For all our achievements, I know what our biggest problem was – it afflicts all governments.

We became too technocratic and managerial.

But more than that, we sometimes lost sight of people as individuals, and of the importance of communities.

In our use of state power, too often we didn’t take people with us.  That is why over time people railed against the target culture, the managerialism of public service reform and overbearing government.

At the same time, we seemed in thrall to a vision of the market that seemed to place too little importance on the values, institutions and relationships that people cherish the most.

We turned a blind eye to the impact of out of town retail developments and post office branch closures on our high streets. We knew all about the benefits of a flexible and mobile labour force, but we didn’t think enough about its impact on weakening social bonds and squeezing time with our families.

So people began to see a government which looked remote from they cared about. They could see a government doing things they either agreed with or disagreed with, but not a political movement that spoke to their values.

To change, we will look critically at our traditions and why they have led us to become remote.

Among the many strands of the British Labour tradition, two have proved particularly influential.

The first was the idea of socialism as a kind of missionary work to be undertaken on behalf of the people.

I’m sorry to give the Fabians a hard time, but this view is most obviously associated with the early Fabians around Sidney and Beatrice Webb.

The alternative strand, represented by the co-operative movement and the early trade unions, saw Labour as a grassroots, democratic movement to enable people to lead the most fulfilling lives.

As we seek the right traditions to draw on as a political party in the 21st century, it is so important that we understand the appropriate role of each tradition.

The Webb Fabian tradition was born of an era where the challenge of the Left was meeting people’s basic needs for health, housing, education and relief of poverty.

That need will always remain.

But people rightly expect more out of their lives than simply meeting basic needs.

The New Labour tradition which embraced dynamic markets is also important for our future and creating wealth.

But people don’t just care about the bottom line, there is so much more to life.

So the bureaucratic state and the overbearing market will never meet our real ambition as a party, that each citizen can be liberated to have the real freedom to shape their own lives.

To do that, we need to draw on that other tradition based on mutualism, localism and the common bonds of solidarity that captures the essence of our party at its best.

The belief in those common bonds means we should also be defenders of the things that people value and which are threatened – sometimes by market, sometimes by government.

When we say we care about the closure of a Sure Start, it isn’t just about the supply of a service to individual families.  Sure Start is a place where community is built, as families get to know each other and form friendships.

The same is true of local libraries.

The same is true of ways of life which are deeply ingrained in our country and which we should understand.

Just before Christmas, I went with Jon Cruddas to Billingsgate fish market and met a porter there who told me that the best day of his life was when he got his porter’s badge and that there has not been a day since when he has not woken up feeling proud to be doing the job he does.

That is why politicians should not shrug and walk away when they hear that traditional ways of life are under threat. We should seek to defend ways of life which give people self-respect.

And a Britain of respect and decency demands obligations from all of us.  What offends me most about the outrages in the banks is the sense that some of the bankers apparently feel little obligation to the society and country in which they are located.

It isn’t enough to say this is what the market will pay me – societies are built on deeper social obligation.

I care about the success of our financial services industry – about the jobs it creates.

But today when we you see some of our leading bankers constantly threatening to leave the country, trying to hold the country to ransom and thinking only of themselves, it makes me angry.

And that is why it makes me so angry that this government is refusing to act.

To be at heart of the progressive mainstream, we also need to draw on values that may not have always been central to our party.  One of our tasks is to learn the lessons of the green movement and put sustainability at the heart of what we do.  Another is to draw on the traditions of liberty.

Progressive politics is not just about meeting economic and social needs.

Those are only ever a means to human flourishing and freedom.

Part of that is about upholding the liberty of the person.

Nobody should pretend there aren’t important and difficult choices to be made about how to uphold security and protect liberty. But we didn’t take the need to uphold liberty seriously enough.

In recent months, we have shown with our willingness to support the reduction of 28 day detention to 14 days, we are determined to take liberty seriously as part of our governing philosophy.

The Way We Do Politics

So we must renew our approach to the economy, and renew our values.

But thirdly, we also have to reform our approach to politics.

Not since the era of the rotten borough has our political system faced such a grave crisis of legitimacy as the one it now faces.

From declining turnout and shrinking electoral rolls to anger over expenses and broken promises on tuition fees, people have lost trust in politics and its ability to offer solutions to the problems they face.

That crisis is a matter of national urgency. It’s a crisis of unreformed institutions, broken promises, remote political parties and a knee-jerk adversarial political culture.

Part of the problem has been the failure of all parties to honour repeated promises to usher in a new politics.

Of course that involves reforming our political institutions.  Our own credibility was undermined by our failure to honour a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on voting reform and the stalling of democratic reform of the House of Lords.

We will take every opportunity to reform the way our political system works.  That is the reason I will be campaigning in favour of the Alternative Vote in the referendum.  I will keep my promise.

But this audience knows that very few people on the doorstop ask about the Alternative Vote or reform of the House of Lords.  They think the reason politics is discredited is because politicians always break their promises.

The reality is that that the broken promises of this government do not just damage their own reputations, but that of all politicians. That is why we have to be careful not to over-promise, either in terms of language or in terms of policy.

But that is just part of the story of how we renew our politics.

Think back to our early days as a political party.

Of course, we fought elections but we did a lot more than that.

We were part of the fabric of community life through our wider movement: not just the trade unions, but the co-operative movement.

Nostalgia for times past is not an answer to the challenges of the future.

But the challenge to us all is to be a genuine movement for change appropriate to our time up and down the country.

That is why as part of our party reform, we want to learn the lessons of organisations like London Citizens to become a genuine community organising movement.

The only way we rebuild the case for politics is from the ground up.

The campaign for the local library, the local zebra crossing, the improvement of a school, must be our campaign.

And not just campaigns for the state to do things, but campaigns that achieve things themselves.

There is one other thing we need to change in our politics.

No party has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue, and it is foolish to pretend that they do.

The decision of the Liberal Democrats to join a Conservative-led government was a tragic mistake, and I hope they come to see that in time.

Forgive me if I decline to join those who are gloating at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.

Because their mistake means they are part of a government attempting to shift politics to the Right.

I am certainly pleased that many Liberal Democrats now see Labour as the main progressive hope in British politics.

Thousands of them have joined us since the election.

I want them to find a welcome home in our party – not just making up the numbers, but contributing actively to the strengthening of our values and the renewal of our policies.

But equally there are many Liberal Democrats who have decided to stay and fight for the progressive soul of their party. Most of them do not want to see their progressive tradition sacrificed for personal ambition.

I respect their choice too and I understand how painful it must be to watch what is happening to their party.

We do not doubt that they hold sincere views and we will co-operate, where we can in Parliament and outside, with those that want to fight the direction of this government.

It is our duty to work with progressives everywhere.

Conclusion

So this is the way we need to seize the mantle of progressive politics and shape the economic, ideological and political landscape of the future.

Building a fair economy.

Rooting our values in traditions and ideas that go beyond the bureaucratic state and the overbearing market

And a different kind of politics

The prize is not simply a Labour government but more than that.

It is about a political movement that in every community up and down this country can shape the politics of the future.

Make our values and our ideas the commonsense of our age.

And shape a country and a world based on our ideals.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the 2010 Scottish Labour Party conference in Oban.

Conference, it is a privilege to be here with you today in Oban.

Can I begin by thanking you for the support and unity you have shown since I became leader.

As we approach Remembrance Sunday let me start by paying tribute to all our troops serving in Afghanistan including those from Scotland.

We owe them and their families an enormous debt of gratitude for their bravery and commitment.

Let me say how good it is to be working alongside Iain Gray.

Iain has led this party in Scotland with a sense of values and purpose.

He has helped rebuild Labour in Scotland and helped the party regain the trust of the public.

I look forward to working with him and you to make sure he is the next First Minister of Scotland.

And I want to thank yo u all for the tremendous result you achieved in Scotland at the General Election.

Let us pay tribute to the great Scottish wins of 2010.

We won seats where the media had written us off.

Like Edinburgh South – and let us pay tribute to Ian Murray MP for his victory.

We won seats back from the SNP and Liberal Democrats.

Glasgow East – and let us applaud the absolute determination and relentless campaigning of Margaret Curran MP.

And Dunfermline and West Fife – let us congratulate Thomas Docherty MP for taking that seat back.

We increased our majority in once marginal seats.

Like East Renfrewshire which has gone from being the safest Tory seat in Scotland to a seat where Labour wins half the vote because of our brilliant former Scottish Secretary, now the Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy.

And let me also say that I will be supporting the Scottish election campaign with Jim’s excellent successor – a woman with grit and determination, Ann McKechin.

In fact, we have a record number of women in the Shadow Cabinet.

And I can tell this Conference I won’t rest until we have true gender equality in our party.

And let me pay tribute to the best fighter for gender equality and equality in every sense that our party has – our fantastic deputy leader Harriet Harman.

Let me also thank our formidable Scottish General Secretary, Colin Smyth and his team for the work they do and the dedication they show.

And I want to acknowledge the excellent work of our councillors all across this country.

We must make sure that as well as winning the Scottish elections in 2011, we also win back control of councils across Scotland in 2012.

Coming back to Scotland reminds me of the many occasions I have come here with the person I worked with for a number of years – Gordon Brown.

He taught me many things about Scotland and about politics.

It was my privilege to work with him to help win those first Scottish Parliament elections.

He has an incredible legacy: he improved the lives of millions of people here and around the world.

I am proud to call him my friend. We should pay tribute today to Gordon Brown for his leadership of our party and our country.

I remember visiting Gordon at his home in Fife and looking over the River Forth where my father served in the Royal Navy during the war.

Along with my mum, he came as a refugee from the Nazis and built a life here.

It was his values – it is my mum’s values – that explain why I am standing on this stage today.

They taught me some basic principles: most of all, a sense of optimism that politics, that people can change our society and be a force for good.

Fundamentally this is an optimism about people acting together, and their ability to change the society in which we live.

The belief that injustice, unfairness, inequality are not immovable facts.

Our world can be what we make of it not simply what we inherit.

That is what I was taught as I grew up.

That is my family’s experience; that is their story.

That too is our story as a labour movement.

It is a story that echoes down the ages.

Keir Hardie believed that getting representation for workers in Parliament could make a difference to the lives of working people.

And it did.

Clement Attlee in the economic ruins of the Second World War had the optimism to believe that we could build a National Health Service.

And he did.

And this month, we mark the 10th anniversary of the death of someone who fought long and hard for a Scottish Parliament, for a voice for the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom, and had the vision to believe it was possible.

And it was.

The man to whom the Scottish Parliament is a living memorial – Donald Dewar.

What ties together all of these struggles is a belief in human progress: that the forces of optimism can defeat the forces of pessimism that would say things cannot change.

What is the nature of this optimism?

It is about acting together so that we can change the world.

But it is about more than that.

It is about a view of human nature which says that we do care about ourselves and our families, but we also recognise that the interests of each of us is served by the flourishing of all of us.

And that politics at its best can unlock new possibilities for our world.

And what about those forces of pessimism?

They tell us that a belief that our world can change is a flight of fancy: unfairness, inequality are facts of life.

That people are best left on their own, and that government is normally the problem not the solution.

And the best thing politics can do, they say is get out of the way.

I’m afraid that is today’s Conservative Pa rty. That is David Cameron.

The fundamental difference between the optimists and the pessimists is that they believe that the greatness of a country lies merely in individual acts.

Whereas we understand that greatness lies in what we achieve as individuals and what we achieve together.

Each generation is called to this fight.

And so as we think about how we rebuild as a party after what was a bad general election defeat, let us be true to who we are.

What is the character of the party I intend to lead?

Let it be true to our values of fairness, prosperity, aspiration and justice – the values that brought me into this party – and you.

As Donald Dewar said of John Smith: “He knew politics was the art of the possible, but on the great principles he would not give ground.”

Let us understand the reasons we lost power across the United Kingdom and show humility: because we lost touch and because people lost a sense of what we st ood for and whose side we were on.

Let us always remember that we had great leaders who held power but too many great leaders who never did: there is no role for this party as one of protest; we must be a party of government again.

Let us ensure that the new generation embraces and responds to the new issues that people face in their lives: from aging to immigration to climate change.

And let us be a movement not a fan club: debating issues, reaching out to the community beyond our own party, linked to the trade unions and all of civil society and above all, a party that people want to join because of our ideals.

In this way, let us fight for optimism in our time.

This task starts with our economy and the financial crisis and the lessons we draw from it.

The pessimists want to tell you that the problem of the financial crisis was government.

That somehow a crisis that began with financial markets out of control should be seen as a cris is of government’s making.

That is why they have spent the last five months telling you that all the problems we now face are Labour’s fault.

Conference, we must stand up for the truth.

We know the story and we must tell it like it is.

There was a global financial crisis affecting every country and every country is having to cope with the consequences.

Remember, our government paid down the debt before the crisis hit.

At the same time we were investing in the schools, the hospitals, the infrastructure which had suffered chronic under-investment under the previous Conservative government.

I remember it – I went to school in the 1980s.

Conference, we didn’t just fix the roof, we built the schools.

And we didn’t just cut the waiting lists, we built the hospitals.

And we didn’t just do it when the sun was shining either, we did it all year round.

My partner is due to have our second child… any minute now actually.

She will do so in a brand new NHS hospital.

It was us, the optimists, that won the argument for the investment in that hospital and made it possible.

Conference, we should all be proud of this record and we should stand up for it – because it made Britain stronger and fairer.

But why did the deficit go up so much?

Not because of this investment.

But because we lost 6% of our economy due to the global financial crisis.

Because Alistair and Gordon used the power of government to stop recession becoming depression and stopped people losing their jobs, homes and savings.

That’s why the deficit rose and we should fight back against the Tory deceit.

The pessimists are trying to rewrite history.

Why? Because they don’t believe in the role of government.

They’re hoping that if they win the argument about the past, they can win the argument about the future.

What is our responsibility as the optimists?

To learn the right lessons of history.

That markets unchecked and unfettered in finance can spiral out of control and must instead be regulated.

That we can’t have an economy based on one type of industry. We need to lead in all of the industries of tomorrow – from bio-tech to creative industries to green manufacturing.

And we must learn the lesson that a more unequal economy is a more unstable economy.

If we don’t properly reward lower and middle-income families, they will rely on ever-increasing personal debt.

And if those at the top feel there are one-way bets worth millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of pounds, they will gamble without responsibility.

We should never let that happen again and have ordinary families paying the price.

The flaw in their plan is this, if we reduce our economic policy simply to deficit reduction, we will not build the strong economy of the future.

Of course we need to reduce the deficit.

Everybody in this room agrees about that and we would have halved it over four years if we had been in government.

We would have made some tough decisions and no doubt some unpopular ones too.

But I have to tell you this: I believe they’ve got it wrong in the pace and scale of deficit reduction.

They’ve got it wrong because they have no plan for jobs and growth.

And they have no plan for fairness either.

Their cuts will mean half a million jobs lost in the public sector over the coming years.

A similar number in the private sector.

One million jobs lost—that’s their plan.

And how will they replace them? By hoping that things turn out OK and that the private sector fills the gap.

The Tories say we want recession or indeed that we are predicting it.

We’re not and it’s nonsense for them to pretend we are.

But there’s no plan to make growth happen and n o plan if things go wrong.

And what do they offer those people who have lost their jobs?

They say wait and see, fingers crossed.

We remember Conference the effects of unemployment which scarred communities for generations here in Scotland and all over the UK.

We have a fundamentally different view about what our economy can achieve for people and how to make it so.

We need to reform our financial system.

We need to invest in the industries of the future. We need to use the power of govt procurement to promote British businesses and we need to provide people with the skills they need.

And we say unemployment is never a price worth paying.

We say never again.

And we have a different view about society as well.

The Tories used to say that there’s no such thing as society

Now they claim they’ve wised up… now they offer something you may have heard of… the big society.

They praise the special cons table, the parent/teacher council, the tenants association, the local charity.

They say they want more of it.

But Conference, what does it really amount to?

They think if government gets out of the way, the big society will miraculously spring up.

They fail to learn the lessons of history.

Today we have more voluntary organisations than ever before in Britain; more people working in the sector than ever before; and the sector’s income is double what it was when we came to office.

Not because government got out of the way but because it supported and encouraged this important part of civil society.

I saw as minister for charities the amazing work that is being done by the voluntary sector but it was based on a vital partnership between the state and citizens.

And what happens now when budgets are being so savagely cut?

When the local day centre closes, it destroys the services on which elderly people depend.

When the local library reduces its hours, it destroys the place at which people come together.

And when people are worried sick about losing the roof over their head and moving their children to another school, how they can be active in the parent/teacher council?

And do you know what has been revealed about this government since the Spending review last week:

It’s not just economically wrong,

It’s not just unfair,

It is grossly incompetent.

And we all know it is families and children who will pay the price.

They announced a child benefit policy which is unfair and now apparently unworkable.

It’s a complete shambles.

Next came a Housing Benefit policy that their own Mayor of London detests.

Why is it fair for someone who has been doing the right thing… who’s been looking for work for a year… to lose 10% of the help with their rent?

Don’t they get it? If you drive up homelessness, families end up in bed and breakfasts, and that costs more.

Why are they showing this incompetence?

Because of ideology – they came into politics to make these cuts;

Because they’re out of touch – they don’t understand the lives and experiences of ordinary people;

And because they’ve made bad decisions in haste and stubbornly refuse to change.

A week from Tuesday we will force a vote in the House of Commons on Housing Benefit.

Our appeal is to all MPs of conscience:

Join us, vote against these unfair and unworkable changes and force the government to think again.

And there will be no better person to lead our attack than my friend of nearly 20 years, someone who really did come into politics to help the poorest in society, our Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Douglas Alexander.

The big society is one big figleaf for an old pessimistic idea: that people do better on their own.

The optimists have a different view of society and the state.

We know – and this is a hard lesson – that government can be overbearing. We know the importance, particularly in the years ahead, of getting more for the money the state spends.

But we also know that the right and the best kind of government can support people to take control of their own lives.

When I visited the Wellhouse project in Easterhouse with Margaret Curran, I saw the difference that it was making to people: improving the health of young and old people, helping tenants have a real say in housing decisions and a fantastic community centre.

We understand that the good children’s centre enables families to go out to work and form bonds with others.

Good neighbourhood policing provides the reassurance and the security that is the foundation for communities to thrive.

And many of the best voluntary organisations have a mix of paid staff and volunteers.

Ours is a view about the good society where we support each other.

Let me tell you also what we understand: the good society depends on the fair economy.

If you are holding down two jobs, working fourteen hour days, worrying about childcare, anxious about elderly relatives, how can you find the time for anything else?

That’s why we need an economy which lifts people out of poverty and supports not just a minimum wage but a decent living wage.

Until we address the conditions that mean that people’s lives are dominated by long hours, then the big society will always remain a fiction.

And I tell you this also: we know the divided society cannot be the good society.

We know that from the 1980s: the last big experiment in the retreat of government.

We know that every major city across the country lost out: economically weakened, socially divided and here in Scotland it took almost twenty years to fully recover.

Two decades on, we know that economic regeneration and social improvement have happened together.

And we know the dangers of going backwards.

Mr Cameron by your deeds not your words shall we know you.

There’s no point in saying you believe in the big society, if by your actions you undermine and weaken the very fabric of our communities.

But let us be the party who always stand for giving our citizens greater control over their own lives

And what greater example is there of us giving people more control than devolution.

The Scottish Parliament is one of our proudest achievements.

When Scottish Labour led the government, it pioneered historic firsts:

Free bus travel for the elderly;

Land reform;

The smoking ban.

And again at these elections ahead of us in May, as Iain will set out tomorrow, it will be Scottish Labour leading the way.

Let me say something about Iain’s leadership.

He learnt the lessons of why we lost power in Scotland.

He’s shown how to reconnect with people’s lives and hopes.

He has shown that values must drive everything we do.

That is why his campaigns on school standards, safer streets and apprenticeships speak to who we are and who we represent.

And what is the alternative?

If there is one lesson that the economic crisis teaches us, it is that we are stronger together and weaker apart.

The collective resources of Britain, the tens of billions of pounds that we invested to protect people’s savings and homes was only possible because we are one United Kingdom.

Where would each of us have been on our own? Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland.

Let’s face it: across the world, the debate has changed since the financial crisis.

And who is left behind? The Scottish National Party.

As problems become more global, the solutions need to be global too.

As the climate change secretary, I saw the impact that Britain could have when we worked together.

We may be 2% of global emissions but we punch above our weight.

Does anyone really think any one of us would have more influence on the climate change debate if we went our separate ways?

Narrow nationalism has nothing to offer the challenges of the 21st century.

While we’re fighting for jobs and hope, they are fighting to break up Britain.

They claim that an independence referendum is a referendum on jobs.

Let us make next May’s election a referendum on the job they have done for the people of Scotland.

Never has a party promised so much and delivered so little…

Like their broken promises on class sizes, student debt and support for first time buyers.

They have let down the people of Scotland. And Scotland deserves better.

And what about the Lib Dems?

What did they used to say?

The progressive alternative to Labour.

It has taken Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander just five short months to undermine 150 years of the Liberal tradition.

Remember what they said: Vote for us to keep the Tories out.

Have they no shame?

Now they have become the cheerleaders for the worst things the Tory government does.

The VAT rise? Send out a Lib Dem.

Child benefit cut? Put up a Lib Dem.

Housing benefit slashed? Get me a Lib Dem.

No wonder Nick Clegg is choosing his desert island discs.

And let’s make sure that coming soon to an election near you is a new hit series:

I’m a Liberal Democrat, get me out of here.

And as they face the prospect of electoral meltdown, what do they do?

They try to rig our electoral boundaries.

Get this, the government that claims to care about localism is now saying local identity doesn’t matter when it comes to boundaries – unless you happen to be Charles Kennedy whose constituency gets a special opt-out.

We all care about endangered species in the Highlands and Islands, but we draw the line at Lib Dems.

Talking about endangered species, what about the Scottish Tories. What about them?

So we are the optimists, we are the only credible alternative to the pessimists who would damage our economy and divide our society.

But this election won’t be won simply by Iain, myself and other MP and MSP colleagues.

Everything we know from our history tells us that it is people that change the world.

This will be a doorstep election, won or lost by us.

It is the hard graft, the dedication, the hours we put in that will decide this election.

It is our chance to show we are back on people’s side – optimists with the right values to change our country.

This election is critical to the people of Scotland.

Four more years of broken SNP promises or a new start under Iain Gray.

And it is a vital moment in Labour’s rebuilding across the United Kingdom.

Britain cannot afford this to be anything other than a one-term coalition.

So let the message go out.

We are ready to take our case to the people of Scotland.

We are ready to take on the pessimists.

There is an alternative.

Based on our values – an optimistic future for Scotland.

Labour’s fight back has begun.

We are ready for the fight.

Let’s fight for the people we came into politics to serve

Let’s stand up for Scotland.

Let’s fight to win.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the 2010 CBI Conference.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to address the CBI Annual Conference as Leader of the Labour party.

I want to pay tribute to the work that the CBI does as the voice of British business and I want to pay particular tribute to Richard Lambert.

He has been an outstanding advocate on many issues for progressive business sense.

As befits a party that lost the election only five months ago and a leader beginning his fifth week in charge, I am not here to give you my manifesto for 2015, but to set out our direction for the future, and begin the process of engagement we need with you, the wealth creators and entrepreneurs of Britain.

New Labour’s insight in the 1990s was to recognise that we needed to be a party that understood wealth creation as well as its distribution, that we needed to be for economic prosperity as well as social justice and that solving our society’s problems could not be done without a partnership between government and business.

With Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, John Denham as the Shadow Business Secretary and Douglas Alexander as the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we intend to carry forward all of these New Labour insights.

Enterprise and job creation are fundamental to the good economy and good society and I will lead a party that understands that at its core.

The argument I want to make today is that because the world has changed so much since the 1990s and because we need to learn lessons from success and failure, what it means to be pro-business in the 2010s is different to what it meant back then.

The result of the financial crisis is that we have a deficit we need to cut, but the lessons are much deeper.

In tackling the deficit, we need to recognise the fundamental weaknesses in our economy that led to it and which we need to put right if we are to have a stronger economic future.

Let me start with the deficit.

I want to be clear: if we had won power in May, there would have been cuts.

We will therefore be selective about the cuts we will oppose and will support.

On welfare, we have said that we will work with the government on reforms to Disability Living Allowance, sickness benefits and other areas where there is genuine reform.

We will support reforms which bring greater value for money.

Now, this audience will know that we have a difference with the government on the pace and scale of deficit reduction. We do believe that a four year timetable for halving the deficit would be a better approach.

And, I do fear that the path the government is pursuing is a gamble with growth and jobs.

They have a programme which will lead to the disappearance of a million private and public sector jobs but no credible plan to replace them.

And their refusal to accept that a deficit reduction plan has to be sensitive to changing economic circumstances needlessly makes the British economy a hostage to fortune.

Time will tell whether they turn out to be right.

But my wider point is this – we don’t just need to pay down the deficit in a way that ensures growth now: we need to understand the causes of the high deficit and the deeper lessons about our economy to prevent a recurrence of the financial crash and build a strong economy for the future.

There is a view that the deficit arose solely because of spending choices made in the last decade.

In fact, the deficit was 2.4% of national income in 2007/8, broadly the same level as public sector capital investment.

It was what happened next that led to led to a deficit of over 10%: a combination of the loss of 6% of our national income, and the tax receipts that went with them; the consequent rise in benefit spending; and the discretionary decisions to stabilise the economy.

Not everything the last government did was right, but if we misread history we will fail to tackle the big structural issues we face in our economy.

There are important lessons to be learned about why the deficit went up so significantly and we need a wider plan for our economy which understands these deeper lessons.

Without profound change in the way we manage our economy, we are at risk of at best, sleepwalking back to an economy riddled with the same risks as we saw before the recession hit.

First, a new system of financial regulation which avoids a repeat of the crash and creates a banking system that works better in the interests of our economy.

Second, a new approach to industrial policy so we have a more balanced economy.

And third, we need to do more to create an economy which by supporting everyone to make a decent living, whether in employment or a by starting a small business, creates a more stable platform of economic growth.

First, on financial regulation.

British political debate in the last thirty years has been dominated by debate about the dangers of excessive regulation.

Government should always be vigilant about the substance and implementation of regulation.

But as is now widely recognised, the financial crisis revealed the real dangers of the opposite.

If government fails to play its proper role, businesses suffer.

The financial services industry in Britain is a major employer and it is important that it remains strong.

But over time, support for financial services led to competitive deregulation as countries sought to extract comparative advantage.

We need policy-makers and regulators who recognise that we need stronger rules but also that we need a culture that balances the need to support financial services with the need to protect our wider economy.

And, change shouldn’t just be about reducing risk but also about increasing opportunity.

We must also use this moment to tackle the historic problem that we have long faced in the British economy: our financial services industry is a great employer but does not do enough to support small business and industry.

As Richard Lambert said in a speech earlier this month: “One constant complaint I hear from SMEs around the country is that decisions which affect their business are not being taken by people who know anything about it. Instead, they are referred up to the centre, where loan requests are decided against a set of box-ticking benchmarks.”

This has been a decades-long problem and business as usual will not tackle it.

That is why I hope the banking commission and indeed the government looks radically at the structure of the banking system but also at the case for new models of ownership in the banking sector.

Both Richard and Paul Myners have suggested the case for greater public involvement in helping to finance the small business sector, for example through a new small business bank, like the ICFC created after the Second World War.

Others have made the case for mutuals and for public/private structures of banking ownership, as we make decisions about the stakes we have in the banks.

All of these issues should be on the table if we are to get the banking system our economy needs.

Secondly, we should learn the lessons of the financial crisis: that we need to more fundamentally reform our economy if we are to broaden our economic base.

The truth is that over time, Britain became over-reliant on the financial services sector – for jobs and for tax revenues. Financial services became the goose that laid the golden egg.

This is why, in part, the deficit went up so much in the UK after the financial crash happened.

Until late in its time in office, I believe our government did not do enough to support other sorts of industry in this country.

Scarred by the failed exercise in picking winners decades ago, government has been too afraid to support the industries of the future.

Under governments of both parties, we let other countries steal a march on us and I fear the same may happen again: from creative industries to green manufacturing to bio-sciences.

Despite all the talent in engineering and work in our universities, I fear Britain still suffers from an anti-manufacturing bias.

The way to support British businesses who want to lead in the industries of the future isn’t for government to do nothing.

Government action can make a difference, and government inaction can make life harder.

Where do we need to do better?

In finance as I have already said.

As Energy Secretary, I was constantly struck by the risk aversion in relation to new green industries compared to say, construction.

And in the absence of commercial finance, sometimes government needs to step in.

For example, the decision to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters risks our traditional problem: bought by Britain, made elsewhere.

We need to do better in public procurement, where we do not yet do enough to get bang for our buck when it comes to supporting British business.

We need support for infrastructure that provides a platform for new industries, from ports for the wind industry to broadband and high speed rail.

And we need to make sure we have the right skills base, growing the pool of talent in Britain which can attract new industries.

All too often, British success is undermined by one or more missing elements. Too often poor public policy or a lack of action leads to failure.

As an opposition, a focus on the future sources of prosperity and growth will be at the heart of our policy review.

Nobody should pretend these are easy questions to answer but we must not ignore them and continue with business as usual.

Third, we must address a deeper and perhaps the most challenging lesson of the financial crisis.

We went into it with an economy in which rising living standards for too many lower and middle income families, depended on high levels of personal debt and rising asset prices.

Why was this?

We were successful as an economy at creating jobs but not good enough at creating and sustaining well-paying, high productivity jobs.

Indeed globalisation – trade and immigration – had the effect of squeezing out middle-income jobs, and holding down wages in a number of sectors in our economy.

And while for individual companies, this had benefits, for too many families they had no option but to take on higher levels of debt to sustain their standards of living.

In the world after the credit crunch, this is not a credible route to sustaining higher living standards or overall demand in our economy.

So the long-term task we face is to move towards an economy in which good quality jobs attract rising salaries, alongside rising productivity, both for the good of those families and the prosperity of our economy.

This requires the kind of broader industrial base I talked about earlier, but it also requires a shift away from Britain’s competitive advantage being in low paid, low skilled jobs.

As the last government and many of you have rightly said, this depends on having a better skilled and higher productivity workforce.

Government must play a role in this: sometimes through direct support for training, but that does not always make it happen.

We therefore need to find new ways of rewarding those employers who invest in their workforce.

So I have suggested, for example, tax cuts for those employers who pay the living wage as an incentive to develop the skills of the people who work for them.

We also need to do more to support people and local communities to take control of their own economic future.

That means much greater emphasis on small business.

There have been and still are too few in British politics who speak up for small business.

The change Tony Blair brought to our party rightly made us more open to the business community, but we have not yet done enough to understand the real importance of small business as a way of liberating individuals and creating the economy we need.

I want our party to stand up for small business and entrepreneurs.

And I look forward to working with you to help create this high wage high productivity economy in Britain.

Our country faces some big choices in the months and years ahead.

We can accept an analysis that nothing matters bar deficit reduction.

But I fear that is a gamble with growth and jobs.

Even more importantly, it does not address the deeper risks and flaws in our economy.

To think this is the best we can hope for is a deeply pessimistic view.

I believe we need to take a different and more optimistic approach – an approach that sees deficit reduction as a start not an end and is willing to learn the profound lessons of the crisis.

My view is that it is only this that truly serves the interests of British business.

It is only this that will insulate business from the risks that are part and parcel of the financial services industry.

It is only this that will actively support the creation of British industries that can lead in the global economy of tomorrow.

It is only this that can combine fairness, prosperity and economic stability.

That is what I believe it means to be pro-business in the wake of the financial crisis.

It is the pro-business approach I will adopt.

I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.

Thank you.