Blog

  • Simon Hughes – 2008 Liberal Democrat Conference Speech

    Conference, it is a pleasure and a privilege for our conference to meet in this great northern seaport city of Liverpool, the city where focus began. Our party is committed to build on the progress of liberal democracy in the north of England – in this city, in Leeds and Manchester, in Newcastle and Sheffield and in many other places besides. Mike Storey was a hugely effective leader for our party in this city and this party owes him a huge political debt. Warren Bradley has proved a tough and worthy successor, and he and his team deserve all our continuing support – above all in this European Capital of Culture year – as they seek a new mandate for our party from the people in May. Offers to help will be gladly received all weekend at the ALDC stall. (With, I am told, a tickling stick for reward!)

    No sooner had I finished my last speech to Conference than I had to leave very quickly for Birmingham, where my dear mother Paddy was critically ill. My brothers and I were really touched at the very warm and generous wishes sent to us from Brighton that week. Paddy miraculously pulled through that crisis but very sadly died last November. Our party, as well as her family and friends, owe her a great debt of gratitude, as we do to people like Claire Brooks, Cyril Carr and so many others up and down the length of Britain who have given so much of their energy, skill and time to deliver liberal democracy locally and nationally. As we work ambitiously for the future we should always be encouraged by the work and witness of so many great campaigners who have brought us to our present position – stronger than for over 80 years.

    Since Brighton, the party has been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride.

    But four people in particular deserve our very special thanks.

    I want first to pay a very warm tribute to Ming – and to Elspeth – for all Ming did for our party as leader, to thank him most sincerely, and to express our warmest wishes for his continuing contribution to liberal democracy in parliament, in Scotland, across Britain, and beyond. Ming has added hugely to the respect and credibility of our party, both at home and abroad.

    Next I pay tribute to Chris Huhne – on his very doughty leadership contest, and on his unqualified support for Nick since then. After winning huge credibility on environmental issues, Chris has got off to a flying start as our new Shadow Home Secretary – absolutely clear in our opposition to ID cards and further detention without charge, and standing up for the liberties of our people.

    A third parliamentary colleague has become a complete star since our last conference – Vince Cable. Vince not only has now been touted as possibly the most popular politician in Britain, but in his opposition to the regime in Saudi Arabia and his proposals for dealing with Northern Rock, he has earned huge respect across the country.

    And then Nick. Our new leader has done us proud, from the very day of his election. We all know that the last few days have been difficult – but a week is a long time in politics. I can tell you conference that no leader could have made the party’s position more clear or been more principled. Nick is determined that our party will make the positive case for maximum participation in the European Union, but never to the detriment of the rights of the British people. All Liberal Democrat MPs are united in our belief that we need to make the case for the European Union direct to the British people, so that, once and for all, Britain can shed its reputation for being so lukewarm on Europe. Britain will never be trusted in the leadership of our continent until we show that our commitment to Europe is for life, not just for one more Christmas. And we will take no lectures from Labour or the Conservatives over leadership and the EU.

    Thank you, Nick, for your leadership, your principle and your vision. We share your ambition and look forward to great things ahead.

    Since Nick’s election we have done best of the three major parties in local elections. That is a good sign. But as we all know, the next big test is May 1st – just 54 days time. In the north-west alone there are 33 councils up for election in the North West of England. Across England there are so many prizes to be won. Hull and North East Lincolnshire are just waiting for majority Liberal Democrat control. Cheltenham, Maidstone and many other places are champing at the bit to push back the Conservatives, Oldham and Sheffield to push back Labour.

    In Wales, Cardiff, Bridgend, Swansea and Wrexham all deserve to have larger Liberal Democrat groups after May.

    But good results will not just happen, as we all know. We will all need to work hard, focus our collective efforts and get our messages out to voters. To achieve the results we know Liberal Democrats are capable of, we need those of you who have no elections to cross local boundaries to help those who have. We need local efforts to be directed first to the ‘swing wards’. And we need maximum numbers of friends and supporters to be asked to help out with delivery of literature and knocking on doors.

    And in London, the battle is well and truly on.

    Brian Paddick is an exceptionally well qualified candidate to take on Ken Livingstone, who on reducing crime, building social housing and much else has promised much but quite simply failed to deliver.

    And Brian Paddick is also a seriously well qualified candidate to take on the Boris-Johnson-come-lately of the London political scene.

    All of Britain knows our capital would be better led by a senior copper than a serial clown.

    It is our job to convert that belief into votes and reality.

    And what fantastic campaigning opportunities the government has given us.

    Following Labour policy, Post Office Ltd .have just announced proposals to close 169 post offices across Greater London. And we must not let the Tories get away with hiding the fact that they did just the same. Liberal Democrats – at conference – agreed not just that we should oppose the present closure programme, but also where new funding to support the post office network would come from. The public are behind us in fighting for these vital local services and we must not let Labour off the hook.

    Nationally, we have a Gordon Brown government which has all the disadvantages of New Labour, but without the style.

    In London, we have a Ken Livingstone government, which has all the disadvantages of old Labour, but without the style.

    In London, as across the UK, we need a government which has none of the disadvantages of old or new Labour, but with lots of style. With Nick leading us nationally, and Brian leading us in London, that’s just what we’ll have.

    In Bermondsey, we are this year celebrating 25 years since this party helped me win our momentous by-election and we went on to win our first council seat – and nineteen years later to run the council. With determination and the right approach, any and every seat is winnable, and there should be no ‘no-go’ areas.

    We must field candidates in every possible election, and when we’re successful, make sure that our work and our record means that we don’t slip back. We must never forget that we win hearts and minds, not principally by votes and speeches in committee meetings or in debating chambers, but by campaigning with and for people when they need us, and where they have been ignored by complacent councils and supposedly safe MPs.

    I am delighted to report that party membership is now growing strongly. I still believe thousands more people will join us if we ask. We all have a responsibility for recruiting and retaining members all of the time. With Nick at the helm, determined to lead a party that challenges the establishment at Westminster and campaigns vigorously around the country, there will be many ready and willing to join us. Just look at the motivating effect of Barack Obama’s campaign across the Atlantic – the excitement, and the opportunity.

    If we are determined to make politics exciting as well as principled, to lead the movement for change in corrupt regimes abroad and outdated practices at home, then the widespread cynicism can be countered, and we can achieve our next goal of more than doubling our parliamentary seats within two elections.

    Tonight in London, David Haye from Bermondsey can become the undisputed cruiserweight boxing champion of the world. Today Wales can beat Ireland, and next week Liverpool can beat Milan in the Champions League.

    In this hall are many individual champions and local council champion teams. Liberal Democrats have the capacity and ideas to be the new champions in Wales, Scotland, England, and for Britain.

    Go for it, friends. Nothing should be beyond our reach.

  • Simon Hughes – 1983 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Simon Hughes in the House of Commons on 21st March 1983.

    I hope that it is significant that I utter my first words in the House on the first day of spring. The occasion may be doubly significant in that I follow not only to these Benches but in this debate a Member for the borough of Croydon. In 1949 Fenner Brockway wrote a biography of one of my most eminent predecessors, Dr. Salter, whom I believe you met, Mr. Speaker, before you were called to high office or had started on your journey to this place.

    The borough from which my constituency takes its name was described by Fenner Brockway in 1949 as a backwater in the life of the metropolis”. I shall deal with the economics of the matter in a moment, but politically one thing seems sure. Not only is Bermondsey no longer a political backwater; it is arguable that today there runs through it the strongest current in British political life. That may be because over many years, and particularly since they have been closed, massive pressure has built up behind the dock gates that have represented the industry and the economy of that part of south-east London, and that pressure has found its escape at last.

    In 1884 the Bill to establish separate parliamentary representation for Bermondsey was introduced in the House by the Liberal Adminstration. The issue which concerned the first Member for Parliament for the area was one that is as commonly discussed on these Benches today. It was the issue of electoral reform. Seventy-five years ago my Rotherhithe predecessor, Mr. Carr-Gomm, argued for the representation of workers on the Port of London Authority. The demand for the proper representation of workers on the seat of management has not been heeded as it might have been in the intervening time.

    Sixty years ago, in 1923, in an address to the electors of Bermondsey before a campaign that was successful, but—perhaps I know the feeling—not originally expected to be so, a Methodist minister and Liberal candidate, Rev. Kedward said: The enemies are in front of us in plain sight: unemployment, poverty, sickness, bad housing; let us attack them with courage. He continued: There is no easy road to victory over such foes, no magic word which when uttered will banish cares for ever”. In the same year Dr. Salter made his maiden speech, calling for a national minimum wage and decent treatment for the people who start at the bottom of the heap. He said that in a civilised society every worker has a right to a living wage. That has been a principle, though not a practice, endorsed by Governments since then. He added that wages have now sunk for millions of our people below the subsistence level”. I use his words because they are no less appropriate today. He added that it is grossly unfair that the whole burden of that depreciation of the standard of life should be borne, as it is, by one class, and that the most helpless and the weakest class. If the country has to submit to a reduction of the standard of living, that should be universally applicable.”—[Official Report, 7 March 1923; Vol. 161, c. 627–36.] I listened to the Chancellor’s Budget statement last week, and I ask him this: where are the reforms of justice and the social progress of sympathetic and progressive economic management? Why will he not consider giving the security and hope that his long-suffering fellow citizens in the inner cities need to hear from this place? Why could he not promise that they, when qualified adults, would not be left behind in the struggle for survival, and often not just left behind but also left out? Why, after 60 years, could he not ensure that people received a decent minimum wage? If he wants to see a monument to his four years of economic policy, let him come and look at my constituency. The Chancellor’s Budget last week and the examples given by his colleague today reminded me, in a phrase that came to mind last Tuesday, of a Chancellor fiddling while Britain groaned.

    My predecessor gave 36 years of distinguished service to the House and for much of that time served all the constituents whom I now have the honour to represent. He was joined in that task for a short time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), until my right hon. Friend’s seat was taken away by the process of democracy. In that election, in which my predecessor first stood as a candidate at Rotherhithe, there was one thing in common with my own—his Conservative opponent, like mine, lost his deposit. In a local election in Bermondsey two weeks after my own election, the Conservative vote fell yet again—this time to 3.6 per cent. The message is firm. The deserving people of the inner city are saying loud and clear that they have no trust in the Conservative Government.

    In the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), there is a rumbling of discontent. I, too, rumble with discontent. I come here to share that anger and discontent. As in the city of Cardiff, which I know well, as do you, Mr. Speaker, and as does the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), male unemployment in my constituency is very high. In Southwark it is no less than 18.6 per cent.; yet the Chancellor holds back for a further seven months the restoration of the unemployment benefit abatement for those who need that money to live. Of all London’s ratepayers, the residents of Southwark pay the highest inner city rates. Non-domestic ratepayers pay 245p in the pound and, as in Cardiff, are daily being driven out of business. The borough has the worst record for empty properties and hard-to-let accommodation of any authority in London. The Opposition can take no comfort in that, as it is the Labour party which is responsible locally.

    Just before I took my seat in the House there was a pensioners’ lobby here. One out of five of my constituents was represented by those who rightly came here to ask for a better deal. What do they receive in the Budget? The answer is a mean-minded and ill-timed administrative alteration in pensions that will lose 70p for a single person and 110p for a married couple every week. They receive no help with heating or standing charges and are still penalised if they receive income which is additional to their pension.

    At the other end of the age scale, the young, with whom I have worked for a long time in this city, are job-starved, often educationally deprived, having left school before the statutory age, and look with little hope at the future of communities where they want to stay. Therefore, as in the past, they are soon forced out—and will continue to be so, whether it be on bicycles or whichever other form of transport the Government have not seen fit to provide.

    Yesterday’s papers told us that the low-paid have lost at least £45 a year in real terms over the period of the past five Budgets. It is no benefit to them to know that people who earn £30,000 now get an extra £3,500 each year.

    The economy of the past four years has done nothing for the inner city. That area is as bare, empty and lacking in progress as it was in 1979. Our people refuse to believe that there cannot be a better way. They also refuse to believe that they do not deserve a better way. I hope that I am not arrogant, but I am angry on their behalf. I am not only the newest but I am the youngest Opposition Member of this House. I am here to tell the House what people said by electing me three weeks ago. This waste and mismanagement of our resources, both human and natural, is, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, not only unacceptable, but immoral too.

    The people of Bermondsey and Southwark are, however, spirited and have not yet given up the fight. The spirit that led them to resist some of the worst attacks that the city knew during the second world war has led them, in peace, to resist the destructive attacks of politicians in their turn. However, they cannot resist for ever. They have already been generous. They were generous when my learned predecessor made the mistake of saying that the docks would close only over his dead body. They forgave him for that. They were also generous to the Leader of the Opposition when he made similar statements about an election not many weeks ago. They spared him from that. However, they cannot be generous for ever. They have turned to me and I, above all, now turn to the House to remedy their problems.

    William Wilberforce died 150 years ago this year. It was his part as a reformer to liberate the people who were enslaved abroad. At home, Gladstone and Lloyd George followed that tradition, as did others who turned their attention to inner cities where the work was done and where the workers remain. My politics are to be those politics of liberation. I am anxious to liberate our people—those whom I can help—in little ways as we are allowed to do, from enforced idleness, unjustified discrimination and harmful dogma.

    I have news for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He seems to think, to judge from his comment when I took my seat, that I shall not be here for long. I can tell him this. I shall be here for as long as is necessary to work for those people who sent me here to get them back to work.

    I conclude with a quotation from a small guide which my library provides for those who want to know about the history of the constituency which I now have the honour to represent. It says: People are right to be proud to say ‘I am from Bermondsey’. This little area has a great history. In the old times it was the place of Chaucer, Shakespeare and, later, Dickens. It continues: In Victorian times it was at the centre of London’s trade and industry. Later, it took a lead in social reform. Now is a time of change when Bermondsey, like its neigbours in North Southwark and Rotherhithe, awaits new developments. The tide of economic welfare has flowed out far enough and for long enough as well. Although there may be an appropriate analogy between my arrival here and the quiet, timid and, as yet, inexperienced first cuckoo of spring, I hope that the Government will listen and learn that it is still not quite too late to turn the tide and to come to the rescue of the people who, at the moment, are beached and waiting for help.

  • David Cameron – 2015 Speech on Climate Change

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Paris on 30 November 2015.

    Thank you very much Mr President and can I start by thanking the French President and the French people for hosting us here in Paris.

    Now we’re at the stage of this conference, after a whole series of speeches, where I think we can safely say that every point that needs to be made has been made, although not by every single speaker.

    We all know exactly what is needed to make a good deal here in Paris.

    We need a deal that keeps 2 degrees alive.

    A deal with a binding legal mechanism.

    A deal that has a 5 year review so we can see how we are doing.

    A deal for the poorest and most vulnerable in terms of finance.

    A deal so that we can measure and verify what happens with the agreement that we make.

    And a deal that transfers technology from the richest countries to the poorest countries.

    So let me take this argument the other way around.

    Not what we need to succeed – we all know that – but what we would have to say to our grandchildren if we failed.

    We’d have to say, “it was all too difficult”, and they would reply, “well, what was so difficult?”

    What was it that was so difficult when the earth was in peril?

    When sea levels were rising in 2015?

    When crops were failing?

    When deserts were expanding?

    What was it that was so difficult?

    Was it difficult to agree on 2 degrees?

    Was it difficult when 97% of scientists the world over have said that climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed?

    When there are over 4,000 pieces of literature and reviews making exactly this point?

    Why was, they would ask us, sticking to 2 degrees above industrial levels so difficult?

    Presumably we might have to say: well it was difficult to reach a binding agreement.

    But they would ask us why is it difficult to reach a legally binding agreement when in 2015 there are already 75 countries – including countries across most of the continents of our world – that already have legally binding climate change legislation?

    Countries like Britain.

    And countries that aren’t suffering from having legally binding climate change legislation; countries that are thriving with that legislation.

    Perhaps we’d have to argue it was too difficult to have a review after 5 years.

    Why, they’d ask us, is it difficult to have a review after 5 years?

    No one is being asked to preordain what that review would say.

    No one is being asked to sign up to automatic decreases in their carbon emissions.

    If we are off track in 5 years’ time, a review isn’t difficult.

    Perhaps we’d have to say it was too difficult to reach an agreement about finance, too difficult to get to $100 billion of climate finance by 2020.

    But how could we argue to our grandchildren that it was difficult when we’ve already managed to generate £62 billion by 2014?

    How can we argue that it’s difficult when in London alone there’s 5 trillion of funds under management and we haven’t even really begun to generate the private finance that is possible to help in tackling climate change?

    They’ll ask us: was it really too difficult to agree to a mechanism to measure and verify what we’ve all signed up to?

    How can that be so difficult, that we agree that over time we must make sure that we are delivering on the things that we said we would deliver on here in Paris.

    And finally, would we really be able to argue that it was too difficult?

    Too difficult to transfer technology from rich countries to poorer countries?

    Our grandchildren would rightly ask us: what was so difficult?

    You had this technology, you knew it worked, you knew that if you gave it to poor and vulnerable countries they could protect themselves against climate change – why on earth didn’t you do it?

    What I’m saying is that instead of making excuses tomorrow to our children and grandchildren, we should be taking action against climate change today.

    What we are looking for is not difficult, it is doable and therefore we should come together and do it.

    Thank you.

  • Tristram Hunt – 2014 Speech on Schooling for the Future

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tristram Hunt, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 12th February 2014.

    THE VALUE OF SCHOOLING

    Thank you.

    I would like to begin by thanking Andrew and AQA for organising this conference on a very important theme. They are at the forefront of developing new ways to make assessment imaginative, rigorous and deliverable – which, as we know, can sometimes be challenging in the creative subjects.

    It is also a great pleasure to be here at the Institute of Education, an institution established in that golden period of London’s history – the heroic phase of municipal socialism under the LCC.

    Dockers’ leader and London County Councillor John Burns put it best, when he said that what he and his fellow Progressives were struggling for was ‘a revived municipal ideal’; the goals of the LCC were ‘to do for all what private enterprise does for a few.  It is the conscious ordering of the city, through ownership of public services, of its own comfort, happiness, and destiny.’

    For with the nuts and bolts of municipal socialism – the trams and the public health – came a commitment to learning, art and recreation.  By 1907 over £10,000 p.a. was spent on some 1,200 summer concerts.  The LCC Chair, Lord Meath, thought the council should offer music ‘of a high and noble character’, because such music served an educational purpose and could ‘be brought to bear in a very agreeable manner on large masses of people.’

    These themes of education, creativity and character are what I want to touch on today.

    In recent weeks I have been setting out how teaching and learning fits in with the Labour Party’s wider purpose of building a strong society and a growing economy.

    From Michael Barber to Andreas Schleicher, respected educationalists have repeatedly pointed out that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers.

    So that is our starting point: we believe that raising the status, elevating the standing and enhancing the standards of the teaching profession is the surest way to improve our children’s attainment and give them the start in life they deserve.

    However, today I want to talk to you about the institutions of change – schools – and argue that the demands of the 21st century will require charting a markedly different approach to schooling.

    Because though my first priority as Education Secretary in the next Labour Government would be to make sure we have ‘a world class teacher in every classroom’ I realise that it will not be enough just to raise the quality of individual teachers.

    Evidence from disciplines such as organisational psychology and economic geography shows that collaboration is crucial to innovation and creativity.

    So I begin from the premise that we should celebrate the fact we educate our children in a supportive social environment; that there is something intrinsically valuable in schools as dedicated learning communities – where young people learn from each other in addition to the foundations of knowledge from teachers.

    This is not a banal declaration – such is the awesome technological power being unleashed by the internet that it will not be too long before somebody proposes an institution-less model of schooling.

    Indeed, one only has to look at the popularity of Massive Open Online Courses to imagine how that might look.

    Yet one of the many attractions of Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ approach to our politics is a revival of an older argument that everything of value is not reducible to price.

    Real value, as John Ruskin wrote in Unto this Last, “depends on the moral sign attached…. There is no wealth but life”.

    And for the Labour Party, the value of schooling, its social ethos and its moral purpose, is immeasurable.

    What is more, this is far more important than the name emblazoned upon the school gates. Indeed, beyond some fundamental prerequisites necessary to raise standards – autonomy with local oversight, good leadership, financial transparency and qualified teachers – we are not overly interested in passing judgement on different school types.

    What exercises us is a school’s quality, its ethos and the values of schooling we want our education system to embody.

    Yet to preserve these values in our brave new, digitally enhanced world we need to re-emphasise two fundamental educational capabilities that are in serious danger of being crowded out.

    These qualities are, I believe, vitally important in preparing young people for the economy of the future.

    They are important in our push to raise academic attainment and deliver educational excellence for all.

    But most of all they are important because they are valuable in terms of the type of education we want our young people to enjoy in order to reach their fullest potential.

    They are: character and creativity.

    CHARACTER IN THE CLASSROOM

    Let me start first with character. And not just because, “The historian’s first task is the elucidation of character”.

    No rather I start with character because I believe that is where schools should also start.

    Because it seems to me that sometimes the managerial, target-driven performance culture that has permeated our education system in recent years, can threaten the social ethos of schooling we hold so dear.

    Do not mistake me: I am zealot for minimum standards, rigorous assessment and intelligent accountability.

    I am supportive of a dynamic and interventionist Ofsted, tasked with a commitment to rooting out underperformance wherever it lies.

    But as with so many things we need to strike a balance.

    And if we choose to focus upon exam results and league tables to the detriment of everything else, then surely we are guilty of misunderstanding the purpose and nature of education?

    We should begin then with a deeper question: what do we want for and from our young people?

    First and foremost, the Labour Party wants young people who are equipped with the academic or vocational skills they require to succeed in an ever more competitive global market-place.

    More than that, we want young people who are confident, determined and resilient; young people who display courage, compassion, honesty, integrity, fairness, perseverance, emotional intelligence, grit and self-discipline.

    We want our young people to have a sense of moral purpose and character, as well as to be enquiring, reflective and passionate learners.

    Of course saying that character should be the focus of schooling is the easy part. The trickier question is how do we deliver it?

    However, this is where it gets really interesting. Because emerging research from people like Professor James Heckman at the University of Chicago and Professor James Arthur at the University of Birmingham clearly demonstrates that character can be taught.

    And as the excellent manifesto published yesterday by the All Party Group for Social Mobility demonstrates, there is a burgeoning debate about how best we can do that.

    But what is clear is that this is about more than bolting-on some music lessons or sports clubs to the school day. “No, this is about learning from the rigorous academic discipline that is character education and implementing a holistic approach that goes beyond extra-curricular activities and into the classroom.

    So I am calling upon initial teacher training providers to  include character education in initial teacher training.

    And we should encourage all schools to embed character education and resilience across their curriculum.

    Of course this focus harks back to some ancient educational ideals. From the Stoics, Plato and Aristotle, to Milton, Samuel Smiles and the Arnolds; for more than 2000 years schooling has been primarily concerned with the formation of character.

    ‘The noblest heraldry of Man,’ as Smiles called it – ‘that which forms the conscience of society, and creates and forms its best motive power.’

    As Matthew Arnold – a truly independent schools inspector – wrote, schools should be seen “not as a mere machine for teaching, reading, writing and arithmetic, but as a living whole with complex functions, religious, moral and intellectual.”

    Indeed, the 2002 Education Act required the National Curriculum to “promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society”.

    So we do not have to look too far into the distant past to a find a time when such values were promoted.

    Yet, I would argue that the contemporary context makes the cultivation of character even more important.

    One only has to look at, for example, the research of Professor Avner Offer at Oxford University, to find a persuasive argument that ‘the flow of novelty’ in contemporary society is so strong that higher levels of commitment, discipline and self-control are needed to ensure that long-term wellbeing is not repeatedly sacrificed upon the altar of short-term gratification.

    Our young people grow up in complex times. Incidents of mental illness appear to be rising, technology and social media appear to be making it more difficult to concentrate for long periods, whilst some might argue that respect for education itself is in decline.

    The benefits of delayed gratification, attentiveness and patience must be more clearly articulated.

    Moreover, research clearly shows that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people are far more likely to deal with the consequences of failure and setbacks in a negative way.

    Character is not best taught through adversity – its study belongs in the supportive, dedicated and aspirational communities that the best schools provide.

    Now I am not the kind of politician to tell professionals how to do their job – how many lines pupils should write or litter they should pick up.

    But what I hope I am doing is using my position as a democratically elected politician – and aspirant Secretary of State – to indicate what matters to a forthcoming Labour government and what evidence is available to endorse it.

    By prioritising character, moral purpose and the education of well-rounded individuals as well as academic attainment, the Labour Party is demonstrating its commitment to taking some of those deeper cultural challenges head on.

    CREATIVITY IN THE CURRICULUM

    But character is not the only virtue we need to re-emphasise in a contemporary vision of schooling.

    We need to keep working on developing creativity in our schools too.

    Let’s start with some cold hard economic facts.

    Our creative industries are worth £36 billion a year to our economy, employing 1.5m people, and generating around 10% of our total exports.

    Moreover, they currently represent the fastest growing sector in the economy; they are a vital conduit of our soft-power right around the world.

    We are the country of Danny Boyle, Harry Potter, Adele, Robbie Williams, EL James and Stella McCartney.

    We have remarkable reservoirs of creativity in our DNA.  And so there is a pretty basic economic argument for encouraging creativity in the curriculum.

    However, once more it is technology that makes this increasingly imperative.

    We know that digital revolution has made the entire history of human achievement.

    We know too that this globalisation of knowledge that opens up enormous possibilities for creativity and innovation both economically and educationally.

    But what might not be so well known is that this is already changing the way we work – a recent study by Princeton University showed a sharp increase in the workplace demand for non-routine analytic and interactive skills. Employers reported that they needed people who were innovative, flexible, creative team-players.

    We have seen this too in the emergence of the STEAM agenda, which recognises the economic importance of the arts in education as well as science, technology, engineering and maths.

    As Steve Jobs famously said: “It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough. It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities that yields the results that make our hearts sing”.

    And whilst I do not agree with everything Sir Ken Robinson says, his definition of creativity – that it is “the process of having original ideas that have value” – makes it crystal clear why it is so relevant to a modern economy.

    Yet the truth is that preparing our children for the jobs of the future is an even more daunting challenge. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD has said:

    “Because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise.”

    That is why from 2015 the OECD will start testing collaborative problem-solving alongside reading, maths and science in the next round of PISA assessments.

    Of course that does not mean undermining the importance of knowledge.

    I want to make it absolutely clear that I would never give an inch on getting the academic basics right.

    Literacy and numeracy skills are vital 21st century skills, fundamental to the life chances of all young people. Particularly the disadvantaged.

    Furthermore, as the work of Daniel T Willingham from the University of Virginia has shown, there is a vital relationship between critical thinking and knowledge.

    Thought processes are intertwined with what is being thought about.  Knowledge enhances cognitive processes like problem solving and reasoning.

    However, again it is question of striking the right balance. And in practically every other country, ‘broad’ educational frameworks are currently being drawn up that, in the words of former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, “combine a mix of ‘old-fashioned skills and knowledge’, such as numeracy and literacy, with ‘twenty-first-century’ skills”.

    And uppermost in the vast majority of 21st century skill frameworks? Creativity and innovation.

    So, I am encouraged that the Government has made a step in the right direction with its focus on the ‘Best Eight’ of subjects for GCSE bench-marking.

    However, right across the new curriculum proposals we are seeing a narrowing of assessment criteria, with an emphasis on the theoretical over the practical and the creative.

    Geography fieldwork, practical lab-work in science, extended projects; the speaking and listening component of English GCSE; and the practical elements of music and art – all of these are under threat, which can only impact negatively upon young people’s development as rounded, inquiring, creative individuals.

    However, what really concerns me with this narrowing of the scope of education may actually begin to affect attainment in core subjects such as English and Maths.

    Because there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that not only do creative subjects have a positive impact on young person’s overall development but that they actually boost attainment across the board.

    The imagination and visualisation skills inherent in drawing, painting and the visual arts have been shown to help writing skills and the interpretation of texts.

    Representing Stoke-on-Trent I am particularly taken by studies showing that the dexterity of medical surgeons benefit from working with clay.

    Music has been found to have strong connections to improving spatial reasoning and understanding complex mathematical concepts.

    This should not surprise us – in the real world information is interwoven, layered and sophisticated. It is not experienced in isolated subject blocks.

    So, just as with character, a broad and balanced education requires that creativity is embedded right across the curriculum.

    NO SURRENDER ON STANDARDS

    Of course absolutely vital to delivering on this promise will be a highly qualified, self-motivating and dedicated teaching profession.

    And the changing economic and educational necessities only further demonstrate the importance of regular professional development, of making sure that teachers’ skills and knowledge are up-to-date with the latest pedagogical and technological expertise.

    That, as I have said, is the surest way to raise standards in our schools.

    Nevertheless, there may be those who say that a contemporary vision of schooling which stresses character and creativity alongside attainment is a surrender on standards.

    Let me say very clearly: I see absolutely no reason why we need to make a choice between taking academic rigour seriously or developing character and creativity.

    As Andreas Schleicher from the OECD made clear when he presented the PISA survey in December, success in the 21st century will depend as much upon what you can do with what you know, as what you know.

    And I have seen this creativity at work in the sports ethos of Sir Thomas Telford City Technology College; the Hairspray rehearsals at the Ormiston Sir Stanley Matthews Academy; and the rich, glorious displays of children’s artwork on the walls of St Mary’s Redcliffe, Bristol and Divine Mercy Roman Catholic School, Manchester.

    They have shown the ethos, excellence and culture of high expectations we want to see spread to all schools.

    And as any employer will tell you – outstanding qualifications, on their own, are no guarantee of the wider aptitudes required for the world of work.

    So preparing our young people, equipping them with the character and creativity needed to succeed in this most demanding and competitive of centuries, is an essential partner to raising standards.

    Literacy and numeracy, creativity and character – these are the themes we want to pursue in office.

    It speaks to our tradition within the Labour movement and to the modern demands of a global economy.

    And it has been done in the past.  Let me end by returning to the past.

    In 1936, the Mayor of West Ham looked back on the great era of municipal socialism in London:  In my early days there were no municipal recreation grounds or playing fields: no municipal college, secondary, central, special, open air or nursery schools; no municipal libraries, baths, tramways or electricity undertakings; no municipal hospitals, maternity and child welfare clinics or school medical clinics.  Truly there has been a wonderful growth of educational and public health services: those twin handmaidens, which have brought to our citizens healthier, happier and longer lives.

    Education as the handmaiden of a healthier, happier and longer life – that seems to me a worthy ambition.

  • Philip Hunt – 2006 Speech on Age Discrimination Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hunt, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, to the Third Age Employment Network on 3rd October 2006.

    Introduction

    An 80 per cent employment rate. That is the long term aim that the government has set itself – something currently unheard of beyond the volcanic pools of Iceland.

    We haven’t just plucked this figure from the ether – whilst our employment rate is already the highest of the G8 countries – we want and need to do more to rise to the new challenges we face. Our aim of an 80 per cent employment rate signals our determination to end social exclusion by offering the opportunity of work to everyone in our society, to provide security in retirement by addressing the dramatically rising dependency ratio between those in employment and those in retirement and to enable us to compete in the world-wide economy.

    And to do this we will need to break down the barriers holding back employment opportunities among ethnic minorities, address the problems in employment black spots like some of our inner cities and get more lone parents and people claiming Incapacity Benefit back to work.

    And on top of all that we want to see a million more older people in work than we have now.

    By building on our past successes, developing our current proposals and changing attitudes and opinions for the future we can achieve what many would call the impossible dream.

    Successful Labour Market Policies

    We have already shown we can successfully tackle difficult employment problems – there are nearly 2.5 million more people in work today than there were in 1997. In fact, there are more people in work than ever before. The claimant count is falling and we have virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment, an achievement that some thought was impossible.

    We are already achieving success in some of the key areas of our challenging aim of 80 per cent employment. For the first time there are more than a million lone parents in work. We have managed to bring the number of people claiming incapacity benefits down to the lowest figure for 6 years. And we have increased the employment rate among older workers to over 70 per cent – a faster increase than in the overall employment rate. All these things were thought to be difficult if not impossible.

    It is these successes that enable us to believe that we can achieve our latest “impossible” aim of an employment rate of 80 per cent.

    Health and employment

    Clearly a person’s health is going to be a key factor in whether they are able to work for longer. This is true regardless of the person’s age, and health problems or disabilities can act as barriers throughout a person’s working life. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that there are currently over 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefits and there were 164 million working days lost to sickness last year.

    If we are to help as many people as possible to enter into, remain in or return to work, and if we are to truly extend working lives, we need to improve the health and wellbeing of all working age people regardless of their age – making this a real priority for government and society. This is why we launched our Health, Work and Wellbeing Strategy, a cross-government strategy involving DWP, the Health and Safety Executive and the Departments of Health in England, Wales and Scotland.

    Through the strategy we are working in partnership with a wide range of partners, including employers, trade unions, insurers and healthcare professionals, to create healthier workplaces, reduce the likelihood of people becoming injured or sick at work and encourage the provision of good occupational health services and enhanced return to work support. There is a need to change public perceptions about the importance of work and links between work and health as well as the perceptions and behaviour of healthcare professionals.

    We need to support employers, helping them to better adapt to the challenges of an ageing workforce. We also need to look intelligently and creatively at government services, and particularly healthcare, to ensure that we are delivering the right services for working age people and give these people the priority they deserve.

    By taking this action I hope that we are improving the health of older workers; helping them manage chronic health conditions the incidence of which increases with age; helping more people with health conditions find and remain in work; and ultimately help people to work longer and retire healthier.

    Continuing Progress

    We are working hard, on a range of fronts, to break down age barriers in employment.

    In January this year our Welfare Reform Green Paper outlined our proposals to help people stay in work if and when their situation changes, to support people to get back to work and to help people stay in work through in-employment support.

    In the summer, the Pensions White Paper introduces changes to the State Pension Age.

    We have been successfully working with employers to promote the clear business benefits of age equality, as well as challenging all the ingrained prejudices.

    And we’re backing up our determination to eliminate age discrimination with new legislation.

    Welfare Reform Green Paper

    Our Welfare Reform Green Paper sets out our proposals for building towards an 80 per cent employment rate. There are specific proposals for people aged 50 and over but each and every proposal has the potential to make a real difference to older people.

    As I mentioned earlier, we have ambitious plans to transform workplace health and we have appointed a new Director for Health and Well-Being to work with employers, employees and their representatives and health professionals to ensure that the right support is available at the right time to help people remain in work.

    Almost half of the 2.7 million claiming incapacity benefits are aged 50 and over and a third of those have been claiming for ten years or more. That’s just one of the reasons why we are transforming incapacity benefits, building upon the success of our Pathways to Work pilots which have already helped over 25 thousand people into work. Pathways has demonstrated that most people claiming incapacity benefits want and expect to work given the right support.

    And Pathways isn’t just an idea, not just a set of statistics, it’s real and it’s making a difference to real people. Jane had been claiming Incapacity Benefit since 1978 because of a back problem and depression. With the support from her specialist Incapacity Benefit Personal Advisor, and help through the Return to Work Credit, Adviser Discretion Fund, Tax Credits and New Deal 50 Plus, Jane started work as a Production Operator after 25 years on benefits.

    We are transforming the entire regime of benefits and support with a revised initial health assessment which focuses upon capability and support needs, early support from employment and health specialists and a personally tailored action plan to enable the individual to acquire the skills and support they need to return to employment, and to retain new work.

    Our Welfare Reform proposals also, for the first time, will enable older people to access a number of initiatives that have previously only been open to younger people.

    For example, at present the New Deal 25 Plus Intensive Jobsearch Activity Period, with its more extensive support, is mandatory for jobseekers aged between 25 and 49, but voluntary for those aged 50 or over. However, this group often fail to take the offer of this help because they’ve grown demoralised about their chances of returning to work.

    Therefore we have been running a pilot study since April 2004 to trial mandatory participation in this Intensive Activity Period for people aged 50 to 59.

    We are seeing positive results. Where this extra support is given to everyone, more people aged 50 to 59 do successfully leave benefit dependency and return to work. That is why we plan to extend this mandatory help nationally in 2007.

    Similarly we propose to bring couples over 50 and claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance into the Joint Claims regime, where we’ll treat each person as an individual jobseeker. This is already required for couples who were born after 1957, and serves to keep both parties in contact with the work-focused help and support available through Jobcentre Plus.

    New Deal 50 plus continues to offer help on a voluntary basis to eligible customers and their partners who are aged 50 or over. We estimate that since 2000 the programme has supported over 150,000 people in their return to work, and we’re continuing to look at improvements to the programme, such as aligning the exclusive In Work Training Grant more closely with Information Advice and Guidance providers.

    We are also proposing a pilot initiative to test the effects of strengthening New Deal 50 plus by making participation in the programme mandatory at 6 months rather than purely voluntary. By doing this we can test whether more people over 50 can be helped into work in this way.

    Additionally, we are working on a project to test the effectiveness of face-to-face guidance for older people in work. We plan to trial the means of giving people information on their options for working up to State Pension Age and beyond, if they wish, to help them plan for a more financially secure retirement..

    Pensions White Paper

    Increasing the number of older people in work by 1 million is a long term aim. Achieving it will depend on a number of factors, including continued macro-economic stability, the pace of welfare reform, and ensuring we have the right policies in place to reach those most likely to otherwise leave the labour market early.

    In the medium term we’ll be phasing in a rise in Women’s State Pension Age from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020.

    In our recent Pensions White Paper “Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system” the Government announced proposals to raise the State Pension age from 2024 onwards. It is vital that we safeguard the long term affordability of the State Pension.

    To ensure people have the opportunity to work to age 65 and beyond they will need greater access to flexible working and later retirement opportunities, and the ability to manage their work and pension income to meet their own circumstances. We have increased the range of choices and financial incentives for individuals to draw or defer their State Pension while they carry on working. Tax rule changes also now allow people to draw part or all of their occupational pension while continuing to work for the same employer, where scheme rules allow. For carers, the majority of whom are aged over 45, there will be a new right to request flexible working from April 2007.

    There will need to be behavioural and cultural change around retirement along with changes to the benefit system. Information will be available on the services the Government and others offer to support people in making informed choices.

    Working with Employers

    There is, of course, one particular barrier that can prevent older people working – age discrimination.

    We have been working closely with the business community to drive forward the age agenda. Our Age Positive campaign has been running successfully since 2001; and with business lead organisations our ‘Be Ready’ campaign has been promoting practical guidance on adopting age good practice to employers since Spring 2005. We supported this business-led campaign to reach all 1.4 million employers, offering free guidance material to help employers prepare towards the age legislation. And through the age legislation we have taken the decision to introduce a default retirement age of 65 to make compulsory retirement below that age unlawful, for the first time.

    But we must do more. A report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, published last year, found that well over half of respondents had suffered age discrimination at work, and nearly a quarter still used age in recruitment decisions.

    Clearly this is an unacceptable situation which cannot be allowed to continue. Since Sunday, as you will all know very well, it has been unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age in the field of employment or vocational training. The Age Regulations give individuals important new rights, extend existing rights and remove traditional barriers. We have worked with employer organisations to help prepare employers and have directly contacted all employers three times since May 2005 to help prepare them, and offered free guidance and support.

    We will monitor the effects of the default retirement age and review them five years after implementation. Our aim over time is to move to a position where there is no compulsory retirement unless it can be justified by individual employers. We intend to remove the default retirement age as soon as we can show that it is no longer necessary or appropriate.

    Default retirement age is not a compulsory retirement age. We will continue to encourage employers to adopt more flexible practices around retirement. I’m delighted to say that my Department, the DWP, has taken the decision to remove its retirement age altogether for staff below the senior civil service. The message is the same for all – it’s time to remove age discrimination from your business.

    I am aware that criticism has been levelled at the Government for retaining the development rate of the National Minimum Wage for workers aged between 18 and 21. We have done this to protect younger workers. Our concern is that, if we did not protect the development bands some employers might lay off their young workers. The independent Low Pay Commission share this concern and recommended the introduction of an exemption along these lines last year.

    Unskilled, inexperienced young workers are in an especially vulnerable position in the employment market. The exemption will allow employers to take on young workers and use the development bands of the minimum wage, without the fear that this could be unlawful.

    For the first time this country’s legislation will give people new rights to protect them from being discriminated against due to their age. Whatever your view of the new law, it represents a major step forward.

    Conclusion

    To finish, our strategy is not about forcing people to work until they drop. It is to enable older people to continue in work if they want to, stop employers from discriminating against them and demonstrate that people of a certain age should not be thrown on the scrap heap and left there. And as I said earlier, work is generally good for your health and wellbeing and can influence a person’s health when they reach retirement and therefore the quality of that retirement.

    We are proud of our achievements over the last 8 years in improving the prospects for older people to stay in, or re-enter work. But we know we can’t take an exclusively “top-down” approach and try to tackle this problem alone. The work of organisations like TAEN, and initiatives like your own Agebusters website, are essential to challenging and removing ageist workplace practices that have been accepted as ‘common sense’ for years.

    We’re not complacent. We know that there’s more to be done. And you can be assured that we’ll be working hard to move towards our long term aim of an 80 per cent employment rate and a million more older workers.

  • Kim Howells – 2004 Speech on Entrepreneurship Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Education Minister, Kim Howells, to the Institute for Small Business Affairs on 4th November 2004. NB – some monetary figures are not available on this speech.

    May I congratulate the Institute for Small Business Affairs on organising this conference?

    It is very timely and extremely relevant. Like South Wales where I come from, the north east has had to re-invent itself in the 1980s. There was talk of terminal decline, fragmented communities. In this changing social and economic landscape people faced an uncertain future, a future with new challenges. Tackling these challenges, we know, would require a shift in thinking. Old skills would have to be replaced as old industries closed. To fill the void we would have to learn new skills and adapt to different national and international demands.

    Promoting the debate on the need for this realignment were the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), enterprises you represent. Together with your partners you continue to lay foundations for the future prosperity of the region. But I recognise that you’re unable to work wonders alone. That is why this Government, committed to offering opportunity to all, to marrying social justice with economic success, is keen to build partnerships with this key sector. We need to create partnerships that offer young people now and in the future relevant experiences of the world of work. We need to equip them to take on the challenges that lie ahead. To do so they will need to be inspired risk-takers, motivators who are adaptable and capable of innovation; in a word, enterprising.

    But many of our young people have an insufficient grasp of these key skills. As many in this audience will attest, too many leave school without the skills employers need. You will hear today of how our European and wider international partners and competitors are tackling these issues and the part education plays in these strategies. And these are lessons we in the UK must listen to. We have an immensely strong and stable economy, but our productivity continues to suffer because of an imbalance in skills available and skills needed in a number of key areas. And they are not only in basic skills, as one may think. For example, comparative wage increases for corporate managers suggest that management skills may be in short supply. And this is when demand for such expertise is expected to increase by 650,000.

    Foundation Degrees

    I recognise that as a Government we can only tackle such shortages properly by listening more to employers. But I also believe that both Government and employers must develop stronger broader partnerships if we’re to raise the nation’s skills base. It’s something we can only do together. So, it may come as no surprise that I welcome the latest figures showing that over 24,000 students are now studying for Foundation Degrees – compared with 12,400 the previous year. And indications are positive with acceptances on full-time courses this year 2004, up one third at the same point last year.

    Foundation Degrees can be available in both full-time and flexible modes of study (including work-based and distance learning and part-time study) to suit employers and learners. The length of course varies according to the place offering the course, the subject and method of delivery, and whether the student is part or full time. Conventional full-time courses currently take two years, other courses may take between 2 to 4 years.

    Crucially, and this ought to be a massive incentive for more of your sector to become involved, Foundation Degrees are designed in conjunction with employers. They are designed to meet skills shortages at the higher technician and associate professional level. They’re developed and delivered by partnerships of employers, higher education institutions and further education colleges with work-based learning as a key characteristic. And I’m sure you will agree with me when I say I would like to see more SMEs taking advantage of this opportunity to influence learning. It’s a real, tangible opportunity to shape the future.

    The University of Teesside is drawing on business expertise in its pioneering Upgrade2 programme. It helps graduates from any university or degree discipline to set up new businesses in fields ranging from animation and computer games to interior design and music. New Entrepreneur Scholarships provide training and support for potential entrepreneurs in the Tees valley. And similar innovations can be found in the Burnside Business and Enterprise College. Proof of the power of partnership in nurturing the next generation of business leaders.

    Partnership is also central to our 5 Year Strategy in which we place work-related learning at the heart of our education system, and it’s certainly a key element of the Government’s 14-19 strategy.   We’re determined that an integral part of every school’s work-related learning programme should involve learning about enterprise. We want to see enterprise just as much a part of the school day as core subjects such as English or science. Indeed, the Qualifications and Curriculum’s Authority (QCA) guidance on work-related learning, is quite emphatic on this point, with a key guideline that states: “students should be taught to recognise, develop and apply enterprise and employability skills’.

    I see schools as uniquely placed to give students these opportunities, but I don’t expect them to do so alone. My Department is providing funding of ?? million a year from September 2005 to enable each school to develop enterprise education. National guidance for schools will also be available, including QCA case studies of enterprise in all subjects.

    Enterprise Education Pathfinder

    Crucial to this guidance is the Enterprise Education Pathfinder programme, and I’m pleased to say it’s a programme going from strength to strength. One hundred and seventy one (171) Enterprise Pathfinder projects have been set up in the past 12 months in over 500 secondary schools. And we plan a full national roll-out next year.

    Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College, Staindrop Comprehensive and Deerness Valley Comprehensive, in Ushaw Moor, are flying the flag for Durham. They’re working with the national charity ‘Changemaker’ to play an active role in community change. These schools will be part of a local and national social enterprise model encouraging enterprise capability amongst school children. And I know that the local LEA are keen to hear from any employer, or self-employed people interested in contributing to help young people take part in the project.

    Some Pathfinder schools are encouraging teachers to undertake special enterprise-based Professional Development Placements. And they’re developing partnerships with the corporate world through initiatives such as enterprise focus groups. We need to view enterprise education as an integral part of the work-related learning programme, and not some separate bolt-on initiative.

    This will be explored through the ‘Make Your Mark – start talking ideas’ campaign. It seeks to influence people between the ages of 14-25 to have a more enterprising outlook on life in general. The focus of this year’s campaign is Enterprise Week, running from 15th to 21st November. It will consist of over 500 events on the theme of enterprise. Many schools are taking part, and, I’m sure, will play a key role in making the week a success.

    But for enterprise projects to have a more realistic feel requires the involvement of business as well as schools. There’s a huge and growing demand for all you have to offer – as organisations and individuals. That’s why Northumberland College is keen to have business represented on the new Learning Park campus currently in the planning stage. The relocation of the college to a more central location will focus provision of education and allow more people to gain the skills business requires. And it will further the development of Ashington Town Centre – an area particularly affected by the decline of the coal industry.

    Several of the Education Enterprise Pathfinders have used their funding to appoint an Enterprise Co-ordinator to develop their business links, and organising enterprise days and other activities. There is a lot of mileage in this approach, which will be open for enterprising heads to adopt in September 2005. It‘s also a useful mechanism for strengthening collaboration between schools, which is another key aspect of the Government’s 14-19 strategy.

    Enterprise Adviser Programme 

    Running alongside the Enterprise pathfinders is the ?? million Enterprise Adviser programme managed by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). This innovative scheme has sent Enterprise Advisers with business skills and experience to 1,000 schools in some of our most deprived areas, spreading the word about enterprise and the possibilities it can create in areas of deprivation; precisely those areas, affected by the industrial decline I mentioned earlier.

    Conclusion

    For a business to succeed it needs to remain competitive. To remain competitive it needs to be able to harness the skills and vision of new, young enterprising entrepreneurs. For these people to emerge we all need to offer them the opportunities to develop. That is the task for, Government and business working together. I believe Government is doing a great deal through education to nurture enterprise, to develop the skills business needs. But I would like to see more businesses become involved in the creation of the nascent entrepreneur. If they don’t, then that educational experience will be the poorer. So will the north east and so will the United Kingdom.

  • Michael Howard – 2005 Speech to the CBI

    michaelhoward2

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, to the CBI Conference on 1st March 2005.

    As a politician, it’s easy enough for me to travel round Britain, talking about all the things I want to do for our country.

    I can talk till I’m blue in the face. But without you, I can’t do anything.

    I can’t deliver my priorities for government: lower taxes, more police, cleaner hospitals, controlled immigration and school discipline – unless we have a strong and competitive economy.

    And a strong and competitive economy is not built by government; it’s built by people – the British people.

    What you achieve for Britain creates the opportunity for everything that any politician may ever want to do. You generate the prosperity that enables people to look to the future with optimism. You create the jobs we all depend on. Without you – no safety net for the least fortunate, no care for the sick, no pensions in old age.

    It is your hard work and your skill that makes Britain what she is today – a country with a proud past and an exciting future.

    So I want to praise the profit-makers, because too often in our country, profit is used as a dirty word. There is a dangerous ignorance in Britain today about the role of business in society. It is astonishing how little the connection between your profits and our public services is understood.

    This year, Corporation Tax alone is forecast to raise almost £33 billion – enough to pay for half our education. Yet a common response to the world-beating performance of our greatest companies is a sneering retort about “excess profits”, when its those very profits that pay for the quality of life we all demand.

    I’m crystal clear about government’s role in all this. It’s to create the conditions for your success – to set the framework in which business can best thrive.

    You live and compete in the global economy. Marginal advantages in prices, delivery dates or quality decide which firms win the orders and create the jobs. That’s why it’s so important government sets the right framework. And I do not believe that ever higher taxes, ever higher public spending and ever higher regulation constitute the right framework.

    Gordon Brown’s always going on about the need to make the European economy more like America’s. The great irony, of course, is that he’s actually making Britain’s economy more and more like those of continental Europe. For British business, Europe is a market, not an economic model.

    We are all paying the price as Labour turns the British model into the European one. Britain is the slowest growing of the English-speaking economies. And our income per head is now – for the first time – lower than Ireland’s.

    The truth is Britain’s heading in the wrong direction and we need to change track.

    First, we need fiscal discipline to provide the macroeconomic stability on which sustained growth depends.

    Second, we need to reform the microeconomic framework so that competitiveness and productivity rise not fall.

    And third, we need to take urgent action to raise standards in our schools – because tomorrow’s economic performance is dependent on the quality of today’s education.

    A Conservative Government will get a grip on spending. Britain cannot carry on spending more than she is earning without higher taxes or higher interest rates. Government must once again start to live within its means.

    There are two Britains today. Private sector Britain, where people are working harder just to stand still, struggling just to make ends meet. And bureaucratic Britain, where money is no object, you spend what you like and employ who you like. For every job the private sector lost last year, the public sector took on almost two jobs.

    Rarely in the history of politics has a government spent so much, taxed so much and achieved so little: children still unable to read or write when they leave school; waiting times longer not shorter; crime up not down – and all of this in the world’s fourth richest country. We’ve all come to realise there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But with Mr Blair you pay for lunch … and it never comes!

    You know a country is living on borrowed time when government is the fastest growing industry in town. So we appointed an independent team of business experts to undertake a detailed, line by line review of government expenditure.

    In January it presented its conclusions. Its recommendations mean we can cut waste and bureaucracy, strengthen the frontline, pay off debt and lower taxes.

    Under a Conservative Government 168 quangos will disappear; 235,000 bureaucratic posts will go; there’ll be no more Regional Assemblies; the Supreme Court will go; there will be no Small Business Service; the New Deal will be scrapped.

    These decisions are tough – but they are the right decisions because by cutting waste and by doing less a Conservative Government will be able to invest more in our priorities and lower taxes.

    I am a Conservative because I believe that families and business are better at spending or investing their own money than politicians. People work hard for their cash and they deserve to keep more of it. And as we all know low tax economies are the most successful economies. They generate more wealth and create more jobs. That is why a Conservative Government will cut taxes.

    Next, microeconomic reform. You all know the problem. British business is over regulated. It’s eroding your margins. And it’s damaging your ability to compete.

    Fewer regulators and fewer bureaucrats will mean fewer regulations. We’ll introduce sunset clauses into regulations – so they don’t live on for ever but wither on the vine. And we’ll impose regulatory budgets on every government department which we will lower year on year. That way we’ll cut the regulatory burden you all face.

    This morning I set out Conservative proposals for work permits. Migration in both directions is part of any dynamic, competitive economy.

    But immigration has to be controlled. Scale matters because while immigration adds to the economy it also adds to our population. This has consequences for public services and community relations. Immigration has trebled in the last eight years. As the Government’s own Community Cohesion Panel has said “the ‘pace of change’ is simply too great at present.”

    So, a Conservative Government will set an annual limit to immigration in the light of our economic needs, our moral obligation to refugees and our ability to absorb newcomers. We will introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits – so we give priority to people with the skills Britain really needs.

    But I want to make one thing clear today. Britain has reached a turning point. We need to limit and reduce immigration to our country – including work related immigration – so that we can maintain good community relations and effectively manage our public services.

    EU enlargement has massively expanded the pool of labour – both skilled and unskilled available to British employers. And our points system will ensure that immigration from outside the EU is limited and prioritised.

    Everything a Conservative Government does will be a means to one goal – and that goal is opportunity. I want everyone to have the opportunity to make a success of their life.

    I came from an ordinary family with no special privileges. But my State school education taught me that there’s no barrier to success – it is possible to give everyone, whatever their background, real opportunity.

    We were all taught the basics. Our teachers encouraged ambition, excellence and hard work. It was the best start any child could have in life.

    But too many children in Britain today don’t get that start. Lack of discipline is a real and growing problem in our schools. Many children still leave school unable to read, write or add up properly, while a pass grade for a Maths GCSE is now just over 15 per cent.

    This isn’t just a personal tragedy for the children concerned – it’s a national tragedy.

    If children don’t learn respect for authority in class, they’re less likely to respect others when they grow up. If youngsters aren’t taught to read or write properly at school, they’ll find it tougher to get a job. And if British companies can’t recruit employees with the right skills, they’ll find it much harder to compete.

    We need to change direction. We need to restore discipline in school. That is why a Conservative Government will give head teachers control over their schools – they’ll have the final say on expulsions. Mr Blair’s policy of inclusion at all costs is wrong. I will not allow a disruptive minority to ruin the education of the majority.

    I want to live in a society where every child is taught the basics. There is overwhelming evidence to show that traditional teaching methods – phonics, times table, arithmetic – are the best way to teach children to read, write and add-up.

    Parents understand that – and a Conservative Government will give them the power to choose schools that use traditional teaching methods. As you know better than most, choice and competition drive up standards in every field of human endeavour.

    Schools should challenge and stretch the brightest – rewarding excellence and ambition. The “all must have prizes” mentality has undermined education standards.

    A Conservative Government will get rid of the targets that fuel grade inflation. We will keep external examinations at 16. And A Levels will remain the gold standard that universities and employers need them to be. “A” grades will only be awarded to a fixed percentage of pupils each year. And students won’t be able to retake modules again and again.

    Of course not all children are academic. And so we should value youngsters with a technical or practical qualification just as much as students with a degree.

    That’s why we’ve been working with the CBI to develop plans for a high quality vocational education system. Then everyone will know that a youngster who has chosen a vocational route and come out of it with flying colours is skilled and proficient.

    A Conservative Government will establish a network of super colleges – paid for by abolishing the Learning and Skills Council. And we will let 14 and 15 year olds start down the vocational path at school, by attending specialist courses at FE colleges.

    Governments don’t have all the answers. But if they govern with the right values they can make a real difference. Trusting free enterprise; rewarding hard work; encouraging ambition; admiring excellence in whatever field. These are the right values.

    After I left university I spent a year in America. I admire many aspects of American life – particularly their enthusiasm for success. In America, they talk about the American Dream – about the ability of someone born in a log cabin to make it to the White House. As it happens, in America this is the exception, not the rule.

    In Britain it actually does happen. As many of you in this room demonstrate, there are countless examples of people from humble beginnings who make it to the top in Britain: people who live the British Dream.

    We should talk about it. We should embrace it. We should celebrate it. I want everyone to have the opportunity to live the British Dream.

    That’s why we need a government that values discipline in schools and excellence in education. A government that lets people keep more of the money they earn by cutting taxes. And a government that champions British business and sets our great companies, and our entrepreneurs free to do what they do best: win orders, generate wealth and create jobs.

    That’s what a Conservative Government will deliver. That’s why I believe Britain needs a Conservative Government. And that’s why I will pull out all the stops for a Conservative victory at the next election.

  • Michael Howard – 2005 Speech on Council Tax

    michaelhoward2

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, on council tax on 21st February 2005.

    I believe that families know best how to spend their cash. They’ve worked hard for it and they deserve to keep more of it.

    Some people say that’s selfish. It’s not. It’s about what’s right and what’s fair.

    It is right to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves and their families. It is fair to reward people who work hard and save for their old age.

    Low tax economies are the most successful economies. And when people pay less tax you have a more cohesive society – because we all do more not just for ourselves but for our communities.

    Mr Blair promised that he had “no plans to increase taxes at all”. But he has put up taxes 66 times – often by stealth.

    Hard working families have been clobbered to the tune of £5,000. Virtually every independent expert agrees that if Mr Blair were to win again – taxes will go up again.

    Under Labour the Council Tax, the most painful of all Mr Blair’s stealth taxes, will hit £2,000 for a typical family.

    It will be particularly hard for the older generation, people who live on fixed incomes.

    Many of them served our country at her greatest hour of need, preserving liberty, freedom and Britain’s independence for future generations.

    Those who have given so much must surely be given their due. The older generations have been air-brushed out of Mr Blair’s Britain, but I will stand up for them. I will increase the value of the basic state pension in line with earnings, making pensioners up to £11 a week better off.

    And today I can announce that the next Conservative Government will take action to relieve the Council Tax burden for millions of pensioners.

    I will give every home where the adults are sixty five and over a fifty per cent Council Tax discount up to a maximum of £500. This will ensure that five million pensioners have their Council Tax bills cut.

    All our plans have been fully costed and are fully funded so that Britain’s economy will be secure for the next generation.

    People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in their old age. Because I believe that the true test of a society is the way it treats its senior citizens.

    People will face a clear choice at the election: Conservatives who will increase the state pension and cut pensioners’ Council Tax or Mr Blair, who will forget them and raise their Council Tax.

  • Michael Howard – 2005 Speech on Education

    michaelhoward2

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, on 14th April 2005.

    My driving ambition is to give people real opportunity – the opportunity to make a success of their life. And education is the key to all opportunity. I know.

    I come from an ordinary family. My parents ran a clothes shop in Llanelli.

    If the teenage Michael Howard were applying to Cambridge today, Gordon Brown would love me. My socio-economic background ticks every one of his politically correct boxes: the child of immigrants; from a small town in Wales; a family with modest means; educated in a State school. And of course, Gordon Brown would hate Tony Blair.

    We didn’t have any special privileges. But we were lucky enough to live in a town with a first class state school. At Llanelli Grammar School, discipline was at a premium. Teachers were respected. We all learnt the basics. Ambition, excellence and hard work were encouraged.

    It was the best start any child could have in life. Fifty years on, I want everyone to have that quality of education. And my goodness we really do have a long way to go.

    Of course we know that in some schools, thanks to the commitment of inspired heads and dedicated, hardworking teachers, standards are rising. But despite all the millions of pounds that have been spent, one in three children still leave primary school unable to write properly.

    Lack of discipline is a real and growing problem. And the whole system lacks ambition. A pass grade for a Maths GCSE is now as low as 16 per cent. You get four out of five questions wrong and you still pass.

    When I travel round the country, perhaps the most heartbreaking sight I see is the children who’ve dropped out of school. Youngsters going off the rails – each of them a story of lost opportunity, but also a warning of the kind of country Britain will become if we don’t change direction.

    Let’s be clear – the quality of Britain’s education system today, will determine our success as a society tomorrow.

    Conservatives will give youngsters the opportunity that comes from learning in well-disciplined schools – where the minority isn’t able to ruin the education of the majority.

    I read stories of ill discipline in our schools with horror. I remember my teachers as people I respected.

    If children don’t learn respect for authority in class they’re much less likely to respect others when they grow up.

    So a Conservative Government will give head teachers back control over their schools.

    They will have the power to expel disruptive pupils. I will not allow the minority to ruin the education of the majority.

    Of course, a child’s future is far too precious simply to be written off if they are expelled from school. Today, too many expelled children simply fall out of education altogether, wasting their potential and, quite possibly, getting into crime.

    So a Conservative government will invest heavily in these schools giving troubled youngsters get the help they deserve: learning the basics; a practical skill so that they can get a job when they leave; drug treatment if they need it.

    School standards and behaviour in the classroom are closely linked. Bad behaviour is often born of frustration.

    If a child leaves primary school unable to read or write or add up properly, how can we expect them to participate in class at secondary school?

    If bright pupils are not intellectually challenged in the classroom, is it any wonder that they get bored and cause trouble?

    And what about those youngsters who know they are not going to make it to university, but just want to learn a practical craft so they can get on in life? How depressing is it for them to have to stick to an inflexible academic curriculum?

    There is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that traditional teaching methods – phonics, arithmetic, times tables – are the most effective means of teaching children to read, write and add up.

    So a Conservative Government will ensure that teachers are trained in traditional, proven teaching methods like phonics.

    Phonics is the best way to teach children how to read and write. This is important for all children – but it is particularly important for those whose first language is not English.

    A common language is the most obvious binding element in any society. Without it, it is much harder for people to be active members of the community.

    It’s important that people who make their home here learn the language of our nation. Of course people may choose to carry on speaking their family tongue at home – that must be a matter for them. But they do need to learn English properly too.

    Schools should challenge and stretch the brightest – rewarding excellence and ambition. The “all must have prizes” mentality has undermined education standards.

    A Conservative Government will, in its first month, start a top to bottom review of the national curriculum.

    We’ll slim it down so teachers don’t have so much paperwork.

    We’ll review tests, GCSEs and A Levels to restore public confidence in our education system.

    And we’ll root out political correctness, replacing it with the building blocks of knowledge that are essential to give every child their birthright: a decent education.

    That review will be carried out by Chris Woodhead – that indefatigable champion of higher standards and less political correctness.

    People will face a clear choice at the next election: schools with good discipline and high standards with the Conservatives or schools with poor discipline and falling standards under Mr. Blair or the Liberal Democrats.

  • Michael Howard – 2004 Speech to British Chambers of Commerce

    michaelhoward2

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, to the British Chambers of Commerce on 21st April 2004.

    Thank you for asking me to speak to you today.

    The British Chambers of Commerce represents more than 135,000 firms across the country. You know better than anyone else what is happening to companies at the sharp end. You are a vital voice for British business.

    Business is the lifeblood of our country. You create the jobs that pay our wages. You underwrite our pensions. You generate the goods and the services on which we all depend. And you pay the taxes which fund our public services. Last year British business paid more than £100 billion in tax to the Exchequer. In effect, you paid for the National Health Service in England twice over.

    Sadly, there are still people in Britain today who knock free enterprise and carp about profits. Some commentators portray the misdemeanours of a tiny minority as those of the majority. But that is far from the truth.

    I know because my parents ran a small business. They started it from nothing and built it up. Firms across Britain are run by people like my parents.

    They create them, grow them and nurture them. Not just for the money – though that is of course important. But also because they want to create something new, to leave a mark, to make a difference.

    There is no better system for spreading the fruits of man’s labour than free enterprise. No better system for raising people’s standard of living. And no better system for advancing human achievement.

    But for free enterprise to flourish it needs to be free. Not weighed down by excessive rules, regulations, red tape and tax.

    We learnt that lesson in the 1980s – when the Conservative Government transformed Britain from the sick man of Europe to the powerhouse of Europe.

    All of us here today are no doubt enormously proud of what business in Britain has achieved. And we all want to do even better in the future.

    I for one am hugely optimistic about just how much we can achieve.

    Britain is a great country. We are an enterprising, creative and hardworking people. We can take on the best and we can win.

    Competitiveness

    But I am genuinely concerned that many of the competitive advantages we fought so hard to win are being eroded.

    You all operate in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. Marginal advantages in price, delivery dates or quality decide which firm gets the order and which creates the jobs. The extra burdens of high tax and over-regulation make it much more difficult for British business to compete.

    UK competitiveness has fallen significantly in recent years, according to the World Economic Forum. Five years ago Britain was fourth in the world. Now we are fifteenth – a drop of 11 places.

    The great irony is that while Gordon Brown urges his European counterparts to become more like America, he is actually making our economy more and more like theirs.

    Yes, he was right to give the responsibility for setting interest rates to the Bank of England. But that loss of macroeconomic control seems to have left Mr. Brown and his mandarins with too little to do. So they have put their energies to work in micro-managing the British economy.

    Survey after survey has shown that UK business is feeling the strain of increased regulation and taxation. It is estimated that the additional cost of red tape and tax to British business is £15 billion a year.

    As Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco Chief Executive, said earlier in this year:

    “Like a tide, the level of taxes seems to be forever rising. The water is now above our waist: Tesco National Insurance, corporate, property and employment taxes are now over 50% of our profits”.

    Most independent commentators now predict that taxes will have to rise again if the Government sticks to its current spending plans. That’s the view, among others, of the IMF, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the ITEM Club.

    Indeed, Madam President, you have expressed concern that “rapidly worsening finances increase the risk that the Government will have to raise taxes in the next 2-3 years”.

    Tax as a percentage of GDP has risen from under 35% in 1996 to over 36% today. It is predicted to reach 38% in 2008. Compare that with America and the Pacific – where the average tax burden is under 30% – and it is easy to see why British competitiveness is under threat.

    And it’s not just the direct burden of tax that hits business. The tax system itself has become much more complex as well. As an example, it’s worth noting that Tolley’s yellow tax handbook has grown by 2000 pages since Labour came to office. So it’s no wonder the President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation has said: “People have difficulty in understanding how the system affects them. Not even MPs understand it”.

    Actually, come to think of it, I’m not sure all my parliamentary colleagues deserve that implied accolade. I’m not at all sure I do!

    In any event, this is a huge indirect burden for business, particularly small firms, who just cannot afford the armies of accountants to help them cope with all the new rules and regulations.

    Regulation

    We now have 15 new regulations every single working day. And you, the British Chambers of Commerce, reckon that the additional cost of new regulation to business has reached £30 billion.

    Last year alone, British business was faced with an additional bill of £9 billion from new regulation. Your Director General has quite rightly said that British business cannot compete with this “millstone” round its neck.

    Not long ago, I went to a small firm that had just been instructed to fit emergency lighting at a cost of many thousands of pounds. That cost had a real effect – they had to lay someone off. Yet the year before, at a previous inspection, no such requirement had been made. In the intervening twelve months, nothing had changed. There had been no accidents and no change in working practices to justify the new requirement. No new machines had been installed.

    I mentioned this at last year’s annual CBI conference. That provoked a letter from Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He was extremely concerned to hear about this. Do you know why? Apparently I was wrong to blame the Health and Safety Executive for this new burden on a small business … I should have blamed the Fire Service.

    And he asked me to apologise for my mistake!

    Not a word about the unnecessary costs. Or about the lost job. All he was concerned about was that I’d got the wrong Department. As long as that is the mindset of this Government at Cabinet level we shall never tackle the problem of excessive regulation in this country.

    The Public Sector

    There is another concern. In just over five years, the number of public sector jobs has risen by more than 500,000. Yet last year, jobs in the private sector fell – by 130,000. This is unsustainable. How can we possibly continue to afford a public sector which is growing, when the private sector, which pays for it, is shrinking?

    The Chancellor urged you all this morning to exercise wage restraint in the year ahead. And he said he would not tolerate irresponsibility in the public sector. That would certainly be good news for Britain.

    But Gordon Brown’s record in constraining the public sector is not one to be proud of. In the last two years earnings growth in the public sector has outstripped the private sector by more than a third.

    So I am absolutely clear about this. We are following the wrong path.

    The Conservative Approach

    The British economy needs to become more flexible again. We need to get a grip on regulation, cut back on waste, and over time reduce the burden of taxation. That is the Conservative approach.

    First, spending. We will ensure that, over the medium term, public spending does not grow as quickly as the economy. Under a Conservative Government the State would consume a smaller share of GDP than under Labour.

    Second, we will cut waste. We have appointed David James, the man brought in to tackle the fiasco of London’s Millennium Dome, to look at where we can cut waste. And how right we were. Because suddenly – lo and behold – the Government has discovered potential savings of between £10-15 billion. And that’s without really trying. I’m very confident David James will find more than that and we will root it out when we return to government.

    Third, regulation. Civil service recruitment is currently running at 511 new officials a week. On day one of the next Conservative Government we will freeze it. Fewer officials will mean fewer regulations. We will introduce sunset clauses in new regulation. And like America, we will exempt small businesses from many regulations. The result? The total regulatory burden imposed by government will fall each year.

    EU Constitution

    Of course, not all regulation comes from Britain. The single most expensive regulation for British business in the last few years has been the Working Time Directive. According to your calculations, it has cost business more than £10 billion – so far.

    More than 40% of new regulations start in Brussels. And be in no doubt – if Europe were to adopt the proposed European Constitution that burden will go on rising.

    Don’t for a moment imagine that the European Constitution is an esoteric issue about sovereignty – important though that is. It would have a real and practical impact on your business. As Martin Wolf wrote recently in the Financial Times the Constitution “is a machine for ratcheting upwards an already excessive regulatory burden”.

    The Constitution, for example, incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The rights under the Charter are loosely drafted. They include the right to strike, the right to so-called social protection, and the right for workers to have information and consultation within business.

    It will be up to the European Court exactly what these rights mean in practice. And if past experience is anything to go by, they will lead to yet more burdens on business – burdens British politicians would be powerless to stop.

    There may well be a case for some of these rights. You don’t have to argue for a free for all to be opposed to more regulation at the European level. You can simply take the view that it’s better to argue the issues out here, in Britain, than have them imposed upon us by the majority vote of other countries in Brussels.

    The Conservative Party has consistently demanded a referendum to give the British people the right to say “yes” or “no” to the proposed European Constitution. Yesterday, after days of spin and counter-spin, the Prime Minister came to the House of Commons to announce that, finally, he agreed with us. But do you know what? He was so shame-faced that in a statement lasting some 10 minutes, he couldn’t bring himself to utter, even once, the word “referendum”.

    But in accepting the need for a referendum, Tony Blair has blown apart his ludicrous argument that a “no” vote on the Constitution means Britain would have to leave the EU. So I hope we will hear no more of it. As he finally confirmed in the House of Commons today, rejecting the Constitution would not affect our position as full participating members of the European Union. To pretend otherwise is to distort the argument and deceive the electorate.

    If the British people were to vote “Yes” a Conservative government would accept the Constitution. If the British people were to vote “No”, a Conservative government would veto the Constitution: and we would not agree to any new treaty which establishes a constitution for the European Union. Countries have constitutions and Conservatives do not want to be part of a country called Europe.

    In the House of Commons today Tony Blair clearly implied that if the British people were to vote no in a referendum while he was still Prime Minister, he would follow the precedent set by the Irish Government after the Irish people voted no to the Nice Treaty. Labour would renegotiate the Constitution in some minor way and then force the British people to vote again in a second referendum.

    In other words, if the British people did not vote the way he wanted, Tony Blair would make them vote again until they did.

    The European Union has achieved a great deal. Together we have created a single market of 380 million people. But the EU is failing to face up to the realities of the twenty first century.

    If the Constitution is passed, it will mean business as usual for Europe – greater centralisation, more regulation and less flexibility. It is the exact opposite of what Europe really needs. Far from solving problems it will create yet more.

    Conservatives have an alternative vision for Europe – a positive vision. We want Europe’s member states to have room to breathe. If some countries want to integrate more closely then that is fine – as long as they do not force countries who do not want to, to follow them. Our policy is simple. Live and let live. That is a modern and mature approach – one which will allow Europe to succeed in the twenty first century.

    Conclusion

    Many of you, like me, have probably spent time in America. A love of enterprise is at the centre of American society and I admire many aspects of American life.

    In America, they talk about the American Dream. They talk about the ability of someone born in a log cabin to make it to the White House. As it happens, in America this is the exception, not the rule.

    In Britain it actually does happen. There are countless examples of people from humble beginnings who make it to the top: who live the British Dream.

    So we should talk about it. We should embrace it. We should celebrate it. I want everyone to live the British Dream.

    Britain is a great country full of talented and creative people. We could and should be doing so much better.

    We need a government that does less, but does it better.

    That provides a framework in which people can do the best for themselves and their families.

    That allows them to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn.

    And that does not constantly interfere and regulate and get in the way.

    That is the challenge we set ourselves.

    That is my vision for Britain.

    I hope that it is one that you share and I now look forward to answering your questions.