UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2010

  • William Hague – 2010 Speech with Hillary Clinton

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the press conference with William Hague and Hillary Clinton, held in Washington, United States on 14 May 2010.

    Hillary Clinton: Some months ago so this is not the first time that we’ve had the opportunity for a substantive discussion about a, a very broad range of important matters. The election of a new Government in the United Kingdom and the smooth transfer of power this week were two powerful symbols of the enduring democratic traditions that our two nations share. And we’re very intrigued by and will follow closely the latest incarnation of this long democratic tradition. We’re reminded again that our common values are the foundation of an historic alliance that really undergirds our common aspirations and our common concerns.

    The Obama Administration looks forward to working with the new British Government, we will continue to build on the deep and abiding trust that has existed between the British and American people for a very long time. The Foreign Secretary and I had a lot to talk about today. We discussed our shared mission in Afghanistan and he reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to working with the international community and the Afghans to achieve long term stability there.

    The United States is deeply appreciative of the British contributions in Afghanistan and we honour the sacrifices of the British service members who serve their country with such distinction overseas.

    The United States and the United Kingdom are also firmly committed to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and we support the efforts by the Afghan Government to fight corruption and build a stable and secure Government and country. We will continue our very close consultations on these matters going forward.

    We also remain united in our insistence that Iran fulfil its international obligations and prove that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. Contrary to recent suggestions Iran has not indicated any interest in or accepted the standing offer of the P5 plus 1 to discuss international concerns over its nuclear programme. Rather Iran’s senior officials continue to say they will not talk about their nuclear programme with us. So we are working closely with our UK and other partners on a new Security Council resolution affirming that there are serious consequences should Iran continue to flout its international obligations and fail to comply with both IAEA decisions and UN Security Council resolutions.

    The Foreign Secretary and I also discussed the importance of finding a way forward in the Middle East peace process. Our countries will continue working together to encourage all parties to resume direct negotiations. We seek a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict with an overall goal of securing a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that requires everyone at the table.

    And, of course, there are so many other issues that we touched on. We share a mutual interest in restoring confidence in the financial sector in Europe and in the Eurozone as well as the global economy. We will continue working together to restore economic stability. So I look forward to a very strong working relationship with the Foreign Secretary and it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to begin what will be a long, close and at times intense consultations over the months and years ahead.

    William Hague: Thank you. Well it’s an immense pleasure for me to be here today. I was here not so many months ago as a Shadow Foreign Secretary and we had a very good meeting then but it was always one of my hopes that we would have the opportunity to work together in Government and now we do have the opportunity to do so.

    It’s been an extraordinary week really in British politics, it’s only a week since the election results were coming in. Now we have a new Government created in a new way in Britain and one of the things that has struck the Prime Minister and I is the, the sheer warmth of the welcome we’ve had from the United States. The first person to call David Cameron when he entered 10 Downing Street was the President of the United States and the first person to call me when I entered the Foreign Office was Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden has had an excellent chat on the telephone with our new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. And one of the reasons I wanted to come here so quickly and have our meeting is, is to show that we reciprocate that warmth and we are looking forward to exactly the relationship which the Secretary of State has been describing.

    This new British Government has some real ambition and energy and determination to rebuild our economic strength at home which is, of course, the foundation of any successful foreign policy, but also to deliver a distinctive British foreign policy abroad. And I’m aware coming in to this job that the, the challenges of foreign policy are uniquely tricky and that is why I’ve always had such huge admiration for Secretary Clinton. The leadership she has provided to the international community as Secretary of State, the energy, the ideas, her advocacy of women’s rights, education, development and effective diplomacy are in, an inspiring example to other Foreign Ministers and would be Foreign Ministers around the world and I pay tribute to her for that.

    And today we’ve had very productive talks that reflect this very wide agenda of issues on which the United Kingdom and the United States work in partnership on. We talked, indeed, about our joint effort in Afghanistan which the Prime Minister has made our top priority in, in foreign affairs where we will give the strategy, the NATO strategy and the agreements made at the London Conference, the time and support to succeed. We discussed the closely related situation in Pakistan where we and the United States share common goals and, indeed, have been, have already started discussing ways to enhance and strengthen our cooperation in the support that we give to Pakistan.

    We discussed Iran where we, of course, agreed on the need to send a strong and united signal about Iran’s nuclear programme to secure the passage of a UN Security Council resolution. And the United Kingdom will thereafter, of course, play a key role in ensuring that there is determined action by the European Union to follow up such a resolution.

    We spoke about the Middle East peace process where I expressed my firm and full support for the President’s efforts to re-launch negotiations and what we as a leading member of the EU can do to buttress these efforts. We’ll work together on the crucial issue of nuclear proliferation and the progress we hope will be made in New York and we discussed developments in Europe and I, I reiterated my determination that the European Union should be a strong partner with the United States in meeting our shared challenges and the determination of the new British Government to play a highly active and activist role in the European Union from the very beginning.

    And, finally, I just want to say a few words about what the President has called the extraordinary special relationship between Britain and the United States and we’re very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. The United States is without doubt the most important ally of the United Kingdom, fundamentally it is a relationship rooted in strong alignment of our national interests and the scope of our cooperation is unparalleled; our, our military, our diplomats, our intelligence and security agencies work hand in glove together. It’s not a backward looking or nostalgic relationship it is one looking to the future from combating violent extremism to addressing poverty and conflict around the world. So I believe the UK and the US share common priorities to an extraordinary degree and we will continue to pursue these priorities in what I think we can confidently say is an unbreakable alliance. And it’s on that basis that I’ve so much enjoyed our talks today.

  • Nick Gibb – 2010 Speech on Teaching Latin

    nickgibb

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for Schools, at the Politeia Conference in London on 30 November 2010.

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here today. Sheila Lawlor and Politeia have been and remain hugely influential in steering public policy debate gently in a right of centre direction, particularly in social policy areas such as education.

    I studied Latin at secondary school in the state sector, to O level – the grade you don’t need to know. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. It equipped me for life. And it is for this reason, that the decimation of the teaching of Latin in the state sector over the last few decades is so alarming.

    So I thank you for putting on today’s conference – about how schools can take advantage of the new freedoms that the Government is giving to teachers, to bring Latin to more state schools and to primary schools in particular.

    And I thank Professor Pelling and Dr Morgan for their pamphlet and for the passion of their arguments and the growing groundswell of support for Latin all of you are leading.

    Latin’s importance

    Latin is important.

    Ed Hirsch talks about the importance of cultural literacy and the importance of knowledge in building upon knowledge. Latin is so prevalent in our culture, in our political and legal systems; in our religious and spiritual institutions and thinking; in medicine, botany and horticulture; and in our art and architecture. The Roman Empire is around us every day – from the way our towns are laid out to the literature we read. Virgil and Ovid should be seen as the start of a great tradition of Western literature leading to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keats and Eliot. Latin gives us a direct link to our own past – and dare I say it, an insight into how politics and power have always worked.

    And Latin shows us how the mechanics of language works. The English we speak today descends in part from the Vulgar Latin spoken by workers, merchants and legionaries. English is so riddled with exceptions to the rule that we need Latin to bring sense, order and structure to grammar. Latin gives us the skills to learn not just Romance languages like Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and French – but the aptitude and confidence to learn new tongues beyond Western Europe.

    So when people urge schools to teach a modern language rather than Latin, there need not be an either/or. Learning an ancient language equips you to learn a modern language and vice versa. And learning any language, new or old, helps give young people the academic hunger, thirst and confidence to keep on exploring the world around them.

    That’s what makes the decline in the studying of languages at GCSE-level such a tragedy.

    The numbers studying Latin at GCSE in state schools, remain pitifully small – just 2,868 this year. Overall there were just 9,360 GCSE entries for Latin – 70% of them taken in the independent sector, where just seven per cent of pupils are educated.

    And the proportion studying a modern language overall has fallen from 79% in 2000 to just 44% in 2009 – and when you take out the independent sector that 44% falls to 39%.

    This is all at the precise moment when globalization is demanding that we need to keep up with the rest of the world. Business continues to complain about the paucity of foreign language skills amongst school leavers and graduates. Ignorance of languages breeds insularity and it means an integral part of the brain’s intellectual function remains undeveloped.

    Reform – creating opportunities for Latin

    That’s something we’re determined to put right.

    Our white paper has a clear vision at its heart – that high quality teaching is the single biggest determinant of a pupil’s achievement.

    All the evidence from different education systems around the world shows that the most important factor in determining how well children do is the quality of teachers and teaching.

    And the latest McKinsey report just published, entitled ‘Capturing the Leadership Premium’ – about how the world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity – cites a number of studies from North America, including one saying that:

    … nearly 60% of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness. These are the most important in-school factors driving school success, with principals accounting for 25% and teachers 33% of a school’s total impact on achievement.

    This is why, when you read the White Paper, you will see that its constant theme is the importance of the profession and helping to liberate that profession from over-centralised initiatives, from over-prescription and from too much bureaucracy and red tape.

    And in that liberty lies opportunity for those who believe in promoting Latin.

    You will already have noted our determination to increase the autonomy of schools through expanding the academies programme and giving teachers and headteachers more control over their own destiny. The OECD cites autonomy combined with rigorous and objective external accountability as the two key factors that high performing jurisdictions have in common. Again, in that autonomy lies opportunity – as the proposed West London Free School is doing. It intends to make Latin compulsory for all at age 11-14 – exactly the sort of freedoms which these reforms have opened up.

    But also in the six months since the new coalition government was formed, we’ve already begun to take forward a series of reforms to bear down on unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy – granting schools greater freedoms; extending teachers’ powers to enforce discipline; more classroom autonomy; rigorous qualifications, valued by universities and employers; and the right targets and measures, which don’t create perverse incentives to shy away from academic subjects.

    These are the freedoms that should assist professionals who wish to reintroduce Latin into the curriculum.

    We will slim down the national curriculum. At present the national curriculum has in it too much that is not essential or which is unclear and there is too much prescription about how to teach.

    We need a new approach to the National Curriculum so it specifies a tighter, more rigorous model of the knowledge which every child should be expected to master in core subjects at every key stage.

    It is our view that in a school system that moves towards a greater degree of autonomy, the National Curriculum will increasingly become a benchmark against which schools can be judged rather than a prescriptive straitjacket into which education is squeezed – a straitjacket which has been squeezing Latin out.

    We will be launching the Curriculum Review very shortly – but it will, of course, be looking at languages in primary schools as well as secondary schools. We made it very clear when we announced that we would not be implementing the recommendations in the Rose Review that those primary schools that had made preparations for the introduction of languages at Key Stage 2, or were already teaching languages, should continue to do so. Languages are hugely important and under this government will become more so, not less.

    We are also introducing the new English Baccalaureate, to recognise pupils who achieve good GCSEs in English; maths; science; a humanity, such as history or geography; and a foreign language – modern or ancient.

    Reintroducing the importance of a broad range of academic subjects as a measure of standards in our schools will provide an incentive for schools to refocus on encouraging more young people to study a language. And since we include ancient languages in that measure, this is a real opportunity for the Latin lobby to promote the teaching of Latin in schools.

    Conclusion

    One of the overriding objectives of the Government is to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds.

    The fact that the opportunity to learn Latin is so rare in the state sector is one of a range of factors that has led to the width of that gap. Spreading these opportunities is part and parcel of closing that attainment gap and helping to create a more equal society.

    So when people say that Latin is an elitist subject that shouldn’t be taught in the state sector they are contributing to the widening of that gap and to the very elitism they rail against.

  • Jim Murphy – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy to Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference, in May we face a big election in Scotland – but we face it with confidence.

    Although the general election was painful for us and the millions we stand for, our results in Scotland were stunning. Every seat held. An increase in the share of the vote. All by-election losses regained. Over a million votes for Labour.

    We’re not just the Scottish Labour Party – we’re Scotland’s Labour Party. We should be so proud of Scotland’s achievement.

    Peculiarly, it was also a good election for the Tories too.

    Remember they boasted they would win 12 Scottish seats – and they did. One Tory. 11 Lib Dems.

    But not a single person in Scotland voted Li b Dem in order to put the Tories into power.

    That’s why people are so angry about what they see.

    Let’s be under no illusions. This is a Tory Government and would be cutting hard and fast even if there was no deficit. For them, the deficit is a handy excuse to let them do what they’ve always done.

    The Lib Dems haven’t put the breaks on the Tories – they have bolstered them.

    Just look at the decisions they’ve made – Tory decisions, most of them, and all supported by a Lib Dem Party that has lost its heart.

    Taking away help from pensioners, carers, disabled people.

    I believe that we didn’t lose our economic credibility in Government and we all know that we won’t lose it in Opposition.

    But the Tory budget will cast 125,000 Scots out of work – remember how much the closure of the Ravenscraig hurt Scotland, it is emblematic of the Tories affection for Scotland. But this current Tory budget is the equivalent of a Ravens craig every two weeks. Under this Government, someone in Scotland loses their job every six minutes. You will be pleased to know that I am going to make a short speech but by the time I sit down, another mum or dad will be without an income.

    And the most immoral cut of all – axing the Future Jobs Fund. A simple idea: at the height of recession, instead of paying people benefits – support them to do a job. Not a made up job. A real job in a real firm.

    And what a success. 11,000 young Scots. A Future Jobs Fund job created every hour.

    The Tories claim it’s not sustainable. No evidence, no research – just assertion.

    So I went and asked those in Scotland who took part – how was it for you?

    I have never seen more compelling responses. Daily, there were testimonials from people who came to praise the scheme. I saw it for myself. A young man in Buchan said he didn’t think he’d fit in to his company but after 6 months wrote to say “it is wit hout a doubt in my mind, the best thing to happen. It’s not just about paid work – it’s about life experiences.”

    That is the policy immorality of this Government laid bare: a gang of Cabinet millionaires whose lives are unaffected by their decisions taking jobs in the Western Isles, in the Central Belt and in the East End of Glasgow.

    The Lib Dems are part of a Tory Government that’s going where even Thatcher feared to tread.

    It took Thatcher six years to cut support for the unemployed. This government did it in six weeks.

    Nick Clegg has sold his soul and lost his way.

    Scotland knows that’s hard enough to cope with one Tory party – now we’re being asked to stomach two. Because make no mistake. This is a Tory Government with Tory values.

    So conference, Scotland has a message for the Lib Dems. If you vote like a Tory, if you speak like a Tory, if you act like a Tory – Scotland will treat you like a Tory.

    The SNP paid for years for heralding Thatcher’s arrival and became the Tartan Tories and the Lib Dems will be known as the Tories Little Helpers for years to come – you’ve sold out and come the next election Scotland is coming to get you.

    When Nick Clegg stood on a stage just 30 miles from here in a city that knows unemployment all too well, he spoke eloquently, right into the camera lens, but turned away from the unemployed.

    But for all the thousands of words he spoke, he didn’t mention unemployment once. It was almost as if he had his job now and was disinterested in those who will lose theirs in the future.

    This coalition is composed of one party that doesn’t seem to care about unemployment and another that doesn’t understand it.

    His only message to Scotland is that this won’t be like the 1980s. Too right, Nick.

    It wont be like the 1980s because back then a decent Liberal Party stood up to Tory cuts and you’re on the other side this time.

    It won’t be like the 1980s because the Labour Party is determined not to spend every day of a decade in well intentioned but futile Opposition.

    It won’t be like the 1980s because we wont let the Liberals do to our shipyards what the Tories did to our steelworks.

    Because the ideology behind this government is an ideology that says the state is bad.

    I don’t have an ideological commitment to the state. I have an ideological commitment to making poor people better off, and know the state can help do that.

    Our journey back starts here in Manchester, but the road runs through Scotland and Wales. These are our next big tests as a party and I know our new leader Ed Miliband will offer any and every support to Scotland in May.

    Many Scottish families battered by the recession caught in the middle of a perfect political storm: a Tory Government at Westminster that is causing unemployment and an SNP Government at Edinburgh that isn’t doing enough to stop it.

    But it doesn’t have to be that way.

    So I am delighted to welcome here today my friend and colleague, the next First Minister of Scotland, Iain Gray.

  • Ed Miliband – 2010 Speech to Scottish Labour Party Conference

    edmiliband

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We won seats where the media had written us off.

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

    We won seats back from the SNP and Liberal Democrats.

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

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

    We increased our majority in once marginal seats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Coming back to Scotland reminds me of the many occasions I have come here with the person I worked with for a number of years – Gordon Brown.

    He taught me many things about Scotland and about politics.

    It was my privilege to work with him to help win those first Scottish Parliament elections.

    He has an incredible legacy: he improved the lives of millions of people here and around the world.

    I am proud to call him my friend. We should pay tribute today to Gordon Brown for his leadership of our party and our country.

    I remember visiting Gordon at his home in Fife and looking over the River Forth where my father served in the Royal Navy during the war.

    Along with my mum, he came as a refugee from the Nazis and built a life here.

    It was his values – it is my mum’s values – that explain why I am standing on this stage today.

    They taught me some basic principles: most of all, a sense of optimism that politics, that people can change our society and be a force for good.

    Fundamentally this is an optimism about people acting together, and their ability to change the society in which we live.

    The belief that injustice, unfairness, inequality are not immovable facts.

    Our world can be what we make of it not simply what we inherit.

    That is what I was taught as I grew up.

    That is my family’s experience; that is their story.

    That too is our story as a labour movement.

    It is a story that echoes down the ages.

    Keir Hardie believed that getting representation for workers in Parliament could make a difference to the lives of working people.

    And it did.

    Clement Attlee in the economic ruins of the Second World War had the optimism to believe that we could build a National Health Service.

    And he did.

    And this month, we mark the 10th anniversary of the death of someone who fought long and hard for a Scottish Parliament, for a voice for the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom, and had the vision to believe it was possible.

    And it was.

    The man to whom the Scottish Parliament is a living memorial – Donald Dewar.

    What ties together all of these struggles is a belief in human progress: that the forces of optimism can defeat the forces of pessimism that would say things cannot change.

    What is the nature of this optimism?

    It is about acting together so that we can change the world.

    But it is about more than that.

    It is about a view of human nature which says that we do care about ourselves and our families, but we also recognise that the interests of each of us is served by the flourishing of all of us.

    And that politics at its best can unlock new possibilities for our world.

    And what about those forces of pessimism?

    They tell us that a belief that our world can change is a flight of fancy: unfairness, inequality are facts of life.

    That people are best left on their own, and that government is normally the problem not the solution.

    And the best thing politics can do, they say is get out of the way.

    I’m afraid that is today’s Conservative Pa rty. That is David Cameron.

    The fundamental difference between the optimists and the pessimists is that they believe that the greatness of a country lies merely in individual acts.

    Whereas we understand that greatness lies in what we achieve as individuals and what we achieve together.

    Each generation is called to this fight.

    And so as we think about how we rebuild as a party after what was a bad general election defeat, let us be true to who we are.

    What is the character of the party I intend to lead?

    Let it be true to our values of fairness, prosperity, aspiration and justice – the values that brought me into this party – and you.

    As Donald Dewar said of John Smith: “He knew politics was the art of the possible, but on the great principles he would not give ground.”

    Let us understand the reasons we lost power across the United Kingdom and show humility: because we lost touch and because people lost a sense of what we st ood for and whose side we were on.

    Let us always remember that we had great leaders who held power but too many great leaders who never did: there is no role for this party as one of protest; we must be a party of government again.

    Let us ensure that the new generation embraces and responds to the new issues that people face in their lives: from aging to immigration to climate change.

    And let us be a movement not a fan club: debating issues, reaching out to the community beyond our own party, linked to the trade unions and all of civil society and above all, a party that people want to join because of our ideals.

    In this way, let us fight for optimism in our time.

    This task starts with our economy and the financial crisis and the lessons we draw from it.

    The pessimists want to tell you that the problem of the financial crisis was government.

    That somehow a crisis that began with financial markets out of control should be seen as a cris is of government’s making.

    That is why they have spent the last five months telling you that all the problems we now face are Labour’s fault.

    Conference, we must stand up for the truth.

    We know the story and we must tell it like it is.

    There was a global financial crisis affecting every country and every country is having to cope with the consequences.

    Remember, our government paid down the debt before the crisis hit.

    At the same time we were investing in the schools, the hospitals, the infrastructure which had suffered chronic under-investment under the previous Conservative government.

    I remember it – I went to school in the 1980s.

    Conference, we didn’t just fix the roof, we built the schools.

    And we didn’t just cut the waiting lists, we built the hospitals.

    And we didn’t just do it when the sun was shining either, we did it all year round.

    My partner is due to have our second child… any minute now actually.

    She will do so in a brand new NHS hospital.

    It was us, the optimists, that won the argument for the investment in that hospital and made it possible.

    Conference, we should all be proud of this record and we should stand up for it – because it made Britain stronger and fairer.

    But why did the deficit go up so much?

    Not because of this investment.

    But because we lost 6% of our economy due to the global financial crisis.

    Because Alistair and Gordon used the power of government to stop recession becoming depression and stopped people losing their jobs, homes and savings.

    That’s why the deficit rose and we should fight back against the Tory deceit.

    The pessimists are trying to rewrite history.

    Why? Because they don’t believe in the role of government.

    They’re hoping that if they win the argument about the past, they can win the argument about the future.

    What is our responsibility as the optimists?

    To learn the right lessons of history.

    That markets unchecked and unfettered in finance can spiral out of control and must instead be regulated.

    That we can’t have an economy based on one type of industry. We need to lead in all of the industries of tomorrow – from bio-tech to creative industries to green manufacturing.

    And we must learn the lesson that a more unequal economy is a more unstable economy.

    If we don’t properly reward lower and middle-income families, they will rely on ever-increasing personal debt.

    And if those at the top feel there are one-way bets worth millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of pounds, they will gamble without responsibility.

    We should never let that happen again and have ordinary families paying the price.

    The flaw in their plan is this, if we reduce our economic policy simply to deficit reduction, we will not build the strong economy of the future.

    Of course we need to reduce the deficit.

    Everybody in this room agrees about that and we would have halved it over four years if we had been in government.

    We would have made some tough decisions and no doubt some unpopular ones too.

    But I have to tell you this: I believe they’ve got it wrong in the pace and scale of deficit reduction.

    They’ve got it wrong because they have no plan for jobs and growth.

    And they have no plan for fairness either.

    Their cuts will mean half a million jobs lost in the public sector over the coming years.

    A similar number in the private sector.

    One million jobs lost—that’s their plan.

    And how will they replace them? By hoping that things turn out OK and that the private sector fills the gap.

    The Tories say we want recession or indeed that we are predicting it.

    We’re not and it’s nonsense for them to pretend we are.

    But there’s no plan to make growth happen and n o plan if things go wrong.

    And what do they offer those people who have lost their jobs?

    They say wait and see, fingers crossed.

    We remember Conference the effects of unemployment which scarred communities for generations here in Scotland and all over the UK.

    We have a fundamentally different view about what our economy can achieve for people and how to make it so.

    We need to reform our financial system.

    We need to invest in the industries of the future. We need to use the power of govt procurement to promote British businesses and we need to provide people with the skills they need.

    And we say unemployment is never a price worth paying.

    We say never again.

    And we have a different view about society as well.

    The Tories used to say that there’s no such thing as society

    Now they claim they’ve wised up… now they offer something you may have heard of… the big society.

    They praise the special cons table, the parent/teacher council, the tenants association, the local charity.

    They say they want more of it.

    But Conference, what does it really amount to?

    They think if government gets out of the way, the big society will miraculously spring up.

    They fail to learn the lessons of history.

    Today we have more voluntary organisations than ever before in Britain; more people working in the sector than ever before; and the sector’s income is double what it was when we came to office.

    Not because government got out of the way but because it supported and encouraged this important part of civil society.

    I saw as minister for charities the amazing work that is being done by the voluntary sector but it was based on a vital partnership between the state and citizens.

    And what happens now when budgets are being so savagely cut?

    When the local day centre closes, it destroys the services on which elderly people depend.

    When the local library reduces its hours, it destroys the place at which people come together.

    And when people are worried sick about losing the roof over their head and moving their children to another school, how they can be active in the parent/teacher council?

    And do you know what has been revealed about this government since the Spending review last week:

    It’s not just economically wrong,

    It’s not just unfair,

    It is grossly incompetent.

    And we all know it is families and children who will pay the price.

    They announced a child benefit policy which is unfair and now apparently unworkable.

    It’s a complete shambles.

    Next came a Housing Benefit policy that their own Mayor of London detests.

    Why is it fair for someone who has been doing the right thing… who’s been looking for work for a year… to lose 10% of the help with their rent?

    Don’t they get it? If you drive up homelessness, families end up in bed and breakfasts, and that costs more.

    Why are they showing this incompetence?

    Because of ideology – they came into politics to make these cuts;

    Because they’re out of touch – they don’t understand the lives and experiences of ordinary people;

    And because they’ve made bad decisions in haste and stubbornly refuse to change.

    A week from Tuesday we will force a vote in the House of Commons on Housing Benefit.

    Our appeal is to all MPs of conscience:

    Join us, vote against these unfair and unworkable changes and force the government to think again.

    And there will be no better person to lead our attack than my friend of nearly 20 years, someone who really did come into politics to help the poorest in society, our Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Douglas Alexander.

    The big society is one big figleaf for an old pessimistic idea: that people do better on their own.

    The optimists have a different view of society and the state.

    We know – and this is a hard lesson – that government can be overbearing. We know the importance, particularly in the years ahead, of getting more for the money the state spends.

    But we also know that the right and the best kind of government can support people to take control of their own lives.

    When I visited the Wellhouse project in Easterhouse with Margaret Curran, I saw the difference that it was making to people: improving the health of young and old people, helping tenants have a real say in housing decisions and a fantastic community centre.

    We understand that the good children’s centre enables families to go out to work and form bonds with others.

    Good neighbourhood policing provides the reassurance and the security that is the foundation for communities to thrive.

    And many of the best voluntary organisations have a mix of paid staff and volunteers.

    Ours is a view about the good society where we support each other.

    Let me tell you also what we understand: the good society depends on the fair economy.

    If you are holding down two jobs, working fourteen hour days, worrying about childcare, anxious about elderly relatives, how can you find the time for anything else?

    That’s why we need an economy which lifts people out of poverty and supports not just a minimum wage but a decent living wage.

    Until we address the conditions that mean that people’s lives are dominated by long hours, then the big society will always remain a fiction.

    And I tell you this also: we know the divided society cannot be the good society.

    We know that from the 1980s: the last big experiment in the retreat of government.

    We know that every major city across the country lost out: economically weakened, socially divided and here in Scotland it took almost twenty years to fully recover.

    Two decades on, we know that economic regeneration and social improvement have happened together.

    And we know the dangers of going backwards.

    Mr Cameron by your deeds not your words shall we know you.

    There’s no point in saying you believe in the big society, if by your actions you undermine and weaken the very fabric of our communities.

    But let us be the party who always stand for giving our citizens greater control over their own lives

    And what greater example is there of us giving people more control than devolution.

    The Scottish Parliament is one of our proudest achievements.

    When Scottish Labour led the government, it pioneered historic firsts:

    Free bus travel for the elderly;

    Land reform;

    The smoking ban.

    And again at these elections ahead of us in May, as Iain will set out tomorrow, it will be Scottish Labour leading the way.

    Let me say something about Iain’s leadership.

    He learnt the lessons of why we lost power in Scotland.

    He’s shown how to reconnect with people’s lives and hopes.

    He has shown that values must drive everything we do.

    That is why his campaigns on school standards, safer streets and apprenticeships speak to who we are and who we represent.

    And what is the alternative?

    If there is one lesson that the economic crisis teaches us, it is that we are stronger together and weaker apart.

    The collective resources of Britain, the tens of billions of pounds that we invested to protect people’s savings and homes was only possible because we are one United Kingdom.

    Where would each of us have been on our own? Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland.

    Let’s face it: across the world, the debate has changed since the financial crisis.

    And who is left behind? The Scottish National Party.

    As problems become more global, the solutions need to be global too.

    As the climate change secretary, I saw the impact that Britain could have when we worked together.

    We may be 2% of global emissions but we punch above our weight.

    Does anyone really think any one of us would have more influence on the climate change debate if we went our separate ways?

    Narrow nationalism has nothing to offer the challenges of the 21st century.

    While we’re fighting for jobs and hope, they are fighting to break up Britain.

    They claim that an independence referendum is a referendum on jobs.

    Let us make next May’s election a referendum on the job they have done for the people of Scotland.

    Never has a party promised so much and delivered so little…

    Like their broken promises on class sizes, student debt and support for first time buyers.

    They have let down the people of Scotland. And Scotland deserves better.

    And what about the Lib Dems?

    What did they used to say?

    The progressive alternative to Labour.

    It has taken Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander just five short months to undermine 150 years of the Liberal tradition.

    Remember what they said: Vote for us to keep the Tories out.

    Have they no shame?

    Now they have become the cheerleaders for the worst things the Tory government does.

    The VAT rise? Send out a Lib Dem.

    Child benefit cut? Put up a Lib Dem.

    Housing benefit slashed? Get me a Lib Dem.

    No wonder Nick Clegg is choosing his desert island discs.

    And let’s make sure that coming soon to an election near you is a new hit series:

    I’m a Liberal Democrat, get me out of here.

    And as they face the prospect of electoral meltdown, what do they do?

    They try to rig our electoral boundaries.

    Get this, the government that claims to care about localism is now saying local identity doesn’t matter when it comes to boundaries – unless you happen to be Charles Kennedy whose constituency gets a special opt-out.

    We all care about endangered species in the Highlands and Islands, but we draw the line at Lib Dems.

    Talking about endangered species, what about the Scottish Tories. What about them?

    So we are the optimists, we are the only credible alternative to the pessimists who would damage our economy and divide our society.

    But this election won’t be won simply by Iain, myself and other MP and MSP colleagues.

    Everything we know from our history tells us that it is people that change the world.

    This will be a doorstep election, won or lost by us.

    It is the hard graft, the dedication, the hours we put in that will decide this election.

    It is our chance to show we are back on people’s side – optimists with the right values to change our country.

    This election is critical to the people of Scotland.

    Four more years of broken SNP promises or a new start under Iain Gray.

    And it is a vital moment in Labour’s rebuilding across the United Kingdom.

    Britain cannot afford this to be anything other than a one-term coalition.

    So let the message go out.

    We are ready to take our case to the people of Scotland.

    We are ready to take on the pessimists.

    There is an alternative.

    Based on our values – an optimistic future for Scotland.

    Labour’s fight back has begun.

    We are ready for the fight.

    Let’s fight for the people we came into politics to serve

    Let’s stand up for Scotland.

    Let’s fight to win.

    Thank you.

  • Ed Miliband – 2010 Speech to CBI

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the 2010 CBI Conference.

    It is a privilege to have the opportunity to address the CBI Annual Conference as Leader of the Labour party.

    I want to pay tribute to the work that the CBI does as the voice of British business and I want to pay particular tribute to Richard Lambert.

    He has been an outstanding advocate on many issues for progressive business sense.

    As befits a party that lost the election only five months ago and a leader beginning his fifth week in charge, I am not here to give you my manifesto for 2015, but to set out our direction for the future, and begin the process of engagement we need with you, the wealth creators and entrepreneurs of Britain.

    New Labour’s insight in the 1990s was to recognise that we needed to be a party that understood wealth creation as well as its distribution, that we needed to be for economic prosperity as well as social justice and that solving our society’s problems could not be done without a partnership between government and business.

    With Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, John Denham as the Shadow Business Secretary and Douglas Alexander as the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we intend to carry forward all of these New Labour insights.

    Enterprise and job creation are fundamental to the good economy and good society and I will lead a party that understands that at its core.

    The argument I want to make today is that because the world has changed so much since the 1990s and because we need to learn lessons from success and failure, what it means to be pro-business in the 2010s is different to what it meant back then.

    The result of the financial crisis is that we have a deficit we need to cut, but the lessons are much deeper.

    In tackling the deficit, we need to recognise the fundamental weaknesses in our economy that led to it and which we need to put right if we are to have a stronger economic future.

    Let me start with the deficit.

    I want to be clear: if we had won power in May, there would have been cuts.

    We will therefore be selective about the cuts we will oppose and will support.

    On welfare, we have said that we will work with the government on reforms to Disability Living Allowance, sickness benefits and other areas where there is genuine reform.

    We will support reforms which bring greater value for money.

    Now, this audience will know that we have a difference with the government on the pace and scale of deficit reduction. We do believe that a four year timetable for halving the deficit would be a better approach.

    And, I do fear that the path the government is pursuing is a gamble with growth and jobs.

    They have a programme which will lead to the disappearance of a million private and public sector jobs but no credible plan to replace them.

    And their refusal to accept that a deficit reduction plan has to be sensitive to changing economic circumstances needlessly makes the British economy a hostage to fortune.

    Time will tell whether they turn out to be right.

    But my wider point is this – we don’t just need to pay down the deficit in a way that ensures growth now: we need to understand the causes of the high deficit and the deeper lessons about our economy to prevent a recurrence of the financial crash and build a strong economy for the future.

    There is a view that the deficit arose solely because of spending choices made in the last decade.

    In fact, the deficit was 2.4% of national income in 2007/8, broadly the same level as public sector capital investment.

    It was what happened next that led to led to a deficit of over 10%: a combination of the loss of 6% of our national income, and the tax receipts that went with them; the consequent rise in benefit spending; and the discretionary decisions to stabilise the economy.

    Not everything the last government did was right, but if we misread history we will fail to tackle the big structural issues we face in our economy.

    There are important lessons to be learned about why the deficit went up so significantly and we need a wider plan for our economy which understands these deeper lessons.

    Without profound change in the way we manage our economy, we are at risk of at best, sleepwalking back to an economy riddled with the same risks as we saw before the recession hit.

    First, a new system of financial regulation which avoids a repeat of the crash and creates a banking system that works better in the interests of our economy.

    Second, a new approach to industrial policy so we have a more balanced economy.

    And third, we need to do more to create an economy which by supporting everyone to make a decent living, whether in employment or a by starting a small business, creates a more stable platform of economic growth.

    First, on financial regulation.

    British political debate in the last thirty years has been dominated by debate about the dangers of excessive regulation.

    Government should always be vigilant about the substance and implementation of regulation.

    But as is now widely recognised, the financial crisis revealed the real dangers of the opposite.

    If government fails to play its proper role, businesses suffer.

    The financial services industry in Britain is a major employer and it is important that it remains strong.

    But over time, support for financial services led to competitive deregulation as countries sought to extract comparative advantage.

    We need policy-makers and regulators who recognise that we need stronger rules but also that we need a culture that balances the need to support financial services with the need to protect our wider economy.

    And, change shouldn’t just be about reducing risk but also about increasing opportunity.

    We must also use this moment to tackle the historic problem that we have long faced in the British economy: our financial services industry is a great employer but does not do enough to support small business and industry.

    As Richard Lambert said in a speech earlier this month: “One constant complaint I hear from SMEs around the country is that decisions which affect their business are not being taken by people who know anything about it. Instead, they are referred up to the centre, where loan requests are decided against a set of box-ticking benchmarks.”

    This has been a decades-long problem and business as usual will not tackle it.

    That is why I hope the banking commission and indeed the government looks radically at the structure of the banking system but also at the case for new models of ownership in the banking sector.

    Both Richard and Paul Myners have suggested the case for greater public involvement in helping to finance the small business sector, for example through a new small business bank, like the ICFC created after the Second World War.

    Others have made the case for mutuals and for public/private structures of banking ownership, as we make decisions about the stakes we have in the banks.

    All of these issues should be on the table if we are to get the banking system our economy needs.

    Secondly, we should learn the lessons of the financial crisis: that we need to more fundamentally reform our economy if we are to broaden our economic base.

    The truth is that over time, Britain became over-reliant on the financial services sector – for jobs and for tax revenues. Financial services became the goose that laid the golden egg.

    This is why, in part, the deficit went up so much in the UK after the financial crash happened.

    Until late in its time in office, I believe our government did not do enough to support other sorts of industry in this country.

    Scarred by the failed exercise in picking winners decades ago, government has been too afraid to support the industries of the future.

    Under governments of both parties, we let other countries steal a march on us and I fear the same may happen again: from creative industries to green manufacturing to bio-sciences.

    Despite all the talent in engineering and work in our universities, I fear Britain still suffers from an anti-manufacturing bias.

    The way to support British businesses who want to lead in the industries of the future isn’t for government to do nothing.

    Government action can make a difference, and government inaction can make life harder.

    Where do we need to do better?

    In finance as I have already said.

    As Energy Secretary, I was constantly struck by the risk aversion in relation to new green industries compared to say, construction.

    And in the absence of commercial finance, sometimes government needs to step in.

    For example, the decision to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters risks our traditional problem: bought by Britain, made elsewhere.

    We need to do better in public procurement, where we do not yet do enough to get bang for our buck when it comes to supporting British business.

    We need support for infrastructure that provides a platform for new industries, from ports for the wind industry to broadband and high speed rail.

    And we need to make sure we have the right skills base, growing the pool of talent in Britain which can attract new industries.

    All too often, British success is undermined by one or more missing elements. Too often poor public policy or a lack of action leads to failure.

    As an opposition, a focus on the future sources of prosperity and growth will be at the heart of our policy review.

    Nobody should pretend these are easy questions to answer but we must not ignore them and continue with business as usual.

    Third, we must address a deeper and perhaps the most challenging lesson of the financial crisis.

    We went into it with an economy in which rising living standards for too many lower and middle income families, depended on high levels of personal debt and rising asset prices.

    Why was this?

    We were successful as an economy at creating jobs but not good enough at creating and sustaining well-paying, high productivity jobs.

    Indeed globalisation – trade and immigration – had the effect of squeezing out middle-income jobs, and holding down wages in a number of sectors in our economy.

    And while for individual companies, this had benefits, for too many families they had no option but to take on higher levels of debt to sustain their standards of living.

    In the world after the credit crunch, this is not a credible route to sustaining higher living standards or overall demand in our economy.

    So the long-term task we face is to move towards an economy in which good quality jobs attract rising salaries, alongside rising productivity, both for the good of those families and the prosperity of our economy.

    This requires the kind of broader industrial base I talked about earlier, but it also requires a shift away from Britain’s competitive advantage being in low paid, low skilled jobs.

    As the last government and many of you have rightly said, this depends on having a better skilled and higher productivity workforce.

    Government must play a role in this: sometimes through direct support for training, but that does not always make it happen.

    We therefore need to find new ways of rewarding those employers who invest in their workforce.

    So I have suggested, for example, tax cuts for those employers who pay the living wage as an incentive to develop the skills of the people who work for them.

    We also need to do more to support people and local communities to take control of their own economic future.

    That means much greater emphasis on small business.

    There have been and still are too few in British politics who speak up for small business.

    The change Tony Blair brought to our party rightly made us more open to the business community, but we have not yet done enough to understand the real importance of small business as a way of liberating individuals and creating the economy we need.

    I want our party to stand up for small business and entrepreneurs.

    And I look forward to working with you to help create this high wage high productivity economy in Britain.

    Our country faces some big choices in the months and years ahead.

    We can accept an analysis that nothing matters bar deficit reduction.

    But I fear that is a gamble with growth and jobs.

    Even more importantly, it does not address the deeper risks and flaws in our economy.

    To think this is the best we can hope for is a deeply pessimistic view.

    I believe we need to take a different and more optimistic approach – an approach that sees deficit reduction as a start not an end and is willing to learn the profound lessons of the crisis.

    My view is that it is only this that truly serves the interests of British business.

    It is only this that will insulate business from the risks that are part and parcel of the financial services industry.

    It is only this that will actively support the creation of British industries that can lead in the global economy of tomorrow.

    It is only this that can combine fairness, prosperity and economic stability.

    That is what I believe it means to be pro-business in the wake of the financial crisis.

    It is the pro-business approach I will adopt.

    I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.

    Thank you.

  • David Miliband – 2010 Speech to Demos

    davidmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, to the Demos conference on 23rd February 2010.

    The Prime Minister asked on Saturday that voters take a second look at Labour. He set out serious plans for the pursuit of noble causes based on clear values. This speech is about those values, and how a re-elected Labour government would make them real.

    The core value we espouse is a commitment to use government to help give people the power to shape their own lives. The power that comes with income and wealth. The power that comes with skills and confidence. The power that comes with rights and democratic voice. Not just for the few but for all. It is a fundamentally progressive vision of the good society.

    In this lecture I want to explore why and how only the centre-left, social democrats and radical liberals, can realise the progressive insight that a free and powerful people is made not born.

    I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, when “progressive” was a word that neither Labour nor Conservative would have considered a compliment. Labour was struggling to reconcile the Labourism of its old right with the utopianism of the new left, the Tories sloughing off the pragmatism of Edward Heath for the radicalism of Margaret Thatcher. “Progressive” didn’t really capture what politics was about.

    But after 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, progressive became the catchword for centre-left politics, for the less ideological more values-based ideas approach that united Clinton and Blair with the governments of Havel and Mandela. It is a compliment to our time in government that after 2005 our opponents tried to learn our language. David Cameron and George Osborne have both made speeches in which they tried to claim the idea of being a progressive force for the political right. But it is not a claim that withstands serious scrutiny.

    In the 1990s , spurred by David Marquand’s book The Progressive Dilemma, Labour embraced a more pluralist centre-left politics, in a conscious effort to draw on its liberal as well as social democratic heritage. That coalition has now dominated politics for a decade, bringing together individual rights in a market economy with collective provision to promote social justice.

    I am proud of the long lists of changes in each category. I think we have changed the country for the better. The liberal achievements – gay rights, human rights, employee rights, disability rights – on the one hand. The social democratic ones – childcare, university places, health provision – on the other. And then those areas that fused the best of both: a New Deal for the Unemployed that uses the private and voluntary sector, devolved budgets for disabled people, the digital switchover, Academies, all combine government leadership with bottom up innovation and engagement.

    It is very striking the extent to which this agenda continues to dominate important parts of political life. After all, one reason the Conservative leadership are currently tied in policy knots – backing away from health reform, back to front on government’s role in sponsoring marriage, facing both ways on economic policy – is that they have felt it necessary to assert that they too seek progressive ends, contrary to the history of conservatism. It is quite a bizarre situation. New Labour was built on the application of our traditional values in new ways. The Tories are saying that they have got new values – in with social justice, out with no such thing as society – that will be applied in old ways, notably an assault on the legitimacy and purpose of government itself.

    New Labour said the values never change but that the means need to be updated. The Tories want it the other way round. They say the values have changed, but, miraculously, the policies should stay the same. They even boast about not needing a ‘Clause IV moment’.

    This is actually not just a dry technocratic debate. It is about how much hope we invest in the future. Progressives are optimists about change. Conservatives are fearful that change invariably means loss. We think things can work better. Conservatives worry that they never will. We trust, as Bill Clinton used to put it, that the future will be better than the past, and we all have a personal responsibility to make it so. The Conservatives think, as they always have, that Britain is broken.

    Now the polls show the British people are not feeling particularly optimistic at the moment: the political system is in disrepute, our financial system has had to be rescued from deep collapse, the moral authority of the West is contested, and international institutions are all but paralysed on issues like climate change.

    That explains why the Tories, after promising to ‘let sunshine win the day’ in 2006, have decided that not only that it is raining but that it will never stop. That is why they have embraced a rhetoric of national decline, and are now promising an Age of Austerity. They think they’ve spotted that people are miserable and if they can only make them more miserable still, they can benefit.

    Personally, I think this pessimism is overdone. David Halpern’s work on the hidden wealth of nations provides some backing for this. And in any case, the purpose of politics is to change people’s minds not read them. As then Senator Obama said in his Jackson Day Dinner speech in October 2007, when his campaign started to catch fire, principles are more valuable than polling.

    The truth is that the routines and assumptions of 20th century Britain are all under threat of change. So there is a sense of discontinuity and rupture, and no settled destination. Jobs, communities, families are changing. The changes in the space of one generation are stark; some times they are alarming.

    But that does not mean to say that Britain is inevitably declining. The right way to see how Britain is changing is not through the prism of decline, but through the prism of transition. Transition in the economy, society, politics. Transition too in foreign policy. So we should judge parties on whether they understand the challenges of the modern world, and whether they have a vision for how to meet them.

    The transitions through which we are living are profound:

    – A multi-polar world, where the rise of the Asian middle class, at a rate of some 70m a year, is not just the growth market of tomorrow; it is an indicator of how economic power, and political power, is going to shift from West to East.

    – A world that has to find a way to stop consuming resources as if there were three planets rather than one. It’s dropped off David Cameron’s top ten reasons to vote Conservative. It’s not dropped off ours.

    – The twin challenges of better bringing up children and adjusting to ageing populations.

    – Economies where manufacturing and services depend on intensive learning, knowledge creation, and scientific development.

    – Societies that are more open and diverse than ever before, but where trust needs to be renewed.

    – A world of political systems that develop new multilateral arrangements at the regional and global level, and embrace subsidiarity at the national and local level.

    We know, in each area, where we have to get to. We know too that the old ways are not going to work. So we have to chart a new course. These are big questions and I cannot deal with all of them today. That is what our manifesto will do. But I do think there is a principle which applies to them all. I think it is a principle too that means the future requires philosophical and policy thinking that can only be supplied by the centre-left.

    That principle is that power needs to be vested in the people, but we do not reveal a powerful populace simply in the act of withdrawing the state. In fact a powerless government simply means more power for the already powerful. That is the error that runs through David Cameron’s speeches. We make powerful people by providing a platform on which people can stand.

    It is not just that Government must be a countervailing power to vested interests, which is what the Competition Act has done to protect consumers; or that Government must address inequalities, which is what tax credits and labour laws do; or that Government must forge alliances around the world, which is what the European Union does; or that Government must protect people from risks beyond their control, which is what our bailout of the banking system has done.

    It is that the big challenges of the modern world require an alliance of active government and active citizens. And that although government may be more needed than before; it is more questioned than before; so as the Prime Minister said in launching the Smarter Government White Paper it needs to be more reformed than before, not more reduced than before.

    The expansion of capacity in public services – not just staff but also capital investment – has achieved a qualitative shift in public service provision, both in its scope and its depth. Part of our job in the Labour Party is to persuade people that they don’t need another period of Tory government to remind them what its like to have underfunded services. But we know that in the next ten years investment cannot be the driver of reform in the way it has over the last ten. We simply will not manage chronic diseases that account for 80 per cent of the NHS budget without empowering the people who suffer those diseases; we will not restore trust in politics unless we bring the public into the decision making tent at local as well as national level; we will not reduce fear of crime or increa se creativity in education through the actions of police officers and teachers unless they build new kinds of relationships with people, parents, pupils.

    The argument of the Right is that this alliance should be based on a zero sum view of relationships between government and society. To roll society forward you need to roll government back. That’s not how I see it. The transitions we face as a country require three interlocking commitments from government to nurture a country of powerful people.

    First that it guarantees what markets and self help cannot provide. The reason the welfare state grew in the 19th and 20th centuries across Europe was simple: self help could not offer the services and protection that people needed. That remains true today – with new risks like care for the elderly added to old ones like the need for healthcare.

    Today the Prime Minister is setting out how it is the responsibility of government to build an empowering education system for the future. It applies in other spheres too. If government does not guarantee apprenticeship places for young people, or a job guarantee if they have been unemployed for more than six months, no one will.

    Guarantees do not always mean government funding; the social care debate, or university funding, shows that. They do not always mean government delivery: childcare shows that. But they do mean being clear about the birthrights of people, and committing to fulfil them: clear on the goals, pragmatic on the means.

    It’s just bogus to say that when government takes on commitments it necessarily disempowers individuals. The right to a cancer diagnosis within a week, to see a specialist in two weeks, puts power in the hands of patients; to abolish the right is to empower the manager. The right to be treated for all conditions within 18 weeks is a powerful tool in the hands of individuals precisely because it is accompanied by the commitm ent that if they are not helped by the NHS within those periods they can go to an alternative provider.

    Second, the role of government is to provide a platform for markets and civil society. Strong government can nurture citizen responsibility not stifle it. As James Purnell – soon no longer to be my colleague but a good friend who has a big contribution to make to public life outside Parliament in the future – said two weeks ago, the point about the modern centre-left is that we seek empowering government, dynamic markets and strong communities as supports for and disciplines on each other.

    The role of government is not to eradicate markets but mobilise them. The fight against climate change is a good example. Carbon markets will not exist without a powerful role for government. And without carbon markets there will be no efficient reduction in carbon emissions. The plans for feed-in tariffs from April this year will enable citizens and communities to s ell renewable energy back to the grid at guaranteed prices. Alongside this there will be new incentives to install renewable heat and a financing scheme to make home energy insulation more affordable. This is not Government crowding out citizen initiative.

    And governments are not an alternative to self help networks for the elderly and disabled to manage their own care. They are a key support to them. That is why the NHS is creating expert patient programmes and enrolling diabetes and Alzheimer’s patients in self-help networks. Strong government can be a platform for civil society when it becomes more porous, open and interactive in the use of its information, buildings, infrastructure and budgets. That is why the UK alongside the US is leading the world in opening up public data to the public.

    Nor do we ignore the danger that Governments will tend to bureaucracy or obduracy without the check of strong communities, with strong rights of redress against poo r treatment, and ready-made levers to take power for themselves. That is why we have legislated for staff coops in the NHS. Whether employee or citizen led, the Labour Party has rediscovered its mutual tradition in the last decade not just the last month, and with the Cooperative Party and the Commission on Ownership we are not going to let it go.

    We also know government has to promote rights to neighbourhood management in local services. It’s ironic that when I went to Hammersmith on Friday the Tory Council was resisting people power on its estates, as communities sought to use powers brought in by the Labour government to enable them to run, and save, their estate, in favour of bulldozing what the leader of the Council called “ghettos” to make way for more expensive housing.

    Third, government only works as an ally of powerful people when power is situated in the right place – starting locally. We can only do that through what Phil Collins and Ric hard Reeves call turning Government upside down. We should start with the assumption that the individual should have power, but never forget that government needs to have enough power to stop the individual being overpowered. In government we would call it subsidiarity – so that fewer people would understand. In practice it means a more central role for local government, but also devolution to neighbourhoods.

    Britain was built by powerful city government, but we have got the balance wrong between universality and dynamism in the last fifty years. That is one reason I favour in the next Parliament a referendum that is not just about the Alternative Vote for the House of Commons, but also about local government, fixed term Parliaments, and the House of Lords. Call it a Reset Referendum.

    But localisation is not a strong enough recipe for powerful people in the modern world. Localisation without internationalism just means sink or swim. This applies in spades in our relations with the European Union:

    – We will not make the transition to being a low carbon economy without European regulation.

    – We will not make the transition to systemic financial regulation without effective European regulation.

    – We will not make the transition to effective security for an age when terrorism not invasion is our risk, without effective European security cooperation.

    Labour’s challenge is not its philosophy. It is that it has to answer for every time government does not fulfil this vision. But the Tories’ problem is that their instinct is the oldest deception in politics: that government just hurts the little guy. In essence it is an extension of Charles Murray’s dependency culture thesis about the welfare state from the 1980s, and applying to all functions of government not just welfare.

    David Cameron’s Hugo Young Lecture last year was intended as a corrective to his disastrous foray into policy substa nce at his party conference where he said that the state was always the problem and never the solution. As he sought to allay fears that he had used the economic crisis to show his true colours as a small state Reaganite, he still showed what he really thinks.

    The kernel of his analysis of Britain today was this: “There is less expectation to take responsibility, to work, to stand by the mother of your child, to achieve, to engage with your local community, to keep your neighbourhood clean, to respect other people and their property”. It was declinist. It blamed government for all ills. And every single assertion that can be measured in his list was wrong. Divorce rates are falling. School achievement is rising. Volunteering is up. Crime is down. The Tory dystopia of modern Britain relies on a picture of what is actually happening in Britain that has as much basis in reality as Avatar does. They need to believe that 54% of children born in poor areas are teena ge pregnancies for their politics to add up.

    But though the instincts are clear they are split down the middle. Not right versus left. There isn’t a Tory left any more. But head versus heart. Radicalism versus reassurance. The heart says cut government, attack Europe. The head says: watch out, don’t say that, the voters might hear.

    The Tories say big government is the problem, but promise a moratorium on change in the health service, the biggest employer in the world. They say Britain is heading the way of Greece, yet will not say how their deficit reduction plan differs from ours. They say we are a broken society…and will heal it through a social action line on Facebook. They say we have sold our birthright to Europe, but don’t want a bust up over it. Everyone knows we need to reform social care so people can grow old without fear, and all the Tories can do is put up scare posters.

    I recognise the Tory difficulty. We faced it after 1994. You need to reassure people you are not a risk; and you need to offer change. But while we promised evolution not revolution in the short term, like sticking to Tory spending limits, we offered a platform for radical change in the medium to long term, from the minimum wage to school investment. Cameron’s got himself facing the other way round. The heart insisted on radical change in the short term – cuts in inheritance tax for the richest estates, a marriage tax allowance, immediate cuts in public spending, bring back fox hunting. But after that, the head gives the impression that it really doesn’t know what to do, other than press pause on reform, offer a £1 million internet prize for the best policy ideas, and then go off and play with the Wii. They have managed the unique feat of being so determined to advertise pragmatism that they have completely obliterated any medium term vision to their politics, while cleaving to short term commitments that leave the impression they are ideological zealots. It’s the precise opposite of the New Labour approach in the 1990s.

    The result is that today’s Conservatism looks more and more like a toxic cocktail of Tory traditions. The government on offer from David Cameron would be as meritocratic as MacMillan, as compassionate as Thatcher, and as decisive as Major.

    So yes Labour is behind in the polls. We are the underdog. But this is an exciting time to be on the centre-left of politics. The changes in our country require values of social justice, cooperation and internationalism if they are to benefit more people rather than fewer. We have learnt lessons in government. And the Tories can try rhetorical accommodation. It has been tried before. Salisbury talked about “Tory democracy” but bitterly opposed the extension of the vote and self government for Ireland. Macmillan talked about a Middle Way, but battened Britain down in a straitjacket of social conservatism.

    What Labour offers is the courage to continue reforming so that Britain can prosper from the transitions shaking the modern world. So that Britain continues to believe in progress. Progressive reform is Labour’s mantle and we will not relinquish it.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2010 Speech in Washington

    Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell MP, addresses staff at the Department for International Development, London, 13 May 2010

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the then Secretary of State for International Development, in Washington on 26th June 2010.

    As world leaders gather for the G8 Summit, I want today to argue that, over the course of the next five years, we have the means and the opportunity to put to an end some of the most egregious problems facing the world today. But that the only way we will do so is by putting women front and centre of all our efforts. Most importantly, I will argue that this is a perfect moment when, with political will and with leadership, we can change the course of history.

    Our generations are the first that can make a real difference to the discrepancy of wealth and opportunity which exists around the world today. We know so much  more about what works and we know what needs to be done. We understand, for example, that it is conflict ultimately which mires people in poverty. If I think about those dreadful refugee camps that I’ve seen around the world, in Darfur and on the Burma/Thai border, if you are languishing in one of those camps, it doesn’t matter how much access to aid and to trade and to money which you have, until the conflict is over you are going to remain poor and miserable and fightened and dispossessed. And in just the same way we know that it is conflict which mires people in poverty and condemns them to stay there, so we now have learnt and generally accept that it is free trade and the private sector and wealth creation and enterprise and jobs which lift people out of poverty. And I must emphasize the importance, which should never be forgotten, on bringing the Doha round to a successful conclusion. A successful conclusion to the Doha round, and on any basis at all, would mean an increase in world trade of about $300 billion and the total amount of aid flows across the world is something like $150 billion. So the importance of the Doha trade round should never be forgotten. And lastly that money, aid spent well, works miracles, not least when we are talking about maternal health. This is the context within which I want to set my comments today.

    Introduction

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is my first overseas speech since becoming Secretary of State for International Development and I can think of no better place to deliver it than here, in the home of philanthropy: the Carnegie Endowment; and in that great hothouse of free thought that is Washington DC. And I’d like to congratulate Carnegie as they celebrate their Centennial this year. We have a great dialogue with Carnegie and regard Tom [Carothers] as a member of the Department for International Development family in Britain.

    So, let me begin by paying tribute to President Obama and Secretary Clinton for their commitment to global development. I salute too, the tireless battle pursued against HIV/AIDS by President Bush. And I applaud the pioneering efforts of the Clinton Foundation; the campaign against River Blindness spearheaded by President Carter; and the inspirational work of Bill and Melinda Gates. You are true leaders, one and all.

    Approach to development under new, coalition Government

    I want to begin with a few words about our new coalition government, a government that is motivated by a shared determination to erode these vast inequalities of opportunity that I described and we see around the world today.

    Ours is a new agenda, one of value for money; accountability; transparency and empowerment. We have promised to enshrine in law Britain’s commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013. And crucially, we will keep aid untied from commercial interests – in this I urge the US to follow our lead.

    Millennium Development Goals

    This new agenda will underpin our approach to the Millennium Development Goals. These goals, agreed by the UN ten years ago, were the concrete embodiment of our generations’ collective commitment to tackle the terrible poverty and suffering that afflict so many. As well as being in our own national interest that is also our shared moral obligation.

    Successes

    And yes, the commitment has led to some real results:

    We are on track to halve extreme poverty;

    We’ve made strong progress on universal primary education, where some thirteen African countries look set to achieve that MDG

    Measles-related deaths fell by 78% between 2000 and 2008

    Challenges

    However, in other areas – and indeed, even within those goals where we are doing quite well – progress is patchy. Most regions are off-track on tackling child mortality; while progress on maternal health is especially disappointing. It’s significant, too, that across all the goals, sub-Saharan Africa lags far behind.

    And, however hard we try, new challenges constantly threaten our ability to meet the MDGs and jeopardise our gains. The world of 2010 is not the world of 2000. We’ve had food price hikes. A global recession. A massive increase in the cost of fuel.

    Some argue that against this backdrop we should focus our attention on domestic priorities. I disagree. This is a time to reaffirm our promises to the world’s poor, not abandon them. We should never balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest people. It is true that charity begins at home, but it doesn’t end there.

    Promoting global prosperity is also very much in our own interests. Development is good for our economy, our safety, our health, our future. It is, quite simply, the best return on investment you’ll find: a cause that commands consensus across the political spectrum both in Britain and hopefully, here in America.

    So, our response is not to abandon the MDGs but to encourage all parties to work towards a clear action plan that can be agreed at this September’s UN Summit. For our part, Britain will also be aligning development more effectively with other policies, whether with trade, investment and enterprise, climate change or economic growth.

    In the UK, we have brought together the three policy pillars of development, defence and diplomacy through our new National Security Council. This synergy will allow us to reduce poverty in fragile states, while also building capacity and guaranteeing security and stability.

    I know that balancing and integrating all of the elements of power is a major objective for you here in the States.

    There are areas, however, where our approaches to development differ. In Britain, the Department for International Development is a separate Government Department in its own right. As its Secretary of State, I have a seat in Cabinet and on the National Security Council. A vibrant DFID, at the table, agitating, campaigning and helping to deliver progressive change for communities worldwide.

    And in our Government, an equally vibrant coalition whose leaders share a vision of a world where everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their true potential. Abroad as well as at home, we believe in decentralising power and responsibility, empowering citizens, making governments more transparent and accountable.

    Transparency

    Here in the States, President Obama has spoken out for greater transparency and accountability across his administration. Back in Britain, our Prime Minister, David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, have applied these same principles to our new coalition government.

    That’s why one of the first things I did on taking office was to launch our new UK Aid Transparency Guarantee, a guarantee that will help to make aid transparent to citizens in the UK – and also to those in recipient countries too. This chimes with Raj Shah’s promise to embrace “extreme transparency” throughout USAID. I look forward to working with Raj and to discussing this with him when we meet again this afternoon.

    Results-based aid

    We’re also fundamentally redesigning our aid programmes so that they build in rigorous evaluation processes from day one. The focus will be on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs. In these difficult, economic times donors have a double duty, a responsibility to achieve maximum value for money: not just results but results at the lowest possible cost.

    With this in mind, we want to test the concept of cash on delivery aid that’s been mooted by the Centre for Global Development. CGD has been the leader of so much great thinking on development, and Nancy Birdsall told me this morning that she learnt her trade here at Carnegie.

    We’re also taking a fundamentally new approach to our bilateral and multilateral aid: reviewing what we do – and where – so that we can maintain a ruthless focus on results. At the same time, I’m setting up a new independent body that will gather evidence about the effectiveness of our programmes. Again, our two nations are on the same page: I know Raj Shah envisages a stronger focus on impact evaluation in USAID’s work.

    Let me now, Tom, turn to the most off-track of the MDGs: maternal health.

    Maternal health

    When a jumbo jet crashes anywhere in the world it makes the headlines. If it were to crash week in week out in the same place there’s not a person alive who wouldn’t be talking about it. The international community would set up an enquiry and no money would be spared in making sure it never happened again. Yet, in Nigeria, the equivalent number of women die each and every week from pregnancy-related causes – and the world stands silent.

    In Britain, we want to make a serious contribution to tackling this tragedy. Today, at the G8, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, is working with PM Harper and other G8 leaders to ensure the world delivers on its commitments to cut the number of women and children dying during pregnancy and childbirth in some of the world’s poorest countries.

    The Prime Minister will argue today that it is indefensible in this, the twenty first century that for so many women, pregnancy and childbirth should represent a death sentence or at least, a morbid lottery. Or that the risk to a woman of dying in the UK due to a pregnancy-related cause at some point during her lifetime is 1 in 8,200 while in Niger, it is 1 in 7.

    Every year, at least a third of a million women, and probably more, die due to complications in pregnancy or child birth. The vast majority of those deaths occur in low and middle income countries.

    And research by my department tells us that if a mother dies in childbirth, there is a high chance her child will die within a few months too.

    But we all know – it doesn’t have to be like this. As Melinda Gates said earlier this month, it’s not that we don’t know what to do or that we can’t do it. It’s that we haven’t tried hard enough. We have within our grasp a golden opportunity, a perfect moment when we have the technology and the political will – if not to eradicate maternal mortality – then to reduce it significantly.

    The great blot on public health

    History is on our side. The last time that the UK had a Conservative/Liberal coalition government was back in 1935. That coalition didn’t pull its punches when it referred to Britain’s maternal mortality rate as the “great blot on public health”. Determined to reverse the trend and with political will behind him, the British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin established a national midwifery service. This move, coupled with the necessary policies and resources, saw maternal deaths fall by 80% in just 15 years. The resonance with where we are today is uncanny and only serves to sharpen our government’s resolve to seek an equally radical result abroad.

    Innovation

    We will not be afraid to try new approaches: maternal health is an area where there’s room for innovation.

    Look at the example of Madhya Pradesh where pregnant women are offered free transport to hospital and paid 1400 Rupees (about $30) to compensate them for the work their partners lose in having to stay at home to supervise the other children. Phone numbers for the service are widely displayed, while community workers spread the message about safe deliveries and timely check-ups. These workers receive 350 Rupees (about $8 dollars) for every expectant mother that they bring to the hospital.

    Innovation isn’t confined to overseas activities. Closer to home, I was excited to hear of Oxford University’s creative plan to use crowd-sourcing as a means of undertaking research into maternal health. 10,000 healthcare professionals across the developing world will be asked to complete an online survey and to identify where they see the gaps in maternal healthcare in their respective countries.

    We are being equally innovative in my department. Two weeks ago I launched a fund that will allow our health professionals to share their skills with birth attendants, doctors, nurses and midwives across the developing world. We want to encourage partnerships that can pilot new techniques, such as live internet link-ups or the use of mobile phones for emergency referrals or operations.

    Family planning and safe abortion

    I want to turn now, Tom, to a subject that I recognise to be sensitive but which is nevertheless close to my heart. I understand the cultural difficulties implicit in any discussion about contraception and abortion; I merely lay these facts before you: every year 20 million women seek unsafe abortions and 70,000 of them, many still girls, die as a result. And 215 million women around the world who want to use modern contraception don’t have access to it.

    President Obama has described a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have, and when, as one of the most fundamental of human freedoms.

    Let me say this to you today: I could not agree with him more.

    Empowering women to take decisions about their own future is the right thing to do for so many, many reasons. Not least, as your President pointed out -the fact that it is a basic human right.

    The UNFPA estimates that satisfying the unmet need for modern family planning would reduce unintended pregnancies by 53 million every year, the greatest reduction being in low income countries.

    We recognise that these are difficult areas and will proceed carefully – while never forgetting that our ultimate goal is always to empower women in their own lives. That goal is simply non-negotiable and I promise you here and now, that Britain will be placing women at the heart of the whole of our agenda for international development. In the immediate term, we will be doing everything in our power to urge all countries to sign up to a strong set of commitments on maternal health at September’s MDG Summit.

    Education

    Just as maternal health covers a whole continuum of care, so too, does gender cover a continuum of opportunity – of which a key stage is education. Focussing our efforts exclusively on women rather than on women and girls is to miss the opportunity to reverse a vicious cycle that can be the lot of girls in poor countries. The cycle starts with limited access to education but soon leads to poor employment, ill-health, early marriage and, all too frequently, to violence and exploitation.

    By making sure that more girls have the chance to attend school we can replace that vicious cycle with a virtuous one that ultimately puts females at the heart of their families and their communities. Bringing in money, supporting local enterprise, making sure their own children are educated. And typically, putting an average of 90% of their earnings back into the family compared to the 30 or 40% that males contribute.

    There are many reasons why education is particularly hard for girls. These can be linked to issues of comparative low status: girls will often be expected to do the household chores or to make the long journey to fetch water, instead of attending school. When I visited Pakistan earlier this month, I saw how insecurity can add to the difficulties girls face. The new work that I was able to announce while I was there will see some 300,000 girls in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa encouraged to attend school in return for a monthly allowance. There is a good story to tell in Afghanistan, too, where 3 million girls are now attending school.

    Making sure that girls are able to have access to education – and are able to complete that education – will remain a key priority for the UK’s Department for International Development.

    Cash-transfers as part of the solution

    Cash incentives can also work for education – and for health too, as we saw with the Madhya Pradesh project – but they can also have a wider application, enabling women to meet basic household expenses and ultimately, to re-invest their savings in the family unit.

    I give you the example of Nihoza Angelique from Rwanda, a country my party knows well. She has less than a quarter of a hectare of farmland on which to support her family of three. However, thanks to development support, she has now been in employment for six months, earning 1,000 Rwandan francs per day (less than $2), out of which she is saving some 400 francs (just under 70 cents) in her newly-opened savings account. With her first salary she bought school uniforms for her children. With her second and third salaries, she bought a goat. She now plans to use her savings to build a house for herself and her children.

    Gender and voice

    We’ve seen, ladies and gentlemen, that when women are empowered economically they are more likely to have a voice in the community and to be advocates for other women.

    In Nepal, the percentage of female Members of Parliament rose from 6% to 33% in 2008, while Ghana has seen a women elected Speaker of the national Parliament for the first time in its post-independence history. In the UK – although we’ve had a woman Speaker, indeed, a female Prime Minister – only 22% of our MPs are women. In your Congress, female representation is just 17%. It’s salutary to be reminded that the developed world isn’t always the shining beacon we might wish it to be.

    On the theme of governance let me say a few words about the new UN Gender Entity. This is an historic opportunity to create an efficient, powerful and well-resourced body that has the chance to make a positive impact on the lives of millions of women and girls across the world. It is vital that a competent and visible leader is appointed as soon as possible, a leader who is mandated to make progress in this crucial area.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, as we sit here in Washington – across the world, millions of people are suffering. Millions of people are denied the dignity and the opportunity they deserve. We can change that.

    The playwright, George Bernard Shaw once said that the essence of inhumanity wasn’t hate, it was indifference. He was right: indifference kills. September’s MDG Summit represents a golden opportunity for us to demonstrate that we are not indifferent, that we will recommit to the promises that we made ten years ago to the world’s poor.

    We must call on the world’s political leaders to come to the Summit ready to make and deliver ambitious pledges. We must urge them to fulfil their aid commitments and to sign up to the Secretary-General’s Action Plan on women and children’s health. We must grasp this single moment that history offers us, a moment when, together, we can make a stand. If we are prepared to do that then we truly can leave this world a better place for generations to come.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2010 Speech on Haiti

    Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell MP, addresses staff at the Department for International Development, London, 13 May 2010

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the then Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 13th January 2010.

    Throughout the whole country, there will be great concern for the people of Haiti at this awful time. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and is least well equipped to cope with this catastrophe. As all evidence shows, the actions that are taken in the immediate aftermath of the disaster will determine how effectively the needs which result are addressed. In this case, the whole international community should ensure a swift and effective response, though clearly the US is in the key position to provide help.

    Can the Secretary of State give further details about the composition of the UK assessment team that has been despatched to the region: when will it arrive, and when will we know what further support the UK Government can offer?

    Can he assure the House that the whole Whitehall machinery, as well as just DFID, is firmly joined up on this point?

    Can the Secretary of State provide us with any information about the number of British nationals who are currently in Haiti, their situation, and steps that are being taken to look after them?

    As I have said, the United States will no doubt have the leading role in the international response. What recent conversations has the Secretary of State had with his counterparts in the US to ensure that the international response is properly coordinated?

    Many members of the British public will want to do all they can to support the people of Haiti at this time: what guidance can the Secretary of State give as to how their efforts should best be directed?

    Can the Secretary of State update the House on how the neighbouring Dominican Republic has been affected?

    In 2007 Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Shadow Minister for International Development, became the first senior British politician for some time to visit Haiti, and spent time with the UN forces there. We hear that the UN forces have been hit hard by the earthquake. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the latest news about the impact of the earthquake on the UN mission in Haiti, and what discussions has he had with colleagues at UN DPKO in New York about this?

    Our total focus at the moment must be on saving lives and getting help to those who need it. But will the Secretary of State accept that, in due course and when the time is right, we need a full review of Britain’s emergency response process?

  • Pat McFadden – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pat McFadden to the 2010 Labour Party conference.

    It’s a strange thing opposing the Business Department.

    One minute they’re speaking up for business on the immigration cap.

    The next, they’re calling for the abolition of capitalism.

    Who ever said the Liberal Democrats were all things to all people?

    When Britain was hit by the worldwide recession Labour knew that government could not just stand back and let it run its course.

    We saved people from the collapse of the banks.

    Stimulated the economy.

    Put in place a scrappage scheme for a car industry that was on its knees.

    Gave 200,000 businesses extra time to pay their tax bills.

    Business and unions too played their part, accepting pay freezes, s hort time working and other changes.

    In this recession; unemployment, home repossessions and business failures – all about half the level of the early 1990s.

    Don’t let anyone tell you the action we took didn’t make a difference.

    Taking this action wasn’t losing control of public finances – it was helping the country through and we were right to do it because we saved people from the pain of a far greater downturn.

    But as the world tries to recover, people ask, where will the jobs of tomorrow come from?

    Labour must always be a party of wealth creation as well as wealth distribution. Economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand.

    To achieve both we need successful businesses large and small.

    We have been through an era when first, finance dominated. Then, finance collapsed.

    And we never again want the country to be held to ransom by the banking system.

    The huge rewards at the top of banking are totally out of line with anyone’s sense of fairness or worth. That’s why Labour acted to introduce the levy on bankers’ bonuses.

    But the real test in politics isn’t a rhetorical auction of who can bash the banks most.

    The real test – the issue that matters – is how to get banks lending again to good businesses so that we get the growth and jobs that Britain needs in the future.

    And on that, we have heard precisely nothing from the coalition Government.

    The opportunities for new growth and jobs are there. The shi ft to low carbon. The digital economy. Our brilliant creative industries.

    We should never resign ourselves to Britain being a post-industrial society.

    We stand for both strong manufacturing and great services.

    This isn’t nostalgia. We are still a country that makes things. Every week in my constituency I see firms that do so with pride and skill.

    The Tories and Lib Dems say that if only we cut the state fast enough and hard enough, the private sector will step up to the plate.

    But cut too fast or in the wrong places and you run a risk with recovery and prosperity.

    Around the world, our competitors know that Government has a crucial role in creating the capability a successful economy needs.

    This doesn’t get in the way of jobs and growth. It’s the foundation for jobs and growth.

    You don’t rebalance the economy by cutting £3bn in investment allowances for manufacturing industry.

    And you don’t rebalance the economy by abo lishing the Regional Development Agencies that are providing support for business up and down the country.

    Eight organisations abolished.

    Fifty eight bidding to replace them.

    More bodies chasing less money.

    That’s what they call the bonfire of the quangos.

    And on industry, don’t let the Tories and Lib Dems tell you we were wasting money.

    It wasn’t a waste of money to work with Nissan to make sure their first electric car was built here in Britain in the North East.

    It wasn’t a waste of money to put a loan guarantee in place for Ford to make the next generation of low carbon diesel engines here in Britain.

    And it wasn’t a waste of money to grant the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to help make Britain a world leader in the civil nuclear supply chain.

    Last week Vince Cable made a speech attacking the banks and arguing for corporate change. Fine. We can agree on a lot of that. But in denying this loan the Government behaved just like the banks they like to attack for not supporting industry.

    So if they really have a Regional Growth Fund of £1 billion why is its first decision not to reinstate the loan to Forgemasters and put this stupid refusal behind us once and for all?

    Conference, together we will keep fighting for this decision to be reversed.

    But having jobs and growth in the future isn’t just about individual companies or sectors.

    It’s about people.

    It’s about giving them a chance to be everything they can be in an age when knowledge is more important than ever.

    Before we came to power – just 60,000 apprenticeships. When we left office – 250,000 – apprenticeships a mainstream part of the labour market again thanks to what we did in Government.

    All around the world countries are sending more young people to university. Yet here some argue that more achievement means lower standards, as if there was just a small lump of talent that had to be shared among the traditional chosen few.

    But more achievement isn’t a decline in standards. It’s people getting chances in life that their parents and grandparents could never have dreamed of. And our movement knows that if you give people a platform, they will achieve.

    There are tough decisions coming about how to pay for Higher Education.

    And it’s right that if we can get more value out of the system we should.

    But I have a message for the ministers in charge who benefited from the best education themselves: stop attacking the goals of more participation in higher education that Labour put in place; don’t pull up the drawbridge up from the generation that comes after you.

    Our economic future isn’t just about how far or how fast we cut.

    It’s also about shaping something anew out of the crisis we have been through.

    Britain isn’t broken.

    We could build a recovery that lasts.

    But it needs a vision for jobs and growth for our economic future.

    It needs belief that more educational opportunity is a goal worth fighting for, not a target to be decried.

    And it needs the will and the resources to make it happen.

  • Theresa May – 2010 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to the Conservative Party Conference held on 5th October 2010.

    I want to get straight to the point. There is no greater responsibility than keeping our country safe. Policing our streets. Preventing terrorism. Protecting our borders.

    And, because of the state of the public finances left by Labour, I will have to keep our country safe at the same time as I cut spending. Labour are already saying it can’t be done.  And in doing so, they’re showing why the British people removed them from office.

    They doubled our national debt and left us with the biggest deficit in the G20.

    But for Labour:

    – The only answer to a problem is to spend more on it…

    – The only way to deal with the deficit is to ignore it…

    – The only response to the solution is to attack it…

    They never learn – but we do.

    We don’t define success by the size of our budgets, the cash we splash and the announcements we make.

    We know that success means spending money wisely, reforming our public services, and taking tough decisions.

    We know we have less to spend but that doesn’t mean we can’t do more:

    – We will get tough on crime by turning the police into real crime fighters…

    – We will restore our civil liberties but crack down on the extremists who abuse them…

    – And we will bring net migration to Britain down to the tens of thousands…

    Getting tough on crime by making the police crime fighters

    I want to start with the key test for a Home Secretary: the fight against crime.

    Whatever Labour like to claim about their legacy, the story is a familiar one: enormous sums of money spent – and very little to show for it.

    – They hired a record number of police officers – but sent them so much paperwork only eleven per cent of them are available at any one time.

    – They passed a record number of laws, but left office with 26,000 victims of crime every single day.

    – They spent a record amount on criminal justice but left office with nearly 900,000 violent crimes a year.

    And that is what the Shadow Home Secretary likes to call – with a straight face – “the glorious year of Johnson”.

    It’s not good enough, and it’s time for a new way of doing things.

    One that really does tackle the causes of crime, which is why Michael Gove’s work reforming the schools system, and Iain Duncan Smith’s work reforming the welfare system, are so important.

    One that really does punish criminals, but also cuts the disgraceful rates of reoffending, which is why Ken Clarke’s work is so important.

    And one that makes the police truly accountable to their local communities and turns them once more into the crime fighters they signed up to be.

    Police reform: from form writers to crime fighters

    For too long now, the police have become detached and distant from the people they serve.

    – Answering to bureaucrats instead of the people.

    – Stuck behind their desks instead of on the streets.

    – Sticking to procedure instead of using their discretion.

    The years of top-down, bureaucratic accountability have broken the relationship between police and public: the police are not responsive enough to the public, and the public are not trustful enough of the police.  That’s not their fault – but it’s the truth about Labour’s legacy.

    It’s got to change, and when Parliament returns we will legislate to put things right.

    No longer accountable to the Home Office, we will make the police accountable to you, the people.

    From next year, the police will have to publish detailed, street-level crime statistics so you know exactly what is going on where you live.

    Police officers will be required to have regular beat meetings with local residents.

    And from May 2012, chief constables will answer to police and crime commissioners – directly elected by you, the people, to make sure the police cut crime and keep your community safe.

    By giving the public the right to vote out a failing commissioner, and by giving commissioners the power to sack a failing chief constable, we will make the police truly responsive to their communities once more.

    And in ending the top-down model of accountability, we’re able to scrap the whole bureaucratic apparatus that comes with it.

    So we’ve abolished the policing pledge and the confidence target, we’re cutting down reporting rules, and we’re restoring the discretion of police officers to take charging decisions on a range of offences.

    We will free police officers to become the crime fighters they signed up to be – visible and available on the streets of their communities.

    I’m often asked how we will maintain a visible police presence even as we have to cut police spending.

    Well, this is my answer.

    When barely a tenth of the police are available on the streets at any one time, we know there’s room to make them more visible, more available and more effective as crime fighters.

    But I’m under no illusions and I know it won’t be easy.

    Earlier this year, when I scrapped the last remaining police targets, I told commanding officers: “I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime.”

    One chief constable, who has since retired, told the media afterwards that they only spent about a third of their time dealing with crime, and that the job wasn’t as simple as “just catching criminals.”

    Well I couldn’t be any clearer: cutting crime is the only test of a police force and catching criminals is their job.

    And when people have the power to hold the police to account through elections, any commissioner or chief constable who doesn’t cut crime will soon find themselves looking for a new job.

    Recognising the crime fighters

    But I know that the great majority of police officers are desperate to spend more time fighting crime, out on the streets instead of behind their desks.

    That’s why they joined the service and that’s what they love doing.

    This summer, I had the privilege of attending the Sun and Police Federation’s Bravery Awards, where I met officers who had put their lives on the line in extraordinary circumstances to protect the public.

    Arresting violent offenders, going unarmed into dangerous places.  These things don’t happen to police officers every day – but they’re the sort of things that officers know could happen to them any time they put on the uniform.

    So let me take this opportunity to say to every officer: thank you for everything you do to keep us safe, day in and day out.

    Anti-social behaviour

    When I talk about fighting crime, I’m not just talking about the crimes that appear in the national crime statistics.

    I’m also talking about the tens of millions of incidents of anti-social behaviour that happen each year.

    Crime is crime, however it’s categorised in the figures – and the public expect us to fight it.

    – Vandalism isn’t ‘anti-social behaviour’ – it’s crime.

    – Intimidation isn’t ‘anti-social behaviour’ – it’s crime.

    – Drug dealing isn’t ‘anti-social behaviour’ – it’s crime.

    We know the damage that this sort of behaviour can do to a community, and we know that it can be even more destructive than other types of crime because it so often targets those who are least able to look after themselves.

    Two weeks ago, Sir Dennis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, published a report in which he said anti-social behaviour had been downgraded, it’s not seen as “real police work”, and for too long police officers have been “retreating from the streets”.

    That is the truth of Labour’s legacy.

    Our plans to restore local accountability in policing – through beat meetings, crime maps and the election of police and crime commissioners – will undo Labour’s legacy.  But we won’t stop there.

    We also have to deal with the one thing that is behind more anti-social behaviour, criminality and violence than anything else – and that is alcohol.

    So we will tear up Labour’s disastrous Licensing Act.

    I was the Shadow Culture Secretary when they introduced 24-hour licensing, and I fought them every step of the way.

    It gives me no pleasure to be proved right about the consequences – but it gives me great satisfaction to have the chance to undo it.

    We have just completed a consultation on the Licensing Act, and I can today confirm that:

    – We will give local people more control over pubs, clubs and other licensed venues…

    – We will allow councils to charge more for late-night licences, so they can spend more on late-night policing…

    – We will double the fine for under-age sales and shut down shops and bars that persistently sell alcohol to children…

    – And we will ban the below-cost sale of alcohol.

    We will also need to bring some sanity to the alphabet soup of police powers Labour invented.

    Week after week, they announced initiative after initiative to deal with anti-social behaviour.

    The result was lots of headlines, but a sanctions regime so cluttered and complicated that it doesn’t just confuse the perpetrators and victims, but police officers themselves.

    There are ISOs, ABCs, ASBIs, ASBOs and CRASBOs.  Crack house closure orders, dog control orders and graffiti removal orders.  Litter and noise abatement orders, housing injunctions and parenting orders.

    It’s bureaucratic, expensive and ineffective, and it’s got to end.

    So we’ll soon be coming forward with an alternative sanctions regime that is consolidated and clear; that offers restorative justice where appropriate and tougher punishments where necessary; that acts as a real deterrent to criminality; and – unlike Labour’s ASBOs – provides meaningful penalties when they are breached.

    And the new sanctions will give real redress to victims who are let down by the system.

    Too often we hear stories of victims who are passed from pillar to post, from the police to environmental services to the housing department before being passed back to the police again.

    We hear about victims who call the police on dozens of occasions but aren’t taken seriously and in many cases are ignored altogether.

    So as part of our reforms to anti-social behaviour powers, we will give victims and communities the right to force the authorities to take action where they fail to do so.

    There are some parts of the country where communities, councils and police forces have worked together, taken on the troublemakers, and won back their neighbourhoods.

    Yesterday, I visited the Matchbox Estate in Shard End, a few miles away in East Birmingham.

    An estate that was terrorised by a gang of young people has been transformed and returned to the law-abiding majority – thanks to the dedicated local police officers, the hard work of the council workers, and most importantly Tracy Trevener, the brave mother who stood up to the yobs and gave evidence against them.

    But success stories like these are far too rare.

    That’s why I have appointed Baroness Newlove – whose husband, Garry, was so senselessly murdered after standing up to drunken vandals – to become the Government’s champion for active, safer communities.

    She can’t be with us today, but Helen will travel the country, visiting communities affected by anti-social behaviour.

    She will help us to make sure that the good work in places like Shard End is repeated up and down the country.

    She will join Brooke Kinsella – whose brother, Ben, was stabbed to death two years ago at the age of just sixteen – in bringing the wisdom of victims, families and communities to government policy.

    Two brave women who have experienced tragedy – the like of which we pray we will never know – and responded by working to make sure that no other family goes through their pain.

    Violence against women

    As Home Secretary and Minister for Equality, I have a unique opportunity to tackle violence against women.

    Labour are already attacking me.  Alan Johnson says: “Theresa May is no Harriet Harman.”

    And – thank God – he’s right.

    She’s so principled, she imposed an all-women shortlist on the Erdington Labour Party – and they selected her husband.

    Who says family values don’t matter to the Labour Party?

    But more seriously, while she was busy preaching about the sisterhood, she sat by and watched as rape crisis centres went to the wall.

    I’m not prepared to let rape victims go without this vital help and support.

    So we’ve found the money to give rape crisis centres stable, long-term funding – and to build new centres where they’re needed.

    And I want to take this opportunity to clear something up with Alan Johnson, as I fear he may not be Shadow Home Secretary for much longer.

    Don’t question my commitment to standing up for women.

    – It was Labour who stood and watched as rape crisis centres closed.

    – It was Labour who left office with a gender pay gap of more than twelve per cent.

    – It was Labour who left office with more women out of work than when they came to power.

    And it’s the Coalition Government putting things right.

    Fighting extremism and terrorism

    I also want to talk today about the fight against extremism and terrorism – a threat we face not just from al-Qaeda but from Irish-related terrorism.

    It’s well documented that Labour’s draconian terrorism laws eroded our civil liberties, alienated many and affronted every single one of us.

    But it’s perverse that at the same time as they talked tough on locking people up for ninety days without charge and introducing ID cards, they refused to challenge the ideology behind the threat we face, they engaged with extremists, and they failed to encourage people to integrate into and participate in our society.

    So we will turn their failed approach on its head.

    We’re reviewing the counter-terrorism laws ahead of the Freedom Bill.

    We’ve restricted the use of stop and search powers.

    And I am proud to say that the Government’s first piece of legislation was to scrap ID cards once and for all.

    I want the message to go out to every corner of our country: this is a government that knows every British subject is born free, everybody is innocent until proven guilty and everybody is equal before the law.

    But let the message also go out that we will not tolerate anybody who seeks to abuse those liberties.

    Foreign hate preachers will no longer be welcome here.  Those who step outside the law to incite hatred and violence will be prosecuted and punished.  And we will stand up to anybody who incites hatred and violence, who supports attacks on British troops, or who supports attacks on civilians anywhere in the world.

    We will tackle extremism by challenging its bigoted ideology head-on.

    We will promote our shared values.  We will work only with those with moderate voices.  And we will make sure that everybody integrates and participates in our national life.

    Protecting our borders and controlling immigration

    I want to talk, too, about protecting our borders and controlling immigration.

    This is another change that needs not what Labour used in abundance – money – but something they lacked conspicuously – political courage.

    Under Labour we experienced unprecedented levels of immigration.

    Between 1997 and 2009, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2 million people.  That is more than twice the population of Birmingham.

    Of course, Britain has benefited from immigration, but if we are going to continue to do so, it needs to be controlled.

    That is why we’ll bring annual net migration down to the levels of the 1990s – to the tens of thousands – as David Cameron has promised.

    We’ve made a good start by introducing a limit on economic migrants coming to Britain from outside the European Union.

    We want to make sure that the best and the brightest can still come here and contribute – but unemployment stands at almost two and a half million, we have a British labour force of more than 28 million, and there are 300 million European citizens who have a legal right to work here.

    Our economy will remain open to the best and the brightest in the world – but it’s time to stop importing foreign labour on the cheap.

    There is still much more to be done.  In an era of globalisation and modern communications, managing migration has become ever more complex.  Statements on migration rules are laid before Parliament and appear in the foreign press in minutes.

    Clamp down on work visas and student visas will shoot up.  Clamp down on student visas and family visas will shoot up.  Clamp down on family visas and asylum claims will shoot up.

    Just look at what happened when Labour introduced their points-based system.

    They capped unskilled labour at zero, but all that happened was student visas rocketed by thirty per cent to a record 304,000 in just one year.

    The overall figures of people coming to Britain through the points-based system stayed as high as before it was introduced.

    We will not make the same mistake.  We will follow up our action on economic migration with measures on all routes.

    – Transitional controls for new EU member states.

    – A fairer and more efficient asylum system.

    – Action on student visas.

    – Action on family visas.

    – Action on the right to settle in the UK.

    Only if we take action right across the board will we be able to get immigration under control.

    Conclusion: the national interest

    Labour didn’t fail to control immigration because of any lack of money.

    They didn’t fail to deal with home-grown extremism because of a lack of money.

    And they didn’t fail to keep our streets safe because of a lack of money.

    Just as spending more and more doesn’t lead to success, so spending less doesn’t lead to failure.

    We will succeed where Labour failed because we have the values, the resolve and the political courage to take difficult decisions in the national interest.

    We will bring net migration down to the tens of thousands.

    We will crack down on extremists.

    We will turn our police once more into crime fighters.

    Together, in the national interest, we will succeed.