UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2010

  • Tim Loughton – 2010 Speech to the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services

    Below is the text of the speech given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families, Tim Loughton, on 29th June 2010.

    Thank you, Sir Paul. And thank you Christine for inviting me to speak to you today.

    C4EO is doing some really interesting and important work, which complements a lot of thinking in Government Departments across Whitehall, particularly in these financially challenging times. So I think this is a very good opportunity to talk about that approach, what we can learn from each other, and how to put those lessons into practice.

    But first it might be useful to put the current situation in context, and say something about the challenges facing all of us in the coming months and years.

    (Outline of the financial situation – how we got here, need for financial restraint, etc.)

    Last week the Chancellor’s emergency budget set out the tough but fair measures that we need to take to tackle the country’s budget deficit and bring spending back under control, in I think a measured and realistic way.

    The scale of the fiscal challenge is huge, and that does mean there will be very real and unavoidable challenges – and the Department for Education is not immune from them.

    Many families will face the challenge of hardship.

    There will be a strain not just on resources, but on relationships too. As pressure on families increases, so too will the pressure on children.

    One child in five in this country is currently living in poverty, and two million children live in poor housing.

    And we know about the links between economic recession and the effects on mental health in the family and, increasingly, in children.

    As they look to us, and to you, for support in these difficult times, we have to ensure that our services offer them what they need in the best possible way.

    That’s why the coalition government has put the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility at the heart of our decision-making and our policies.

    We have already announced that we will protect spending on schools, Sure Start and 16-19 funding, while also announcing the introduction of a pupil premium that will allow us to tackle educational inequality by ensuring that additional money is provided to those who teach the most disadvantaged children. And we will refocus Sure Start on meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged families.

    But there’s no doubt the landscape has changed, and when we’re thinking about how to provide public services in future – whether that’s childcare places, safeguarding vulnerable children, or school IT projects – we need to look first and foremost at quality outcomes as well as value for money, and do all we can to make sure that we get the maximum bang for our buck.

    That means looking at outcomes rather than, for example, throughput.

    Because in the past I would contend, too much of what passed for evaluation of any particular process or project was often not much more than a measurement of quantity – how many young people were signed up for this or that particular scheme, for instance – rather than a thoughtful analysis of what each individual may or may not have gained from the project. Did it have a life-changing impact for them? How did it improve their life chances?

    So we have to be smarter, we have to think about how children have actually benefited (or not) from our policies and investment; about the timeliness of interventions, and whether departments and agencies have done as much cross-cutting work as they can.

    In the coming years, all of our interventions must be targeted on the people who will benefit most, and provided in the way that will help them best.

    So I am really switched on to good practice. Where is it? And how do we learn from it?

    How do we discover the best models for public services in times like these?

    At the heart of the new government’s approach is a determination to move away from a top-down, prescriptive approach, and to devolve more power and freedom to parents and professionals.

    Parents have the primary responsibility for raising children, and our policies should always recognise that. But even the best parents need support from time to time.

    So we need to make sure they have access to the professionals – whether state-provided or from the voluntary sector – who are experts in their respective fields.

    They are the people we need to trust, and it’s their experience we need to share.

    Thousands of them are already doing excellent work, and formerly as an opposition front-bencher, and in the first month in my new job, I have visited some great examples of local schemes that are really making a difference.

    There are successful projects in every part of the country. In Kent, for example, an Early Talk programme has been set up in Ashford, at low cost, to help children with speech and language difficulties to develop their communications skills early on. It’s a multi-agency approach, and it has resulted in over 90 per cent of those children making good progress in a mainstream primary school when in the past they would have needed specialist language provision. Poor speech development is often at the heart of poor learning, and the earlier it is detected and dealt with, the better a child’s chance of keeping up both educationally and socially.

    And Kensington & Chelsea’s ‘Virtual School’, with its focus on attendance and attainment, is improving the educational outcomes of looked after children and young people in the borough, and making real reductions in the number who are not in education, employment or training (NEET).

    Or there’s Tower Hamlets’ ‘Parents as Partners in Early Learning’ scheme, where a system for sharing information between parents, teachers and others involved with the child’s learning has resulted in a significant increase in children’s communication and personal skills.

    So there’s plenty of good practice going on out there. But there’s no point having a brilliant idea and not telling anyone about it. That’s why C4EO’s work on improvement is so important. It allows local authorities to use the best evidence and research to improve local practice and drive up standards.

    Because knowledge is power – power to do good – but only if you share it.

    Travelling about the country, I have been struck by the number of times I’ve heard about a scheme or initiative that’s achieving excellent results in addressing a problem in one authority – but which is completely unheard of in the neighbouring area.

    We need to be smarter about using and disseminating good practice, and in future I see an important role for government in facilitating best practice. For instance, my ministerial colleague Sarah Teather and I are looking at organising an event that gets together local authority lead members and directors to look at best practice, and discuss what might be transferable from one area to another. It needs input from both local authority elected members and officers, and I’d be interested to hear your views on how we take that forward.

    It won’t be a case of funding all the good schemes we hear about. What we will be doing is helping appropriate voluntary sector organisations to become part of the solution, by making it easier for them to work with statutory agencies.

    Families

    The Government believes that families are the building blocks of society. We believe that in order to build strong communities, we need to nurture and support families of all kinds.

    That doesn’t mean we think it’s Government’s business to lecture families about how to live their lives. That can be counter-productive. What we need to do is provide them with an environment in which they can thrive.

    That is why we are setting up a new Childhood and Families Task Force, to look at areas like parental leave and flexible working, the support we give children in the event of family breakdown, and how to help children avoid the pressures forcing them to grow up too quickly.

    The Task Force will be chaired by the Prime Minister, and again Sarah Teather will be playing a crucial role as our departmental representative.

    In recent years, services that take a ‘whole family’ approach to helping families with multiple problems have grown rapidly, and here again there is a great deal of excellent local practice we can learn from.

    In Westminster, for example, the Westminster Family Recovery project is addressing the needs and behaviours of the families who place most demands on the local authority’s public services – as well as having a high impact on the communities around them. By working intensively over a period of around a year with these families, the project aims to bring about long term inter-generational changes in behaviour. It’s an approach that is already delivering good results: for example, 50 per cent of children in families who have been part of the project for six months or more have shown an improvement in their school attendance.

    From a financial and effectiveness perspective, it has to make sense to concentrate a holistic solution on those families whose problems are taking up a disproportionate amount of professional time and resources.

    And in Suffolk, agencies are also doing excellent work in identifying and working with their ‘high demand’ and ‘high cost’ families. They have also carried out some intensive work looking at the needs of Young Carers. They are another neglected army of dedicated volunteers, and I went to their annual get-together at Fairthorne Manor last weekend.

    Early intervention

    If we are serious about addressing the problems facing us, and doing it with scarcer resources, then it’s essential we adopt new ways, smarter ways, of thinking and working.

    But one very old way of working – the ‘stitch in time saves nine’ principle – can also stand us in good stead. Early Intervention is a key component of providing effective, and cost-effective, services.

    At just 22 months, a poor child’s skills already lag behind those of a child of the same age from a better-off home. That disadvantage – if it is not tackled – will remain throughout life, with huge implications for choice of career, the limiting of opportunity, and even reduced life expectancy. A child born into one of England’s poorest neighbourhoods today will die (if nothing changes) seven years before one born into the richest.

    The stitch in time approach saves lives – sometimes literally.

    It often saves money too.

    For instance, it’s been estimated that a reduction of just one per cent in the number of offences committed by children and young people has the potential to generate savings for households and individuals of around £45 million a year.

    That’s why projects such as Action 4 Children’s Intensive Fostering are so interesting, concentrating the expertise of highly trained and motivated foster carers on teenagers on the cusp of the youth justice system.

    I am well aware of C4EO’s invaluable work on Early Intervention and cost-effectiveness, and we will study it closely as part of the work that we are currently carrying out on cost-effectiveness within the department.

    Incidentally, it seems to me that Early Intervention provides another argument against the reform of public services being driven by central government. If the solution to a problem has to wait until someone in Whitehall makes a decision, the chance for getting in early and sorting out trouble at its root is likely to have passed.

    And to encourage further that local approach, and to drive home the cost-effectiveness message, we will be investigating ways in which we can ensure that providers are paid partly by the results they achieve. That seems only right.

    Disparity of local authority outcomes – why are some LAs so much more successful than others?

    I believe that it’s only by sharing knowledge and expertise that we will be able to tackle the scandalous disparity of local authority outcomes.

    Why are some local authorities, with no more resources and with similar populations, so much more successful than others at improving outcomes for young people?

    Nottingham, Leicester and Haringey are all in the top 20 most deprived local authorities, but have all seen improvements in reducing both youth crime and teenage pregnancy recently. These local authorities have seen falls of between 15.9 per cent and 21.5 per cent in the rate of teenage pregnancies, compared to the average decrease nationally of 0.2 per cent, where overall figures remain stubbornly high.

    They have also seen falls of between 18 per cent and 62 per cent in youth crime. Stoke-on-Trent – also in that top-20 most deprived category – managed to achieve a fall in its youth crime rate of over 70 per cent between 2006-7 and 2008-9.

    What can explain those statistics? And why aren’t those results being replicated across the country? In large part it must be because less-good authorities are failing to learn from the best.

    And in a strange way, there’s an encouraging message there. It means there are authorities out there doing really great work. It means we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Using good practice developed in one area to help other areas improve their services is a cost-effective way of helping all children and families to achieve good outcomes.

    I’d like to give a plug here for the C4EO website. A good case study can be like gold dust, and C4EO’s rigorous process of validation means that the case studies on your website are a fantastic resource for others seeking to provide better services for their own communities, and great scope for peer mentoring between authorities, ADCs and LGAs.

    Conclusion

    All of us, whether in government or the voluntary sector, whether large organisations or individuals, need to work together to tackle the difficulties facing our country.

    That is what the Big Society is all about, and we shall be hearing a lot more about that. It’s all about empowering the sector, local communities and individuals to take the lead, to pool and share their expertise.

    And I believe that far from being helpless in the face of global processes, we actually have the solutions in our own hands. We have the resources in our local hospitals and schools and community groups to make this a better country.

    By identifying programmes and organisations that can actually deliver the results we want to see, and using an empirical approach rather than one that is ideologically driven, we can create a pattern for working more intelligently in future.

    In that spirit, over the summer we will be looking at how the Government can best support improvement in children’s services without stifling the very real innovation that’s at the heart of the best local authorities and their children’s services partners.

    I know C4EO and many of you here today will be monitoring our progress, and giving us the benefit of your experience. I look forward to working with you and hearing your views.

    Thank you.

  • John Healey – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey, the then Shadow Housing and Planning Minister, to the 2010 Labour Party conference.

    Conference, John Healey, Shadow Housing Minister responding to the housing motion, backed first by 28 CLPs and the Labour Housing Group, now, clearly, with every speaker and the whole Conference behind it.

    The motion calls on the Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party to campaign with other groups against the new government’s housing cuts and policy changes.

    We will.

    We will campaign with other groups and we will campaign together with you in your constituencies, your Labour council groups and your trade unions.

    We will campa ign together because what we see from the Tories and Lib Dems offends our basic Labour belief in a decent, secure and affordable home for all.

    And our job is to help people see more clearly, more quickly not just what this Tory-led government is doing, but also why.

    Make no mistake Conference, we must be most concerned about many of the cuts; but if we only talk of spending cuts we miss something more fundamental.

    They want a smaller deficit, of course, we all do.

    They want a smaller state, of course, they’re Tories.

    But they also want a state which sheds its duty to its people on housing.

    You can see this in their:

    Cuts to national housing investment, which means thousands fewer affordable homes built this year, and the end of our new council house building;

    Changes to the planning system which remove any national requirement on local councils to plan or agree new homes for their area;

    Cutbacks in the national sy stem of help, which leaves people with less support on housing costs and more local variation;

    Plans to remove the right to long-term tenancies in public housing, which means local landlords setting their own tenancy terms;

    Questions over the national cap on rent rises for social housing tenants and over the nationally-set homelessness duty on councils.

    On every front they are looking to withdraw national government with Tory and Lib Dem ministers washing their hands of any national role or responsibility for meeting people’s housing needs and aspirations.

    Meanwhile, local councils – increasingly Labour local councils – will be left to pick up the pieces, and, if we don’t help people see clearly what’s happening and why – local councils will also be left to pick up the blame.

    Conference, what difference a year makes, what a differe nce a Labour government makes.

    Last year, I reported to you as Labour’s Housing Minister.

    Last year, as a Labour government, we didn’t cutback housing investment, despite and because of the deep recession, we stepped it up.

    Last year, we:

    Kept Britain building through recession, starting more new affordable homes than before the downturn;

    Launched the largest council house building programme for nearly 20 years;

    Made apprenticeships a compulsory condition of getting any government contract;

    Set up special help on mortgages, so repossessions have been half the rate of the last recession;

    Gave councils new powers to clamp down on the worst private landlords and control the spread of bedsit-barons.

    Ed Miliband told us on Tuesday to be proud of what we did well in government.

    I am.

    He also said he’d back the new government when they’re right.

    So will I.

    But Conference, I have to tell you that in five months I’ve not found a single change I can support.

    Their latest plan is a “new homes bonus”, matching the council tax on any new home built with extra funding for the local council for six years.

    They’re right to want to a strong incentive system for councils and communities ready to see new homes built in their area.

    But this isn’t it.

    There’s no new money. And the government will take a top-slice cut across the grant to all local government to cover the cost.

    This scheme robs some councils to pay the rest.

    So I’m publishing a detailed analysis of their plans today, which shows:

    It will cause chaos in the council tax system, and more cuts to many hard-pressed council budgets.

    It blows a huge hole in George Osborne’s promise to freeze council tax.

    And our big towns and cities will be hardest hit, as they will have to see many more new homes built every year in their area to “break even” under the new system.

    This is the latest in the long line of damaging cuts and policy changes.

    This motion and this Conference is right to say we must campaign harder on housing.

    Our debate today is a start.

    Our duty tomorrow is to fight to stop the worst of what’s to come, and to show there is an alternative, a Labour alternative, a better way, the Labour way.

    With you, we will do that, every day until the last day of this Tory-Lib Dem government.

  • Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech on Ending Violence Against Women

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2010.

    I’d like to thank ActionAid for providing me with my first opportunity since being appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development to set out why I see this role as so important, and how I and my team will be working with you over the time ahead.

    The last 25 years has seen real progress in tackling world poverty – 500 million fewer people living in poverty despite the rapid growth in the world’s population.

    But we must not take that progress for granted. Not when 1.4 billion people still live on less than .25 a day and 900 million people around the world will go to sleep hungry tonight.

    We only have five years l eft to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The global financial crisis, rising food and fuel prices, together with recent natural disasters like the earthquake in Haiti and the floods in Pakistan, make meeting them even more difficult.

    We must not let the momentum slide.

    Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and it is particularly appropriate for me to be able to be here at ActionAid, because of the work that you have done on this issue and because of the outstanding role that you, Joanna, have played on this.

    Next Wednesday is World Aids Day and we are only days away from the start of the Cancun Climate Change Summit.

    All these dates are reminders of the development challenges we still face in tackling women’s and girls’ inequality, in fighting disease and in tackling climate change.

    International development is of the greatest importance, in practical terms, for the lives it saves, here and now, an d for the future for the peace, prosperity and opportunity throughout the world to which it contributes.

    And for Britain and our place in the world. Saving the lives of 50,000 pregnant women and a quarter of a million new born babies. Any set of priorities and values must see that as important.

    Some said “but you’re in opposition – just leave the government to get on with it. You should focus on something that matters here in this country.” I thought they were wrong on both counts.

    The government cannot just be left to get on with it. They have, indeed, promised to keep to Labour’s pledge to commit 0.7% of Gross National Income to Aid, from 2013. But there are all too many on their backbenches, and no doubt in the Treasury too, as well as people who write in the Daily Mail and the Sun, who regard that promise as wrong, when it was entered into, and even more wrong at a time of drastic cuts in public spending.

    So those in the government, inclu ding Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell, who want to keep that promise – they need our help. Many of our backbenchers are far more committed than theirs to that promise that was in the manifestos of all three parties. So we will strongly support it.

    And I would argue, too, that though this is an international department, it is of great importance to a great many people in this country. Not least my constituents.

    In this country we have a great tradition of international aid. Oxfam, set up in Oxford, Save the Children, which for a long time was based in my constituency, Cafod, Christian Aid and Action Aid – which are respected world wide. In this country, in churches and community groups up and down the country, people work together to raise money to tackle emergencies and foster development.

    And there are many people in this country who came, or whose family come, from Africa, or South Asia, from countries which are still struggling with poverty and who care passionately about the prospects of people in their homeland. It is wrong to think that because the government has embarked on a rash programme of spending cuts, people no longer care about those for whom our aid means life or death.

    And I was also motivated to take on this role because I think as a woman, its important to play my part in an agenda which is of such importance to women and girls in the developing world.

    So I am proud to be doing this job. I hope that I can play my part, in opposition, to supporting the development agenda and hope before too long I can perform that role from government.

    I’m grateful to have the chance today to say how much I look forward to working closely with you, and what I see myself and my team – working closely with you – doing in the months and years ahead.

    I see one of our biggest commitments, and I would say major achievements, over 13 years of government was on international development:

    We set up the Department of International Development with a Secretary of State at the cabinet table.

    We trebled the Aid budget and committed to reach 0.7% from 2013.

    We ended the tying of aid to commercial interests.

    Through Jubilee 2000, at summits in Gleneagles and in London we put dropping debt and increasing aid at the centre of the international agenda.

    We want to see all that progress taken forward… not slip back. My first preference would be to be in government delivering this agenda… But my close second preference is to see this government delivering on that agenda. And we will work with them to help them do that.

    We should not be lulled into a false sense of security just because the government are committed to the 0.7%.

    We have to campaign in support of it. One cast iron way to reassure ourselves that we have succeeded in securing the commitment to the 0.7% is for the target to be written into law.

    When we were in government we prepared a Bill and it had “pre-legislative scrutiny” and attracted cross-party support. It is a small bill – only four clauses, and it is all ready t o be taken forward. The government have said they will bring it forward but so far there is no sign of it in their timetable for government bills. So we will continue to press them on this.

    And if they do not bring it forward as a government bill it must surely be one of the top candidates for a Private Members Bill.

    With an existing commitment from the government and strong support from the opposition it has every chance of making it to the statute book.

    And we need to continue to campaign to show that aid matters and remains a priority. This campaign will need to be in Parliament, and amongst the aid agencies and all those in every community who support our development aid.

    The commitment is there in the manifestos of both the Tories and the Lib Dems, and it is in the coalition agreement. But that guarantees nothing.

    Hardly a day goes by without their performing a dramatic u-turn. We don’t want to risk this being the next promise abandone d. And we want to make sure that the money spent is genuinely on poverty reduction, and it is not diverted for other purposes. So we will be holding them to account for how development money is spent.

    But overseas aid is not just what is done, importantly, by government. It is also what is done by individuals.

    We have great heroes of international development – like Bill and Melinda Gates, like Bono and Bob Geldof. The leadership and inspiration they provide cannot be overstated.

    But there are also the hundreds of thousands of people up and down this country who send money back to their family or their village, in their country of origin. I call them the “hidden heroes of international development”. People living in my constituency who come from Sierra Leone, Nigeria or Ghana who are living here and working hard. Sometimes doing more than one job, like office cleaning. As well as paying their taxes and providing for their family, they also send money back to their home country.

    When we were in government we worked to make that easier – including helping transfers using mobile phone technology.

    But I think we can and should do much more to support remittances. It is right that we help those who are giving. Especially as often it is those on low incomes. It is right that we recognise and support what they are doing. And we want to work with you, with the diaspora communities, and with the financial services sector to develop a new policy on remittances.

    I think that as Labour’s team on international development, we also have an important role in supporting the development of the new UN Women’s Agency. Gordon Brown played a key part in getting it set up and it is now headed by the brilliant Michelle Bachelet – who was Chile’s first woman president.

    The UK was one of the countries that were instrumental in establishing the new agency and it is right that we continue to support it. A key focus o f the Millennium Development Goals is women’s health and girls’ education; and the agenda for women and girls is central to the government’s development agenda.

    The new government is committed to the Agency, but with a men-only DFID ministerial team and a men-only Foreign Office ministerial team there is a limit to how they can contribute to women and girls’ empowerment. This is something they really must sort out.

    We are challenging them to ensure that they make some changes and ensure that at least one of the DFID ministers is a woman. It really is not good enough for Britain to be sending a men-only team around the world talking about the empowerment of women and girls in developing countries. The government must walk the talk. Patriarchal politics has no place in 21st century Britain.

    Hitherto, countries working together has been the responsibility of men. Men leaders, men Finance Ministers, men Foreign Secretaries. There was no alternative – as th ere were only men in government. But now across the world there are strong women everywhere, in parliaments and in governments– and now is a real chance to make progress on supporting women; by women working together internationally.

    With the new UN Women’s Agency we have the forum to do that. One of its most important roles is to back up women representatives. Who will fight hardest for the maternal health care of the woman in the village of Northern Nigeria? The woman in the Nigerian state legislature. Who will fight hardest for the woman in the village in Bangladesh to be able to keep her daughter in school? The woman in the Bangladesh Parliament.

    When I meet my sisters in the Parliaments of Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania – as I have over the years – I admire their determination, I see their progress and I believe they are they best hope for the women and girls in their countries. The UN Women’s Agency will back them up in their work.

    It will be import ant for all women in every country in every continent. But it is essential for the UN too. It will show that the progress and change for women and girls in all our countries is mirrored by progress in change in the UN itself. The creation of UN Women must serve to be testament to the UN’s commitment to women and recognition that empowering women is essential for development. It will send a powerful signal to women struggling against the odds that the UN is indeed on their side.

    And in the way it works, it must serve to help the women who are coming forward on international work. It can draw on the involvement of the women who are now there – as they weren’t some years ago – in every country’s UN mission.

    And it must show women themselves making the decisions by having an executive board dominated by women. We cannot have succeeded in the struggle to have a new UN Women’s Agency only to discover that its governing board is men. That would be to contradict everything that it stands for. And the executive board should reach out beyond women in the UN missions and women in governments, and include women in civil society organisations.

    UN Women also needs the resources to deliver for women and girls on the ground through its own programmes. It cannot work just through influencing other UN agencies. The UK government says it cannot set out its contribution until their aid review is over. That simply isn’t good enough. Decisions are being made now and we must play our part up front.

    Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and we are calling on the government to make a ministerial appointment of a woman to carry on the work that Glenys Kinnock was doing when we were in government – a role you campaigned for. She led the UK’s work on tackling violence against women overseas and she did a great job. The first time such an appointment had been made in the UK. That was important leadership and the government must continue it.

    This is against a background where the UN Population Fund reported that one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or abused; and when in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier.

    Violence against women and girls is not only a violation of their human rights but it undermines development when girls fear the journey to school, men won’t let their wives work and women are afraid for their safety if they stand for election.

    If we are going to achieve the Millennium Development Goals we need to invest in women and girls.

    I am grateful to have had the opportunity today to have spoken of my concern on the fragility of the 0.7% promise, mapped out some of my thoughts on the Women’s Agency and touched on the issue of remittances.

    Along with my shadow ministerial team, Mark Lazarowicz MP and Rushanara Ali MP, we will also be focussing on o ur other 3 priorities:

    Trade, tax and global growth strategies which help developing countries.

    The role of development in conflict prevention and in conflict affected states.

    And making sure that the needs of developing countries are at the heart of the battle on climate change.

    There is huge commitment, passion and expertise amongst my Labour colleagues in Parliament on these issues. We will be working as a team and with you as we determine to make sure that the UK continues to be an international leader in helping the world’s poorest lift themselves out of poverty.

  • Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech to UNITE Conference

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 3rd June 2010 to the UNITE Conference.

    It is pleasure to be here at Unite’s first ever policy conference and to address you in my capacity as the Labour Party’s acting leader. Not a caretaker – but Labour’s active acting leader.

    We are in opposition but not demoralised.

    We meet today with Labour being in opposition.  And I want to start by saying something about the election result.

    We knew it was always going to be a massive challenge to win again after already being in government for 3 terms.  That task was made even harder by people’s fears about their jobs and future because of the recession, the scandal of the political expenses, Ashcroft’s millions going to Tory candidates in marginal seats – all of that gave us a mountain to climb.

    When the General Election was called Tory MPs told me that – having revised down their expectations – they would be back in government with a majority of 40 seats.

    But we campaigned together, determined and united and though we didn’t win, we denied the Tories the overall majority which they thought was theirs by right. And we sent the message to the BNP – there is no place in this country for your racism and division.

    And we could not have done that without Unite’s support.  At national level, at regional level, at local level – Unite backed us all the way.

    We are bitterly disappointed to be out of government but we are not demoralised we are determined. We didn’t achieve the result we hoped for, but our battling performance did deny the Conservatives the majority they craved and the opportunity to implement their policies in full.

    The hard work that you and your Unite members put in – knocking on doors, taking our message into your workplaces and providing vital resources – secured the re-election of many Labour MPs, often in the face of overwhelming odds.

    Every one of those MPs  is one more Labour MP committed to defending the jobs and public services that you and your members depend on.  It is also one less Tory MP willing to gamble with the recovery and strip away your hard won rights.

    Proud of our legacy. Will not oppose for the sake of it but we will defend jobs and vital public services. Though we are in opposition, we will be an effective opposition. We will not oppose for the sake of it. That’s not what the public wants.  But, we will not pull our punches. Though we are in opposition, we will be powerful in the public interest.

    We will be determined – to prevent unfairness.

    We will speak up – for the public services that matter.

    We will be vigilant – protecting jobs and businesses.

    We will fight in Parliament and local government, in Scotland, Wales and the London Assembly, to advance the cause of working people throughout the country.

    And, as important, we will reflect on what people were telling us at the last election, not just those who voted for us but those who didn’t, because though they want to be able to look to Labour to understand their lives and be on their side, they felt that we were not.

    Rebuilding and reconnecting labour. Rebuilding and renewing Labour is an important task and we must listen and learn.  Our biggest loss of support was from hard-working families who, worried about housing and jobs, felt insecure and concerned about immigration.

    Now there is our chance to debate these issues throughout the party and through the contest for the next Labour leader.

    Leadership contest. Over the next few months with our labour party members and our trade union supporters, 4 million people will have the chance to help shape Britain’s progressive future by choosing the next leader of the Labour party. This will be the biggest election   – by a mile – in any political party or any organisation in this country.  This is not the block vote – this is about millions of trade union members –  people at work in of thousands of workplaces up and down the country – each one of them having a vote.  There has been a lot of discussion about how we can have the widest possible involvement in this leadership election.  My view is that the votes of our trade union affiliates are just that.

    – from bus drivers to builders;

    – car workers to care workers

    – nuclear workers to nurses

    – ship builders to social workers

    – and in the food industry – workers who provide our food from plough to plate.

    With the extraordinary breadth of our affiliated supporters, as well as our members, this leadership election is crucial opportunity for the Labour party to reflect, renew itself and re-engage with the people of Britain.

    The contest will be open engaging and energising. It will be a chance to invite supporters to join the party to have a vote.

    This debate will involve Labour party members, supporters in our affiliated trade unions and the wider the public.  This leadership contest is Labour’s opportunity to take forward the rebuilding for our party for the future challenges ahead.

    Over the coming months the candidates will meet thousands of people in meetings across the country. I hope you will organise, and invite them to, events in your workplaces. And they will be taking part in innovative on-line discussions. And no doubt they will be tweeting – following your leadership, Derek.

    Labour members and supporters will be looking to choose someone who can be our next Prime Minister.  But they will be choosing someone who will be leader of our party – and first off, will be leader of the opposition.  So they will expect to see how our leadership candidates show how they

    – Can inspire the activists

    – Encourage more people to join as members

    – Raise money for the party

    – Respect the democracy of the party

    – Lead the whole of Labour’s great team – in parliament, in Scotland and Wales, in local government and in our Trade Union affiliates

    – They will need to land blows on the Tory/Lib/dem coalition government.

    – And our party will look to the new leader to defend the legacy of our Labour government with pride and protect the advances we have made.

    Our legacy. Our political opponents will make a determined effort to denigrate everything we did.  We will not let them.

    For every child who – instead of being cooped up in a flat – is playing in a brand new children’s centre, that is our legacy.

    For every patient who instead of waiting in pain is cared for by doctors and nurses in a brand new hospital – that is our legacy.

    For every villager in Africa whose life has been transformed by cancelling third world debt – that is our legacy.

    That is Labour’s legacy – that is your legacy and that is Gordon’s legacy too and we should never forget that.

    Women out of the shadows

    And I hope our leadership candidates will join me in ensuring that Labour women are no longer kept in the shadows.

    We have 81 Labour women MPs – more than all the other parties put together. Labour is the only party in parliament which speaks up for women in this country. We have some excellent experienced women and some brilliant new women MPs.  We still do have twice as many men MPs as women.  The labour men are great – but they are not twice as good as the women – so I want the PLP when we revise our rules for shadow cabinet elections to have 50.50 men and women in the shadow. It’s time for Labour women to step out of the shadows.

    The new leader will be unveiled at the start of this year’s annual Labour Party conference on Saturday 25th Sept and that will be a major step forward for us.

    Derek and Tony. This is Unite’s first policy conference – but it will be Tony and Derek’s last as joint General Secretary. And I want to pay a warm personal tribute to both of you.

    Derek, you rose to be elected leader of Amicus – but you started work at only 15 years old as an apprentice engineer in Sheffield.

    Tony, you rose to be elected leader of the TGWU – but you too started work at only 15 as a steward for the Ocean Steam ship company.

    Together, you represent one and half million working men and women from all parts of the UK and Ireland and just about every sector of industry and the public services:

    You represent men and women with all kinds of skills from all over the county. Good men and women who achieve remarkable things, often in very difficult working conditions.

    Like the twilight army who clean the bankers’ offices in Canary Wharf who helped highlight the need for a London Living Wage.

    Your members are the backbone of our economy and our society, and you both have been stalwarts of the Labour Party.

    I thank you for what you have both done over so many years and for what you have achieved on behalf of the working people you serve.

    Finally I know that we were all bitterly disappointed that Labour is out of government.  We lost the election but we are not going to lose our determination and our spirit.

    I know that people at work fear for their future under the new Government.

    But we will stand together.

    We will defend hard- working people

    We will defend vital public services and together we will pave for the way for a better future.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2010 Speech on the Railways

    Theresa Villiers
    Theresa Villiers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, on 13th January 2010.

    It is an honour to appear alongside such a respected advocate of Conservative values. And it is an honour for me to be invited to speak to a think tank of Politeia’s stature about Conservative ideas for reforming the railways.

    The railways were the symbol of progress when this country led the world into the industrial era.  And now as we seek ways to revitalise our economy and do so in a way consistent with addressing the climate crisis, the renewed importance of our railway network should not be under-estimated.

    Today’s railway carries more people than in the years before Dr Beeching cut swathes through the network. Privatisation has helped turn an era of managed decline into one of expansion. Yet it is self evident to anyone who regularly travels on the railways that the experience can be a grim one, particularly for those travelling everyday in cattle class conditions in massively overcrowded trains.

    As the months tick by in Brown’s Britain, with the snow and rain falling on commuters stranded on  overcrowded platforms in stations which even a Government sponsored report acknowledge can too often be grim and forbidding places, I am more convinced than ever that we cannot go on like this; that we desperately need change.

    We need change to ensure the rail industry works more cohesively together with a stronger and more unified focus on addressing those things that matter most to passengers, like overcrowding. We need change to ensure that the industry is accountable to passengers and responsive to their concerns. And we need change to loosen the vice like grip that excessive Whitehall micromanagement exerts on our railways.

    We have a clear plan to deliver the change we need on Britain’s railway network.

    And delivering value for money will be at the heart of that plan … as way to relieve the pressure off both the farepayer and the taxpayer at a time of acute crisis in the public finances.

    Let’s just look at some of the bad news over the last couple of months.

    The unions are becoming more and more ready to disrupt services with the London Midland Sunday working debacle spreading to affect my constituents on First Capital Connect’s Great Northern Line commuter services and then escalating to major disruption on the Thameslink throughout much of this winter.

    The extra capacity promised by Labour seems perpetually delayed.

    For example, Tom Harris promised that between 900 and 1300 new Thameslink carriages would be ordered by the Summer of this year. The DfT have yet to get as far as even announcing the preferred bidder.

    Not just one, or even two, but three successive Secretaries of State for Transport have promised 1300 extra carriages to relieve chronic overcrowding. The methods used to calculate that figure defied some of the best brains in the nation. My colleague, Stephen Hammond, finally uncovered the truth via a series of parliamentary questions.

    The real figure is actually over 300 short of the total those Secretaries of State promised. And at the last count, several hundred haven’t yet even been ordered and only a fraction are actually in service on the network.

    Over five years after the decision was made to switch Eurostar services to St Pancras, all of the international platforms at Waterloo remain mothballed, despite repeated assurance that at least one of them would be in use by December last year.

    At this rate, we seem to have as much chance of boarding a train at Platform 9 3/4 at Kings Cross as we do at the long promised Waterloo Platform 20.

    So there are many reasons why we need change to ensure the whole rail industry works more efficiently in serving the interests of customers. That, of course, includes passengers but it also includes freight customers.  Making rail an attractive option for those who need to move goods around the country is pivotal if we are to ease congestion on our roads and keep our promises on tackling climate change. In a modern, low carbon economy, holding a fair balance between the interests of passengers and freight users should not be under-estimated.

    One of the first steps towards making the rail industry more accountable to customers and more strongly focused on value for money would be to unify the way the industry is regulated and strengthen the powers of the regulator.

    Supervision of Network Rail and the performance of the train operators would be brought within a single body, with a duty to safeguard the interest of customers.

    That will give the regulator the authority it lacked when serious problems occurred on First Great Western route from 2006 to 2008:  the authority to bang heads together and get problems addressed promptly regardless of whether the operators or Network Rail were responsible for the initial fault.

    So we would turn the Office of the Rail Regulator into a passenger champion by giving it responsibility for monitoring key aspects of franchise performance and enforcing them on behalf of the DfT.

    The regulator also has an important part to play in our plans to reform Network Rail. We need to remedy a key mistake made by Gordon Brown when Network Rail was created.

    In his efforts to keep Network Rail’s debts off the nation’s balance sheet, he created a structure that left Network Rail accountable to no-one. Not to shareholders, or to train operators, or to passengers.

    Take the fiasco that occurred two years ago, when Network Rail let its Christmas engineering works over-run on the West Coast Main Line. Huge disruption was caused to both passengers and freight customers. But no heads rolled. And the company still paid out six-figure bonuses.

    Yes, Network Rail was fined by the ORR. But when the taxpayer picks up the bill for NR’s debts, this is little more than a meaningless gesture.

    But Network Rail’s remuneration committee still allowed substantial bonuses this year despite a formal letter warning that performance had been mixed. All the regulator could do was to say that he was “surprised and disappointed”. Under a Conservative Government, if the regulator is disappointed, the senior management will feel it. We will give the regulator the power to inflict real financial pain on Network Rail via the confiscation of reduction of bonuses in cases of serious under-performance.

    At present, Network Rail’s senior management is theoretically accountable to “members” who are supposed to function like the shareholders of a public limited company. In reality they do no such thing. The senior management can get away with scooping the bonus pool because an amorphous grouping of 100 members, the appointment of which can be vetoed by the very management team they are supposed to scrutinise, simply aren’t strong enough to stop them.

    So a further measure a Conservative Government would adopt to give Network Rail much stronger incentives to respond to their customers is reform of the company’s governance.

    We will streamline and shrink the membership to turn it into a supervisory board. We will ensure that members will be appointed independently of Network Rail’s management.

    And we will make sure we have people on it who will provide a strong voice for passengers and for train and freight operators, in setting the overall direction of the company and holding its management to account.

    And, in addition, we will inject more contestability into areas of Network Rail’s remit. At present, the company has an almost complete monopoly over publicly funded rail improvements.

    A recurrent concern about their performance is the slow pace and often high cost of delivering much needed improvements.

    Yes, we all know issues have arisen in relation to the big tickey projects such as the West Coast Main Line upgrade. But huge frustration has also arisen in relation to Network Rail’s approach to smaller scale projects such as station improvements, longer platforms and car park expansion, improvements that can be real lifeline to hard-pressed commuters.

    So we would open up funding for these smaller scale rail improvements so they are contestable by a range of industry players including the train operators.

    We believe that getting the train operators involved, as the companies closest to passengers and with the most direct interest in delivering what they want, should help drive forward more cost effective delivery of important measures needed to relieve overcrowding such as longer platforms and station improvements.

    We also believe this aspect of our reforms will provide a valuable benchmark against which to measure the performance and value for money achieved by Network Rail.

    And to help us draw in much needed private sector investment in this kind of upgrade a Conservative Government would adopt a simple idea, a measure that’s had widespread support for years, that’s proven its effectiveness and in the limited instances where it has already been deployed, in short, it’s a no-brainer.

    I am, of course, referring to longer franchises.

    The Government recently tendered the South Central franchise for just 5 years and 10 months.

    This period is a blink of an eye compared to the longevity of rail assets.

    We need franchises that are long enough to allow operators, their banks and shareholders to commit investment in the knowledge that they are allowed a reasonable payback period.

    We believe 15 to 20 year franchises should become the norm.

    Clearly safeguards will need to be put in place to protect the passenger interest during the duration of such a long franchise including break clauses.

    This model has already shown it can work, with Chiltern Rail’s 20 year franchise enabling them to invest in signalling improvements, a new station and increased parking for cars and bicycles, with more due to be announced this week.

    I and my colleagues have been making the case for longer franchises for many years and we very much welcomed the indication shortly before Christmas that we might finally be starting to convince the Government on this.

    Another reform of the franchising system that we could introduce would be a move to more qualitative assessment of franchises so that bids are not judged only on price but also on their commitments to invest in the sort of improvements I’ve been referring to aimed at tackling overcrowding and improving the passenger experience.

    The Government’s Dutch auction approach led to some heroically optimistic bids.

    Natex was the second franchise to go down on the East Coast Main Line in less than three years, a franchise award which the rail minister at the time warmly welcomed with the words:

    “The whole deal is good news, not only for the passenger but for the taxpayer.”

    After one franchise collapsed because it couldn’t make the numbers add up on a bid that would yield £1.3b in premia, was it really wise to it to accept one for £100m more to be delivered in a shorter time period?

    Of course getting value for money for the taxpayer will always be hugely important, never more so than at this time of crisis for the public finances.

    But I believe that it is possible to engage in a more intelligent assessment of value for money which recognises the importance of long term investment in the rail improvements that can do so much to improve life for commuters.

    So in summary, three important elements of our plans for putting passengers at the heart of the way our railways are run are strengthening the rail regulator, reforming Network Rail and awarding longer better franchises.

    But there is another key reform for which our railways are crying out.

    We need to radically scale back the DfT’s detailed day-to-day involvement in matters like timetabling and the procurement of rolling stock.

    Well intentioned though it is, having civil servants drafting detailed timetables and deciding with the 0909 from Reading can stop at Slough or not is not the best way to run a railway.

    High as my regard is for the civil service, the man in Whitehall does not always know best.

    I am in no doubt that the extent of Whitehall involvement in the detail of train procurement, specifying design down to the last bolt, is one of the reasons why the new carriages promised by Labour have been so very slow in coming.

    Instead the Government’s role should focus more on setting overall direction, while we apply a modern model of regulation to make Network Rail more efficient and more customer focused and give train operators the best incentives to deploy private sector investment as part of a cost-effective solution to passenger concerns.

    And there is more.

    Important though it is, reforming the way the existing railway runs isn’t enough. We also need to prepare for the future.

    The future needs of our transport infrastructure, our economy and our environment. I cannot be plainer: this country needs high speed rail.

    Over a year ago I set out my party’s commitment to high speed rail and benefits it has to offer. Quite simply, it can transform the international competitiveness of regional economies by redrawing the time-distance map of these islands.

    A classic example is provided by Lille, a town with high unemployment and below average income. It fought hard to be on the TGV network and its economy was wholly transformed by it.

    In this country, not only does high speed rail have major advantages in addressing the prosperity gap between the South East and the rest of the country, it can yield significant benefits in terms of knitting together regional economies as between one another.

    And just as our nineteenth century rail revolution did, ushering this kind of step change in connectivity that comes with HSR will drive social change too.

    When Barak Obama sought to sell his vision of a new high speed train network to the American public he used Spain as an example.

    And when you look at the Spanish experience with HSR you start to understand why he chose that country rather than longer established players like France or Japan.

    Spain is rolling out high speed track and a phenomenal pace. Its AVE high network hasn’t just breathed new life in the cities it serves, it has even started to break down intense regional rivalries, some of which date back centuries. So much so that the terrorist group, ETA, said it would target anyone involved in construction of a high speed link between the Basque region and Madrid. It even went so far as to detonate a bomb at the headquarters of one of the contractors working on the project.

    Well thankfully our regional rivalries aren’t as acute in this country. But the impact of HSR in Britain could still be profound and far reaching.

    And I believe that the Conservative pledge on high speed rail that we made at our party conference in 2008 has transformed the debate on the future of our transport networks in this country

    At that conference, I announced that a Conservative Government would give the go ahead for a new high speed line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

    I should emphasise that we see this very much a first step. Our aspiration is to go further in years to come, to a line that stretches north to Newcastle and Scotland; and to a network which ultimately expands to connect many of the UK’s major cities in a national high speed network.

    Since that announcement, the momentum for high speed rail has been gathering pace in this country.  Now it can boast support from politicians across the spectrum.

    Despite the Government’s longstanding reluctance, don’t forget Ruth Kelly’s 30 year strategy for the railways had no place for high speed rail, we saw a change of heart from Labour with the establishment of HS2 Ltd. I should make it clear that I am grateful both to Sir David Rowlands for keeping me informed on its work and to the Secretary of State for permitting and encouraging him to do so. As and when we see the report we will be able to make a decision on the merits of the proposals it contains.

    There has, rightly, been a great deal of discussion about the benefits of cross-party work on projects as important and long-term as building Britain’s high speed rail network. The birth of our first 68 miles of track to the Channel Tunnel owed much to an unlikely combination of John Prescott and Michael Heseltine.

    But there remain a number of important differences between Lord Adonis’ approach and mine.

    Firstly, we are the only party to have put forward a fully costed, timetabled commitment to bring high speed rail.

    Secondly, our extensive modelling is predicated on the most cautious assumptions including those we have made on future fare revenues. We see no point in building a line where fares put its use beyond the reach of ordinary families.

    Thirdly, it remains a matter of regret that HS2’s primary remit covers only London to Birmingham, when the arguments for taking HSR further north are so clear. So far the Government has declined to match our commitment to bring high speed rail to the north of England.

    And fourthly, when it comes to air to rail switch, the Government just don’t get it.

    HSR has huge potential to assist us in cutting carbon emissions by providing a viable alternative to thousands of short haul flights. However, you will only maximise its potential to do that if you connect up new domestic lines to HS1 to the Channel Tunnel; and if you make sure that HSR is smoothly and efficiently integrated into Heathrow. That is why we want a new rail hub for Heathrow so that passengers can go straight from the airport to a top class new high speed rail line that can take them on to destinations like Paris and Brussels by connecting up with HS1 and the Channel Tunnel.

    Over recent months, of course was been asked about the impact of the recession on our plans.  I can answer that question today. If we are elected, our plans for a new line to Manchester and Leeds will go ahead.

    We have carefully costed our proposal. We are confident that it’s workable and that it’s affordable. We stick by our commitment.

    We will deliver on it.

    And on this project, as in all our endeavours if we are elected to serve this country as its Government, value for money will be a guiding principle.

    To those who say it makes no sense to embark on this great task, given the state of the public finances, I have four points to make.

    Firstly, even with the most optimistic forecasts, the planning and preparation needed is likely to take at least 4 to 5 years, so the major spend is unlikely to begin before 2015 when construction would start.

    Secondly, however great the efforts we make, the period of construction will inevitably be a long one. So the taxpayer’s contribution will be stretched over the 12 years it would take to deliver the complete line up to Manchester and Leeds, relieving the pressure on budgets in individual years.

    Thirdly, every credible study indicates that the West Coast Main Line will be full, some time between 2015 and 2020. Expecting aviation or our congested motorways to meet the resulting capacity pressure is neither practical nor environmentally acceptable.

    Given the lead times involved in building new railways, we can no longer put off the decision on a new line. Within ten years, extra capacity on the West Coast corridor will not be a “nice to have luxury”, it will be a pressing necessity.

    It would be hugely short sighted to embark on a new conventional line when the cost uplift for high speed rail is probably 30% at most.

    And fourthly and finally, study after study shows that over time high speed rail will pay for itself, not least the report published last year by Network Rail.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a project that requires us to look beyond recovery from recession and set our sights on preparing for prosperity.

    It was a British engineer who gave the world the railways.  Now Britain lags behind a lengthening list of countries across Europe and Asia who are harnessing the benefits of high speed rail. It is high time we started catching up with the rest of the world. I am convinced that if we are going to build a greener and more competitive Britain, we need to rise to the high speed rail challenge.

    Thank you.

  • Sarah Teather – 2010 Speech to 4Children Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Teather to the 4Children conference on 13th October 2010.

    Thank you for inviting me here today and for your report, which is an extremely important contribution and I know is a culmination of a long piece of work and research. It is particularly useful ahead of next week’s spending review.

    I absolutely agree with your analysis. If we want to build any kind of society, let alone a big one, it needs to be built on units. The fundamental building block is family – families of all sizes, big, small, families that extend up through generations and horizontally too. All the elements of society exist in them. Many of society’s problems begin there and pass through generations. But so too are many of the solutions.

    As you say, families are a great untapped resource.

    So, if we are to build a big society, critical to our discussion is how we support families so they flourish and thrive. We need to look at removing the barriers that stop families thriving.

    This is the time for including families, and this is particularly true for the most vulnerable families.

    It’s the reason why so much of our focus has been and will continue to be on how we can support the most disadvantaged families. That’s why we’re making Sure Start children’s centres work better to help more families, recruiting extra health visitors, reforming the special educational needs system – because disabled children and their families have particularly important needs that can put a strain on family relationships, or making work pay to encourage people back into work.

    But the relentless top-down approach from Whitehall has not yielded all the results we want. People’s experience is of services being done to them and not taking account of them. They have been offered the wrong kind of help and there is a sense that they’re not being listened to. You can’t reach the most alienated families from a Whitehall office – we can’t do everything from the centre.

    We need to design services in a radically different way and encourage councils to think more innovatively. We need a different relationship with local government to fundamentally reshape the way we think about working with children and families. By removing ring fences on funding, changing how we deliver things and involving the voluntary sector more.

    This is especially important in Sure Start, where there is much more room for voluntary sector involvement.

    Penn Green, the children’s centre research centre I visited last week, has a fantastic track record of involving the community, and particularly parents. This is a model we need to learn from.

    But it is more than just about services. It is something bigger in vision – more difficult to achieve outright. Social capital is at the heart of what the Big Society is all about. It’s the links you have with others, the informal networks you are a part of that matter. Informal relationships offer people information, connections to work, sources of support.

    When relationships in your family get tough it’s the informal support networks that are key. Having somebody to talk to, other people who know what you are going through.

    The more disadvantaged you are, the fewer of those social links you have. Resilient families is what really matters. Building resilient families is partly about putting in place professional support and also about trying to create a society where people are less isolated – building communities – or putting in place the things that are needed so they build themselves, so that families of all types make connections with others.

    We need to create a society where people are less isolated – that’s the big vision. Children’s centres are at the heart of that, as well as churches, mosques, local clubs and even pubs – all provide ways to get to know people.

    Localising power down to local communities is not about getting things done for free, but about giving communities more power to find the solutions that are right for them.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2010 Speech on Europe

    Below is the text of the speech made by Timothy Kirkhope on 18th March 2010.

    The General Election is going to be about trust.

    Who can be trusted to drive forward Britain’s economic recovery – the party responsible for the crisis, or the party which, when last in office, left Britain with its strongest economy for over two generations?

    Who can be trusted to reform our public services – the party which has simply thrown money, so-called “targets”, and ever increasing bureaucracy at our hospitals, our schools, and our police forces, or the party which believes in reforming the public sector by encouraging public choice and empowering local professionals?

    Who can be trusted to defend our national security – the party which has let our armed forces down in not providing the means they needed to defend our interests in action overseas, or the party which will always respect their needs and value their commitment to the safety of our nation.

    And so it is with Europe. The public needs a government which can be trusted to promote Britain’s national interests in the European Union by advancing its ideas clearly and firmly, and engaging constructively with our fellow members to develop the kind of Europe the public wants: a European Union which can earn their respect and merit their confidence.

    The fact is that during the 13 years of this government, public support for our membership of the European Union has fallen, it is lower now then when they took office. That is a sad indictment of their record in Europe. For all the sound-bites and soft words, the Government hasn’t delivered in Europe and the public knows it.

    The Government simply hasn’t offered clear or consistent leadership:

    – To the British public they pledged to defend the British rebate and to get reform in Europe, whilst in Brussels they sacrificed part of the rebate in return for the offer of a ‘review’ of the CAP – a very expensive review.

    – In Brussels time and again they have bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of other members to prove they are ‘good Europeans’, whilst indulging in macho posturing in the British media, puffing up the strength of their negotiating positions and the importance of their so-called ‘red lines’.

    – They agreed enthusiastically to sign up to the Lisbon Treaty but, rather than have the courage of his supposed convictions, the British Prime Minister invented excuses so he could arrive late in order to miss the official signing ceremony, and then he told us it didn’t really matter as the Treaty was just a tidying up exercise and that most of the substantial changes didn’t really apply to us anyway.

    – And, in the ultimate betrayal, the Government told the British people they would have a chance to vote in a referendum on the Constitution and then, when such referendums proved difficult to win, they agreed with the other member states to re-package the Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty to avoid the need for a vote. They had the power and opportunity to call a referendum and by failing to honour their promise on the pretext of a shabby re-branding exercise, a precious opportunity was lost forever when the treaty was finally ratified.

    No wonder the public no longer trusts Labour on Europe. And nor do our European allies. They can see through a government which tries to be euro-sceptic in the Sun newspaper but is predominantly euro-federalist in Brussels.

    What Britain now needs is to earn the respect of our European partners by engaging constructively in the debate with a consistent approach. Under a Conservative Government, our partners may not always like what we have to say but at least they will always be able to trust what we say.

    We do not propose to re-launch yet another tedious institutional debate. Europe has wasted enough time on institutional wrangling over recent years. Instead we want Europe to focus on the real issues that matter to people. We will nonetheless put in place certain safeguards for the future and pursue measures to mitigate the worst aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.

    At home,

    – we will make all future treaty changes which include any transfer of powers to the European Union subject to a referendum.

    – We will ensure that none of the so-called ‘ratchet’ clauses in the Treaty which could result in the abolition of vetoes and the transfer of powers could be invoked without parliamentary approval.

    – And we share the view of the German Federal Constitutional Court that any delegation of powers to the European Union must be in accordance with constitutions of the sovereign member states from which it derives its authority to act and that, as a consequence, the rights of domestic democratic institutions must be respected. So we will enact a Sovereignty Bill so that this principle can be upheld in the context of our own constitutional arrangements.

    In Europe,

    – we will seek a full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which strayed far beyond a simple statement of core rights and became a wish-list for many different special interests.

    – We will defend the integrity and independence of our Criminal Justice System through an additional protocol.

    – And we will assert the principle of subsidiarity in key areas of social and employment legislation we believe are damaging to the British economy.

    During the course of the life-time of the next government, there will be sufficient opportunities to realize these objectives: minor treaties are enacted for enlargements, changes to the size of the European Parliament, and so forth which could all be used as vehicles for the some of the amendments we seek.

    But beyond this package, an incoming Conservative government will have an ambitious programme for European reform.

    The European Union has an important part to play in supporting economic recovery. The European Commission has just published its Agenda 2020 initiative for driving forward the European economy. There is much in this we would support. We want to develop the internal market further, remove remaining barriers to trade.

    Europe is a vital player in reaching a sensible and balanced package of measures in managing the challenge of climate change.

    Within the Union itself over the next few years key policies will be subject to scrutiny and must be reformed: a new budget in the medium-term framework from 2014 has to be agreed, as will policies on agriculture, regional policy, research, and fisheries. There is a lot at stake.

    It is because we want to reinforce this drive for reform that  last year we launched our European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament. We seek to build:

    – a Europe which respects the rights of its member states and the diversity of its peoples;

    – a Europe which is committed to government with a light touch where the burdens of taxation and regulation are minimised;

    – a Europe which is firm in its support for the transatlantic alliance.

    We want a more open and transparent European Union which acts only where it can add value in a proportionate and effective way.

    We may not be one of the two biggest groups in the European Parliament. But even the biggest of the seven groups in the Parliament only has about one third of its members. Everything has to be negotiated – every vote, every report, every appointment. We are playing our full part in these negotiations. Indeed now that we are free to articulate our vision for Europe and offer our proposals for reform with clarity and vigour, we are able maximise our impact on the Parliament’s work.

    It is simply not the case that ‘influence’ is dependent on being part of a big group.

    Let me give an example from just last week. The Socialist Group called for all US nuclear missiles to be removed from Europe – regardless of any political, military or strategic arguments. And its Labour members? Well, they split three ways!  The majority were opposed to the Socialist Group amendment but they were powerless to stop it. Powerless – so much for all their talk about ‘influence’. On a question of such importance they were left on the sidelines, most of them quietly abstaining in the hope no-one would notice.

    Being part of a big group is not a free ticket to influence. As everyone who really understands the European Parliament appreciates, you influence decisions by the strength and consistency of your message, by having a seat at the table, and by building networks of influence. So let me ask three key questions:

    – Where are Labour in the Parliament’s governing body, the Conference of Presidents? They are never there. As Deputy Leader of our Group I frequently represent it at the Conference.

    – Where are Labour in the crucial meetings of rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, the people responsible for drafting reports? Labour are only there if they are lucky. Conservative members, as the biggest delegation in our new group, are present more often than not.

    – How strong is the influence of Labour members with the Commission? After being dragged along by their Socialist allies in a doomed attempt to unseat the President of Commission, Mr Barroso – an initiative which failed largely thanks to the decisive votes of our Group – they are not regarded as natural partners of the new Commission either. We, on the other hand, are well connected to the Commission at the most senior levels.

    Our opponents, in the face of this reality, have tried with increasing desperation to smear our members and you heard more of that tonight – despite the all the evidence – by distorting and twisting comments, often comments they themselves know cannot be substantiated.

    For example, in a recent Labour leaflet attacking the ECR, the text consists largely of accusations covered by the phrase ‘it is said that’, or ‘allegedly’, or ‘reportedly’ – a word used no less than 14 times!

    But endlessly re-cycling a Labour Party press release does not make for a coherent or credible response.

    And, more worryingly, it is damaging our relationships with some of our partners particularly in the newer Member States

    By all means attack us for our beliefs, for our policies, or for our objectives. But such smears should have no part to play in our politics.

    It seems that Labour, in their increasing desperation, have resorted to such tactics.

    Frankly, it is pathetic – even tragic.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the priorities for an incoming Conservative Government are to minimise any possible damage arising from the Lisbon Treaty and to work with our partners in driving forward a credible reform agenda:

    – We need a European Union which delivers where the British people and indeed all the peoples of Europe expect it to act: in building a dynamic economy, in dealing with climate change, and in promoting global trade;

    – a European Union which embraces reform of key policy areas such as agriculture and fisheries.

    – a European Union which delivers value for money, respecting the rights of its member states.

    It is an ambitious agenda but success is vitally important in the interests of the British people and indeed of the whole of Europe.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2010 Speech to the 1922 Committee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Timothy Kirkhope, the then Leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, to the 1922 Committee on 13th January 2010.

    Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the 1922 committee again in my capacity as leader of our MEPs.

    I want to pay tribute to their hard work and express to you my happiness that we again won the European elections in June when we had the largest number of MEPs elected.

    I also want to thank both William Hague and Mark Francois for all their help and advice they have given me personally and for their support for our activities in pressing the Conservative cause in Brussels.

    New group

    Sir Michael, let me say a few words about our new group: the European Conservatives and Reformists which was successfully formed in July last year and which now holds a pivotal position in the Parliament and the negotiations and discussions with the European Commission & Council.

    We were told that to leave the EPP-ED alliance would lead to a loss of influence in the European Parliament and that we would become a marginal and irrelevant small group on the fringes of the Parliament.

    The Labour Party is still pushing this line but the evidence shows that this is completely the reverse of the truth.

    Combining the votes of the ECR, EPP and Liberal groups (many of whose members are liberal as in the classical sense – not like our UK liberals here) we have a clear majority to outvote the left. The EPP knows this and on key issues it has turned to us and asked for support: the re-election of José-Manuel Barroso as President of the Commission was an example of how we used our votes to good effect. Mr Barroso did not get our votes too easily though. He came to our Group first, before any other group, to explain his policies and took very searching questions. Then we supported him. Similarly we have worked with others on the centre right to prevent the efforts of the left to get the parliament involved in domestic Italian politics, we defeated measures to add additional burdens of further employment legislation, and on a number of occasions in votes we have made the difference between progress and reform, and backward steps towards socialism and federalism.

    Paradoxically, being the largest delegation in the ECR our influence with the EPP is actually greater now than if we had stayed inside.

    And we hold a vital committee chairmanship: Malcolm Harbour presides over the Internal Market Committee. Under the old alliance we chaired the Agriculture Committee with Neil Parish who hopefully will be joining you shortly.

    We have a blend of experience and new blood that gives us a powerful voice in key committees – from past Committee Chairmen such as Struan Stevenson who leads on fisheries, and Giles Chichester with Industry and Energy, to new members now dramatically making their mark such as Kay Swinburne and Vicky Ford on economic affairs where they have particular expertise. The quality and hard work of our delegation has an important impact on the Parliament. This matters as Parliament is no longer the talking shop it was in 1979; you will know that it is now a full co-legislator alongside the Council. So it is vital we have a strong voice promoting Conservative ideas and defending British interests.

    With the realistic prospect of a Conservative government in a few weeks time, this is more important than ever and a new government working with our new group will get even better results for Britain and Europe. Over the next few years key policies come up for review: a new budget in the medium-term framework from 2014 has to be agreed, and also new reform packages for agriculture, regional policy, research, and the discredited common fisheries policy. There is a lot at stake.

    One party

    Sir Michael, we strongly support the ‘one party’ vision of David Cameron – whether we are Conservative representatives in Westminster, Edinburgh, Leeds or Brussels, we are one party. We have a shared responsibility for the Conservative ‘brand’ – to enhance its reputation and credibility at all levels of government.

    To this end we maintain regular contact with the party to share information and develop policy. Our delegation was involved in the preparation of the party’s response to the deeply disappointing result of the Irish referendum and the subsequent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

    Given that the government had shamelessly betrayed its public pledge to hold a referendum on the treaty, we agree that our energies must be devoted to initiatives in areas where we can still make a difference and move on. Although, as you know, two of our members felt the need to withdraw from the frontbench, the delegation as a whole is steadfastly behind David Cameron’s European policy.

    We are working closely with the shadow front bench teams – over the next few weeks, for example, we will receive in Brussels visits from the Home Office, business, and international development teams. It is vital that the party speaks with one voice here in Westminster, in – we hope – the European Council and Council of Ministers shortly, and in the European Parliament.

    Expenses & lobbying

    One area where we are working hard to reinforce the Party’s message is in pursuing the highest standards in public life. Both our institutions have had, to say the least, difficulties over recent years. We are trying to fix them. Our delegation has now introduced rigorous but practical new policies for recording online our expenses and as of 1st January contacts with lobbyists.

    We know that in truth the vast majority of our elected members in both places have always demonstrated integrity and probity but the public now needs the reassurance that only full transparency can deliver. We have taken decisive steps to ensure that this expectation is met.

    At the start of a critical year for our country, we look forward to working closely with you as we campaign for the election of a Conservative Government. We will do our best to help you and our PPCs to obtain a resounding victory. And beyond that, we look forward to playing our full part in working with the new Government in delivering for Britain in Europe.

  • Iain Gray – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Iain Gray, the then Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, to Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference,

    I want to begin by congratulating Ed Miliband on his election. I know he is going to expose the Tories and the Liberals for what they are, lead our fightback and be the next Prime Minister of this country.

    And you know what, Ed gets Scotland. He knows that Labour is already fighting back in Scotland.

    Fighting back as services are cut, capital projects are cancelled and the recovery is choked off.

    In Scotland all of this is already happening.

    The SNP have cut 3000 teachers from our schools. 1000 classroom assistants are gone. This year alone 4000 posts in the NHS to go, including 1500 nurses.

    The SNP ended our school building programme, cancelled our rail link projects to Edinburgh and then Glasgow Airports.

    They cut the budgets which support enterprise and economic development, reduced university places by 1000 and cut support for 16 –18 year olds staying on at school.

    Unbelievably they did all of this in the good years, the best of times, when they had more money than any Scottish government has ever had.

    The price is high.

    90% of our new teachers this year have no permanent job. Highly trained, highly skilled, highly motivated, they should be inspiring and encouraging the next generation.

    Instead they are sitting at home, on supply, waiting for the phone to ring.

    This movement fought to end the curse of casual labour in the docks but the SNP have casualised the teaching profession.

    The price is high.

    £2 billion worth of schools and hospitals lost. And 37,000 construction jobs gone with them.

    The price is high.

    Unemployment still ri sing in Scotland. Poverty rising again. Economic growth lagging.

    Alex Salmond inherited a Scotland where unemployment was lower than the rest of the country. There were more people in work than ever before. Youth unemployment had all but disappeared. Poverty was falling faster than in any other part of Britain.

    He has thrown all of that away.

    That is Alex Salmond’s legacy of failure.

    Ending it is our challenge. Labour’s obligation.

    Because when unemployment rises and poverty flourishes and opportunity disappears, people will look to Labour. They will look to us. And we must not let them down.

    In May one million Scots said Labour speaks for us.

    And we do: when we campaign for safe streets, clean hospitals, improved literacy in our schools, apprenticeship opportunities for our young people, we speak for Scotland.

    When we stand shoulder to shoulder with carers, with knife crime campaigners, with C Diff families, with commun ity groups facing funding cuts, with newly qualified teachers on the scrapheap and nurses in the firing line, then we stand up for Scotland.

    We had our election failure in 2007. And we learned the lessons.

    We rediscovered the values which bind us, the purpose which drives us and the vision which calls us.

    We remembered that we are a movement, not just a party, driven by principle not just a programme.

    We came out stronger and we are fighting back.

    With an outstanding Secretary of State for Scotland in Jim Murphy we took on our opponents in May and we won the trust of the country once again.

    We are ready now to make Labour once again the biggest party in the Scottish Parliament.

    People say to me, why would you want to be First Minister when money is so tight, when the decisions will be so hard.

    I say: it is when times are hardest that Labour values are needed most of all. Changing our country and our world for the better is one part of Labour’s purpose. But our purpose, too, is to protect those most in need, to see that the lot of the poorest does not diminish, that the limited chances of those on the edge, on the margins of our communities do not slip beyond hope.

    So when the time comes to take hard decisions I will not shirk them. I will not hide. But I will take those decisions for the good of the many with Labour values as the touchstone and the guiding principle.

    We will need to see pay restraint in the months and years ahead. In particular, I want to see excessive salaries and bonuses at the very top end of the Scottish public sector scaled back.

    But those at the bottom of the pay scales must be protected. That is why if I am elected First Minister in May I will introduce a Scottish Living Wage, of over £7 per hour.

    In a 21st Century Scotland no one who does a fair days work should receive less than a fair days pay. In a Labour Scotland we will make sure that no one does.

    Labour colleagues in Glasgow City Council have shown that a Living Wage works, so beginning in the public sector but building out from there, through partnership, and procurement we will create a movement, a campaign against poverty pay.

    Labour in Scotland may well be asked to deal with the choices presented by the Tory cuts, but it is the most vulnerable who will deal with the consequences. I say to every Scot: Labour will be by your side when no one else will dare to care. That is our mission. That will be the hallmark of my leadership in Scotland.

    This week a new chapter in Labour history began. But the values which will shape it are the values which have always shaped the story of our movement.

    In May we can write a new chapter in the history of Scotland. I want the story of Scotland – my country – to be shaped by those Labour values too. Hard times or not, I want a Scotland of fairness, of opportunity of excellence.

    A Scotland to be proud of.

    A Scotland to fight and struggle and organise for.

    A Labour Scotland.

  • John Major – 2010 Speech at Conservative Middle East Council Dinner

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Conservative Middle East Council Dinner held at Claridge’s Ballroom on Wednesday 16th June 2010.

    Your Excellencies, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Delighted to be here this evening. As I look around this gathering, I see new Ministers who face a herculean task, and old colleagues like Dennis Walters, Founder of this Council. I also see my old friend, Ken Clarke, who I am delighted to see back in Government. And, above all, distinguished Ambassadors representing our friends and allies in the Middle East. It is good to see you all.

    These days, I travel for almost six months a year. I marvel at the growth in the Middle East. I see the huge opportunities that are still to come. But, too often, I am told on my travels: “We see the French, the Germans, the Chinese – where are the British?”. I am delighted David Cameron and William Hague have re-stated our commitment to the wider region. We must never allow old friends to become distant friends.

    First, a warning: all over the world Governments have their own cautious language when engaged in diplomacy. Often what is not said is as important – if not more so – than what is said.

    Tonight you will need no interpretive skills: I speak solely for myself, and having the freedom to say exactly what I think, in the way that I wish, is one of the delights of not being in Government.

    Iraq

    When Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 – without cause or justification – the case for war was clear-cut. An innocent country was invaded and needed liberation. And when it was over we had a further responsibility: to protect the Kurds from genocide.

    The second Iraq War was very different.

    Before it began, I made my reservations public but supported the war – because I believed what the then Prime Minister told us about weapons of mass destruction. When I was Prime Minister, everything I said in public was factually rock solid. I assumed that principle still applied. But I was wrong. It now seems there was little justification for the bellicose case for war that was presented. I was not alone in being misled. So was the Conservative Party. So was the United Kingdom.

    Today that war looks like folly. The defence of it has shrunk to the claim that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, who mistreated his nation, and the world is better off without him.

    That is true. But others are bad, too – and mistreat their nations – yet we don’t invade their countries or bomb them from 30,000 feet. It may be that the Labour Government acted in good faith. Judgement on that can be left to history.

    But, I observe now – there are lessons: war should be the last resort, entered into only when circumstances compel it. And secondly: we now have on-going responsibilities to help rebuild Iraq that we cannot ignore.

    Afghanistan

    We have now been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – with no sign of an ending. Inevitably there is war weariness – made worse by the depressing rise in casualties. Poor political direction has dogged this mission from the outset. The Labour Government hoped “not a shot would be fired” but 298 British dead mock that naivety. For too long, troops in the field were ill-equipped: that, thankfully, is at last corrected and I hope they now will have all the support they need – in action and on their return home.

    Afghanistan is not a war that can easily be “won”, but nor can it be ignored: we are bound to it by necessity.

    And it is easy to see why.

    The war has spread into Pakistan – a Western ally and a nuclear power where Taleban and Jihadist influence has been growing.

    The Afghanistan campaign is now, arguably, not one, but several intertwined conflicts including a power struggle between Jihadists and the Pakistan Government.

    As the conflict becomes more messy and intractable, it is understandable that some feel we should bring the troops home – as Canada and the Netherlands plan to do in 2011.

    But not yet. Too much is at stake. We need patience and commitment for what could yet be a long military and civil campaign: the alternative is to lose the struggle, boost terror, undermine American and British prestige, and place Pakistan at risk. We did not seek this war, but we cannot – either morally or safely – walk away from it.

    The best exit strategy is victory. If that is unobtainable – diplomacy. We may yet have to talk to the Taliban.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction inevitably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators.

    In Jerusalem, the situation on the ground is constantly worsening. Three old religions and one historic City stand at the heart of the dilemma. Both Israelis and Palestinians see different parts of Jerusalem as their legitimate capital, yet illegal settlement growth in East Jerusalem is absorbing it into West Jerusalem and making it difficult to see how a peaceful division of the City could ever be possible. Other policies are forcing Palestinians to move. Plainly, this inhibits successful negotiations.

    In recent months, Israel has upset even her strongest allies. The murder of a Hamas commander in Dubai and the raid on aid ships heading for Gaza were diplomatic disasters. So, frankly, is the Gaza blockade because it is creating growing support for Hamas at the expense of Fatah – which is not remotely in Israel’s self-interest. Israeli opinion is puzzled. It resents criticism because it cannot understand why much of the world seems more tolerant of Hamas misbehaviour than Israeli action. I can explain this conundrum: it is that the world expects far more of Israel, a democratic State, than Hamas, a terrorist organisation. If Israel reaches out to her friends, she will receive support: if she does not, she will limit their tolerance of her actions.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when they have no choice other than to press their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Over recent years, the concept of an international peace-keeping force in Gaza and the West Bank has gained support. In Gaza, by monitoring the Egypt/Gaza border, it could inhibit the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli towns with rockets and, by enabling the blockade to be lifted, prevent the complete collapse of the economy. In the West Bank, it could focus on civil improvement, economic advance and more effective law and order.

    If progress is not made soon in bilateral negotiations, this idea may become an early step towards an imposed agreement.

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that requires great political courage, especially in Washington.

    Will it work? No-one can know – but nothing else has. Will America do it? Most people accept that the strength of the Israeli lobby limits America’s freedom of action. But time – and patience – is running out. The political risk of pressuring Israel – for any American Administration – is very great, but a contrary truth is that an agreement is in Israel’s long-term interest every bit as much as the Palestinians.

    Impossible, some say. Really? That’s what I was told before we started the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Distrust there was as toxic as between Israel and her adversaries, and yet Ireland is now a changed country, with neighbours once at war with one another, living together in harmony.

    And what is the alternative? A perpetual ongoing dispute that leaves generations of Israelis and Palestinians facing the same conundrum, the same hatreds, the same insecurities – until another war breaks out with enhanced weapons and an incalculable outcome.

    Iran

    Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. He went on to say: “But perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. In the year since the flawed re election of Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice. The regime has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    Because of the regime, we view Iran through a very narrow prism. Is she developing nuclear weapons? When will she have them? Will she use them? On whom? Some ask whether America – or Israel as a proxy – should attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. If she obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is high.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are high. In the MENA, she is rated 137th out of 163 in terms of ease of doing business – only just ahead of the West Bank and Gaza. A sad comedown for a nation that, as Persia, was a great Empire, when the British and Americans lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable without understanding that Iran is a nationalist and hard-line regime. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police. The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we must deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions. In any event, adding a third military conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan is very unattractive – even if we cannot rule it out. But, for the time being, the sanctions applied last week seem the right way forward. We can only hope they prove sufficient.

    So often time is a tyrant. There is much I would like to have said of Lebanon – so often an innocent victim of wider issues. Of Syria – and how to engage her. Of Jordan – and our close friends in the Gulf. Of the rosy prospects of North Africa. Of Egypt and Turkey – and the importance of their role, and my support for Turkey’s application to join the EU.

    These – and other – issues must wait for another day. But not, I hope, for too long. The Middle East is stirring and we need to embrace it, consult it and benefit from its wisdom.

    If we do not, it will be our loss.