Tag: 2012

Jeremy Hunt – 2012 Speech on Tourism

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the then Secretary of State for Culture, at Tate Modern in London on 14 August 2012.

It’s a pleasure to welcome you to Tate Modern. In just 12 years this has become the world’s busiest and most famous contemporary art gallery – perhaps the best single example of our restless determination to develop and improve what our nation offers both in culture and tourism.

And after this year there’s every reason to think this great attraction will be even busier in years to come.

An Olympics triumph which showed the country welcoming the world with professionalism, warmth and even sunshine…

A Jubilee and an Olympics that showed us at ease with a glorious history and a vibrant present – witnessed by a global audience of millions, with the Opening Ceremony alone watched by almost a billion.

A Torch Relay and London 2012 Festival that showcased cultural and tourist treasures in every corner of the country…

Extraordinary shows and exhibitions like Freud, Leonardo, Frankenstein, Richard III and Matilda…

New places to visit from the Turner Contemporary to the Hepworth to the Harry Potter studios…

And old favourites restored like the Cutty Sark…

Whatever the doomsters may say about the economy, we should be proud that our cultural and tourism sectors are investing in the future with optimism, confidence and panache.

When I became Culture Secretary I was very conscious of the criticism that successive governments have undervalued tourism. So, in my first month as a Minister, I gave a speech at the new Olympic sailing venue in Weymouth saying I would address this.

Let’s look at what has been achieved.

GREAT

First of all we have seen the launch of the first ever cross-government campaign to market the UK overseas. Bringing together the Foreign Office, the British Council, UKTI and Visit Britain, the GREAT campaign is our biggest ever investment in marketing the UK, a campaign that has turned heads and really taken the fight for tourist dollars into our key tourist markets.

– We’ve stopped traffic at the Shibuya crossing in Tokyo with a GREAT double decker bus;
– We’ve draped New Delhi taxis in red, white and blue;
– We’ve taken British film to the red carpet of LA during the Oscars;
– We’ve lit up Shanghai with GREAT projections on the Aurora building overlooking the mighty Huangpu river;
– In the US, millions saw Victoria Beckham championing British fashion on a GREAT Britain-branded subway at Grand Central Station, New York;
– On Sugarloaf mountain in Rio, thousands of journalists wrote, spoke, blogged or tweeted about David Beckham and Prince Harry as they promoted Britain;
– And, my favourite, six out of ten Parisians discovered that unlike the Louvre, the British Museum is free thanks to a “Culture is GREAT Britain” poster mounted just outside the Louvre main entrance.

Indeed the highest praise of all came from the country that can often be our sternest critic when the French newspaper La Tribune said that GREAT is the most effective global marketing campaign since the Big Apple campaign for New York.

Back then in Weymouth I pledged £1bn publicity for the UK on the back of the Olympics. Thanks to the GREAT campaign, I am delighted to say we have delivered more than three times that amount of positive PR for Britain in key target markets.

I also said in Weymouth we would back our domestic tourism industry. We all love holidaying abroad – and there’s nothing wrong with that. Indeed the falling cost of overseas holidays has been one of the great social advances of the last half century. But we should not neglect our domestic tourism industry, whether for day trips, weekend breaks or family holidays.

So for the first time ever we have had a £6 million national TV and cinema advertising campaign promoting holidays at home. The ad, featuring Rupert Grint, Julie Walters, Stephen Fry and Michelle Dockery has reached more than 7 out of 10 holiday makers and generated 300,000 extra hotel nights in its first three months alone.

The worm has turned, and no longer will domestic tourism be the poor relation when it comes to big marketing campaigns for the domestic tourism pound. And rightly so – because to suggest we need to choose between either a strong domestic offer or a strong international offer is a false dichotomy. The bigger the domestic market, the more investment we will stimulate in quality accommodation and attractions – and the more international visitors we will attract.

Answering the critics of the Games

So we are taking the fight to our rivals in key markets abroad and determined to win the battle for tourism spend at home.

In doing so, we’re tackling head-on two big myths.

The first is that hosting an Olympic Games is bad for business. In the run up to this year, critics said we’d see huge displacement, with people staying away from the UK in droves because of the crowds and the cost.

The truth is that we’ve seen record-breaking figures for spend and holiday visits from overseas in 2012, even taking into account the blip we’ve seen in the June figures. Visa says that London spend in restaurants is up nearly 20% on a year ago, nightclub spending is up 24%, and spending on theatre and other tickets has doubled.

Far from seeing a bloodbath, Andrew Lloyd Webber has seen sales for his shows increase by 25%. He has generously said that he “has been proved wrong” and “couldn’t be more delighted.”

Quite simply, stories of “ghost town” London are not borne out by the facts:

Retailers in Bond Street, Oxford and Regent Street all reported a surge in sales and footfall during the Super Saturday weekend;
Tube traffic has been at record levels with over four and a half million journeys on some days last week – the highest number for one day in London Underground’s history;

And hotels have been extremely busy – Richard Solomons has talked of 90 per cent occupancy across Intercontinental properties. Many other London hoteliers report they were at least 80% full, and up on the same days last year.

Now I’m pleased to say that hoteliers are looking at new and creative ways to extend the party. Premier Inn, for example, will be celebrating TeamGB’s gold medal haul of 29 by offering 29,000 London rooms at £49 for bookings made until 22nd August.

Of course, we were always going to see changes in visitor patterns during such a big year and there are inevitably some businesses that suffer short term consequences.

But we should never underestimate the long term impact of securing London’s place in as one of the most buzzy and exciting cities on the planet – and the massive upside that offers to all businesses based here.

Nor should we underestimate the power of the Olympic Park to become a new tourist attraction – with the superb landscaping, facilities, transport and views that it offers.

A long term commitment to tourism

Which takes me to the second myth.

Ufi Ibrahim of the BHA said in June that when it comes to tourism the Government is “all talk, no action,” and that we don’t take tourism seriously.

Let me gently remind Ufi that when I arrived in office there was no fully-developed tourism strategy for the Olympics. Getting that right always needed to be the first priority. How could anyone who cares about tourism waste a billion pound opportunity to put ourselves on the map?

And critics are plain wrong to say that this is only about the short term.

Let’s look at the changes that have been made with long term impact that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Olympics.

Firstly, John Penrose and I promised to cut the red tape that was choking tourism.

So in the last two years we’ve curbed regulations on food labelling, on no smoking signs and on arcade entertainment;

– We’ve changed the VAT rules on holiday lets;

– We’re consulting to change live entertainment licensing to help the entertainment industry; and

– We’re giving industry and consumers control of star rating quality schemes.

– We also said we’d improve support for tourism organisations at a local level.

And notwithstanding the difficult financial environment, we’ve now seen a steady expansion of destination management organisations, bringing tourism back to its local roots.

We’re also working with sector skills bodies to increase apprenticeships and training, to create the pipeline of trained staff necessary for future success.

On top of which planning reforms in the localism bill will make it much easier for tourism attractions to invest and expand.

And looking further ahead, transport developments such as HS2 will tackle one of the biggest challenges we face, namely how to get the 50% of international visitors who come to London but never move beyond the capital to discover everything the rest of the country has to offer.

But as a government we can only create a climate that helps investment and expansion. And that means the support of the entire industry. I hope this year has shown what a strong partnership can achieve.

The future

But if we are to truly exploit our potential as the sixth most visited tourism destination, there is much more to do.

Today, the whole country is riding high on a wave of global, Olympic excitement. In Shakespeare’s words: “On such a full sea are we now afloat… We must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures”.

In such a landmark year, with so much in our favour, isn’t now the time to go further, to make this Olympic year a real turning point for UK tourism? To step up, if you like, from being a creditable finalist to winning the gold medal.

So today I want to invite the tourism industry to embrace some ambitious goals:

To commit as a government and an industry to increasing the number of overseas visitors to the UK from just over 30 million today to 40 million by 2020;

– To make 2012 the turning point for our domestic tourism industry – and make sure the UK is always promoted as actively to its home market as overseas destinations promote theirs in the UK;

– To exploit the extraordinary role that sport has as a magnet for tourism by exploiting the opportunities presented by hosting world cups in rugby league, rugby union and cricket, not to mention the Ryder Cup and the Champions League final, the Commonwealth Games in 2014 and the World Athletics Championships in the Olympic stadium in 2017;

– To build on the incredible success of the London Festival 2012 by binding the cultural and tourism industries much more closely together as we develop Britain’s reputation as the global capital of culture.

– To support this, I am today announcing new initiatives on both the domestic and international tourism front.

Domestic tourism

On the domestic front, I will today commit that the domestic tourism advertising campaign we saw earlier this year will not be our last.

That’s why we will invest a further £2 million in a follow up campaign next year, to be increased further with match-funding, in order to build on the success of the 20.12 per cent ‘Holiday at Home’ campaign.

The Olympic Torch Relay has really helped to ignite domestic interest in UK holidays. In fact, about one in ten expect to visit a destination off the back of seeing the Olympic flame there. But it is still too difficult to book domestic holiday packages on the web.

So Visit England has committed to double the number of domestic package breaks being booked in the years ahead by bringing together website retailers, car rental groups, train companies, airlines and hotel groups.

Cultural tourism

Following this extraordinary year, I also want us to capitalise on the successes we have achieved in developing cultural tourism. Tony Hall and Ruth Mackenzie deserve enormous credit for putting together the London 2012 Festival, which has already been enjoyed by around 10 million people across the country, with more opportunities still to come – surely the biggest and best Cultural Olympiad ever.

How can we build on this? One promising idea is to have a London Biennale – a bi-annual London or UK-wide arts festival to celebrate the best of what we have to offer culturally. I have therefore asked Tony and Ruth to do a report for me on the feasibility of such a festival, how much it would cost and how it should be delivered.

2013- A Focus on China

Finally, how can we keep up the tremendous momentum we have achieved in marketing the UK internationally?

Today I am announcing a continuation of the GREAT campaign next year with an £8 million focus on one of the world’s fastest growing economies, China.

Only around 150,000 Chinese tourists visited our shores last year, a figure that is way down on that of our major competitors such as Germany and France. The numbers are rising, but it is still estimated that France attracts between 25 and 50% more Chinese visitors than the UK.

We simply cannot afford such a comparatively small share of such an important market.

Nobody should underestimate the opportunity China and its cities represent:

By 2025, Shanghai is expected to be the third richest city in the world;

Five other Chinese cities – Shenzhen, Tianjin, Nanjing, Guangzhou and Chengdu – are expected to be among the top 20 globally for GDP growth;

And by 2030, China should have around 1.4 billion middle class consumers – creating a potential market four times bigger than America.

We must get on the front foot. Through this new campaign, I want us to treble the number of Chinese visitors we attract, getting to 500,000 by 2015. This alone will generate more than £0.5 billion additional visitor spend a year and create 14,000 more jobs.

We will be increasing our marketing in China’s major cities, not just in Shanghai and Beijing, but also some of the other major cities where we know there are big gains to be had.

We’ll also be looking at improvements to the visa system and work with airlines and aviation authorities to improve the number of flight connections to China.

Conclusion

2012 already has far too many firsts to be able to list:

– The greatest 45 minutes in our sporting history, thanks to Jess Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah;

– A breathtaking London 2012 Festival, our biggest ever summer of culture;

– The creativity and fun of Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony, which amazed and delighted 900 million people around the world;

– Our historic sites – Hampton Court, The Mall, Horseguards – and the new venues on the Olympic Park: all looking their best and projecting the best image of Britain, both heritage and contemporary.

– And then our volunteers – the Games Makers and London Ambassadors and UK-wide Ambassadors – showing the world a friendliness that has never perhaps been associated with Britain before.

But the biggest opportunity is yet to come.

The Olympics should be for Britain what Usain Bolt is for athletics – something that grabs the attention of the whole world and refuses to let it go.

We must use this extraordinary year to turbo-charge our tourism industry. To create jobs and prosperity on the back of a globally-enhanced reputation. And to show that when we talk about Olympic legacy, tourism is an opportunity we seized and ran with all the way to the finishing line.

January 19, 2016
Norman Baker – 2012 Speech to Investing in Future Transport Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Baker to the Investing in Future Transport Conference on 16 August 2012.

I am sorry not to be able to be present at your conference today – but delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words to open this afternoon’s session – focused as it is on the challenge of transport in an urban environment.

For me, the theme chimes in very closely with the work that I have been pushing forward while I have been in Government.

In a nutshell – developing a transport system that creates growth – and cuts emissions. Especially carbon emissions.

Clearly how we get around in the future – whether in cities or elsewhere – will have a huge impact on how we achieve these aims.

Around a quarter of UK domestic carbon emissions are from transport – and over 90 per cent of those are from road traffic.M

It’s worth pointing out, as did last month’s UK Climate Change Committee report, the good progress being made in reducing emissions from new cars.

A 4.2% reduction between 2010 and 2011, and on track to meet the indicator target for 2020 – 95 grammes of CO2 per kilometre. That is good news. But of course we want to go further.

The UK Government has been determined to create the right conditions for the development of the early market for ultra low emission vehicles – ULEVs [youlevs] as they are known. We have made a £400 million commitment.

Last year we put in place the Plug-In Car Grant and extended it to vans this year. This has helped generate a step change in the uptake of ULEVs.

Total claims in the first half of this year are more than we saw in the whole of 2011.

And with new models coming to the market, I expect to see this trend sustained and growing, in line with our expectations.

Of course it is the case that people are hardly likely to buy a ULEV if they don’t see the infrastructure needed to use them already in place.

So, the Coalition Government has taken a lead on this with the Plugged In Places programme. And I’m delighted that, as we anticipated, the private sector has now seen the commercial opportunity this presents and come in with really significant investment.

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that creating growth and cutting carbon are 2 sides of the same coin.

The combined number of private and public sector charge-points now stands at around six thousand.

Of course hydrogen is also one of the options to decarbonise transport.

With industry we have set up the UK H2 Mobility project.

It’s looking at the potential for “hydrogen fuel cell” electric vehicles – and what investment would be required to commercialise the technology, including refuelling infrastructure, from 2015.

It is good news that London, where there is already a significant level of hydrogen activity, is pitching for a leading role in this field.

As well as having ULEV responsibilities, my portfolio also covers what’s known as “smarter choices”. Changing the way we travel isn’t just about changing the car we drive or how we deliver goods.

It’s about thinking differently – even as far as thinking whether on each occasion we need to travel at all, now we are in the age of video-conferencing and other ground-shifting technology.

These Olympics have been like a test bed, stimulating people to try fresh approaches and allowing individuals and organisations to re-engineer how they go about their business. I hope and expect that these changes won’t be a one-off.

For many of you here today the focus of interest will be London.

And London has certainly been rich with innovation on the transport front.

But countrywide, funding made available by the government, like the £560 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund, now increased to £600 million, the Green Bus Fund, and funding for the low carbon truck demonstration trial, is helping to spark real innovation.

Let’s remember, it is the short-distance local trip where the biggest opportunity exists for people to make sustainable transport choices.

Around two out of every three trips we make are less than 5 miles in length. Many of them could be easily walked or undertaken by public transport, with cycling an increasingly popular option.

I have been determined to help deliver funding to create an environment where people can feel confident about cycling.

There are some really good projects going on around the country.

Now I am not complacent in the least about any of this. There are huge challenges in transport, not least in terms of air quality where there is still much to do.

January 19, 2016
Jeremy Hunt – 2012 Speech on Broadband Investment

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the then Secretary of State for Culture, on 23 August 2012.

The world’s first truly digital Olympics

The last few weeks have been dominated by the Olympics. Team GB have certainly been faster, higher and stronger. But perhaps less noticed has been the technology behind the Games which has also been faster, higher and stronger. Indeed given the timing of digital switchover, this was for many consumers the first “digital” Games:

– 700 gigabytes per second were delivered from the BBC website when Bradley Wiggins won his gold;

– On the peak day, 2.8 petabytes of data were delivered – equivalent to700,000 DVDs;

– Nearly a million people watched Andy Murray win gold – not on TV but online and over 9 million followed BBC Olympic coverage on their mobiles;

– And over twenty billion views of the official London2012.com website.

Our success in digital broadcasting is fitting given both the global pre-eminence of the BBC and also our aspiration to be Europe’s technology hub. So today I want to take stock of the progress we have.

Economic impact on the UK

The impact of the internet on modern economies is now well-documented by a number of studies. Last year, for example, McKinsey said that whilst the internet only accounted for an average of 3.4% of the GDP of the 13 largest economies it accounted for 21% of GDP growth.

Ericsson and Arthur D. Little say that GDP increases by 1% for every 10% increase in broadband penetration.

And according to Boston Consulting Group the impact on the UK economy is even greater. They say it could increase from being 7% of the UK economy to 13% by 2015 and describe Britain as the e-commerce capital of the world.

Getting the plumbing right for our digital economy is not just an advantage to consumers – it is also essential for our digital and creative industries, all of whom need reliable high speed networks to develop and export their products as they move large digital files around the world.

Think of the industries who now describe themselves as producing digital content: the BBC and the world’s largest independent television production sector; our music industry, globally the second largest exporter; and our animation and video games industries, some of the biggest in Europe.

Get this wrong and we will compromise all of their futures. Get it right and we can be Europe’s technology hub, bringing together the best of Hollywood and Silicon Valley in one country with huge competitive advantage in both content and technology.

Where we started

Because of the scale of this opportunity, I have always prioritised this part of my agenda at DCMS. In my very first speech as a Minister I said that I wanted us to have the “best” superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. In defining “best” you include factors like price and coverage as well as speed. But over the past two years it has become clear, as Usain Bolt wouldn’t hesitate to say, to be the best you need to be the fastest.

So I am today announcing an ambition to be not just the best, but specifically the fastest broadband of any major European country by 2015. Indeed we may already be there.

Before I elaborate let me explain where we have come from. Just before I came to office:

– we had one of the slowest broadband networks in Europe, coming 21st out of 30 OECD countries;

– we had a target for universal 2 Mbps access – but only half the money necessary to deliver it;

– and we had no objectives for delivering superfast broadband in this parliament, and no money to pay for it.

Progress to date

To me this combination of slow speed and low ambition felt like the technology equivalent of British Rail. So whether rashly or boldly, I decided to commit to not only to universal 2 Mbps access, but also something much more ambitious: to put plans in place for superfast broadband to reach at least 90% of the population by 2015.

Through a rapid settlement of the new BBC licence fee – for which I owe great thanks to Mark Thompson – I was able to secure £600m of additional investment, half of which is available during this spending round. Combined with digital switchover underspend and match-funding from local government the total amount available is now more than £1 billion.

When combined with the additional £150m we are investing in giving our cities some of the fastest speeds in the world, we have been able to make some dramatic progress:

44 out of 46 local authority areas now have broadband plans approved for delivering 90% or greater superfast access. Some have gone even further, with my own county, Surrey, looking to deliver one of the most ambitious programmes of all with near-universal superfast coverage. Procurement for virtually all areas is well under way, with around one moving into formal procurement every week from October. I expect procurement to be completed across the whole country by next July.

In our cities we want even faster speeds. Our £150m urban broadband fund will mean that around 15% of the UK population will have access to speeds of 80-120 Mbps along with universal high speed wi-fi.

Additionally Ofcom has announced that for the 4G auctions one of the licences will require indoor coverage for 98% of the UK population, guaranteeing a wireless high speed alternative to fixed line broadband.

For some time we have had amongst the highest penetration and the lowest prices of anywhere in Europe. But even before this new procurement has taken place we have already started to make made good progress on speed:

– Average speed in the UK has increased by about 50% since May 2010.

– In the last year alone average speed increased from 7.6 Mbps to 9 Mbps, overtaking France and Germany so we now have the fastest broadband of any large European Country.

– Two thirds of the population are now on packages of more than 10 Mbps, higher than anywhere in Europe except Portugal and perhaps surprisingly Bulgaria.

The need for speed

Probably the best characterisation of my broadband policy has been a relentless focus on speed. Let me explain why.

My nightmare is that when it comes to broadband we could make the same mistake as we made with high speed rail. When our high speed rail network opens from London to Birmingham in 2026 it will be 45 years after the French opened theirs, and 62 years after the Japanese opened theirs. Just think how much our economy has been held back by lower productivity for over half a century. We must not make the same short-sighted mistake.

But when it came to sewers, we got it right. In the 1860’s Sir Joseph Bazalgette ignored all the critics when putting in London’s sewers and insisted on making the pipes six times bigger than anticipated demand.

He could never have predicted the advent of high rise buildings – lifts had not been invented then – but he had the humility to plan for the things he could not predict as well as the ones he could.

You don’t need Bazalgette foresight to see that in the modern world, things are speeding up exponentially. Every 60 seconds there are:

– 98,000 tweets
– 370,000 Skype calls
– there are 695,000 Google searches and 695,000 Facebook status updates;
– and 168 million emails sent.

And that’s just today. To download a 4K video, currently used in digital cinemas, would take an average home user two or three days. They don’t need or want to do that today – but will they in the future? Who here would bet against it? The message has to be don’t bet against the internet, yes, but also don’t bet against the need for speed.

Which is why when the Lords Committee criticised me this summer for being preoccupied with speed, I plead guilty. And so should we all. Because we simply will not have a competitive broadband network unless we recognise the massive growth in demand for higher and higher speeds. But where their Lordships are wrong is to say my focus is on any particular speed: today’s superfast is tomorrow’s superslow. Just as the last government was wrong to hang its hat on 2 Mbps speeds, we must never fall into the trap of saying any speed is “enough.”

That is why, although we have loosely defined superfast as greater than 24 Mbps, I have also introduced a programme for ultrafast broadband in our cities that will offer speeds of 80-100 Mbps and more. And we will continue to develop policy to ensure that the highest speeds technology can deliver are available to the largest number of people here in the UK.

Our plans do not stop here either. We are currently considering how to allocate the £300m available for broadband investment from the later years of the license fee. In particular we will look at whether we can tap into to this to allow those able to access superfast broadband to be even greater than our current 90% aspiration.

FTTC vs FTTH

Whilst I am talking about the House of Lords report, let me address a further misunderstanding. They suggest that fibre to the cabinet is the sum of the government’s ambitions. They are wrong. Where fibre to the cabinet is the chosen solution it is most likely to be a temporary stepping stone to fibre to the home – indeed by 2016 fibre to the home will be available on demand to over two thirds of the population.

But the reason we are backing fibre to the cabinet as a potential medium-term solution is simple: the increase in speeds that it allows – 80 Mbps certainly but in certain cases up to 1 gigabit – will comfortably create Europe’s biggest and most profitable high speed broadband market. And in doing so we will create the conditions whereby if fibre to the home is still the best way to get the very highest speeds, private sector companies will invest to provide it.

Let’s look at the alternative: if the state were to build a fibre to the home network now, it would potentially cost more than £25 bn. It would also take the best part of a decade to achieve. We will get there far more cheaply – and far more quickly – by harnessing the entrepreneurialism of private sector broadband providers than by destroying their businesses from a mistaken belief that the state can do better.

Must be mobile

There is one further principle that needs to underline our thinking. Mobile data use is tripling every year and is expected to be 18 times its current levels by 2016. In that time the number of mobile connected devices globally will reach 10 billion – more than the entire population of the world. One survey rather scarily said that 40% of people with smartphones log on before getting out of bed in the morning. I won’t ask for a show of hands but it may not be the best thing for a marriage.

Our working assumption must therefore be that the preferred method of going online will be a mobile device – whether linked to high speed wireless in buildings or networks outside them. But that in order to cope with capacity, we will need to get that mobile signal onto a fibre backbone as soon as possible. So no false choice between mobile or fixed line, between fibre or high speed wireless: all technologies – including satellite – are likely to have a part to play, and our approach must be flexible enough to harness them all.

Next steps

So what next? Clearly the BDUK procurement process is central to our plans. After a frustrating delay, we are confident of getting state aid approval this autumn, after which the procurements will be able to roll out. But to achieve this timetable projects will need to be ready on time and they will need to be able to progress through the procurement process without delay. So I hope all the Local Authority representatives who are here today will be able to respond to that challenge so we are still able to complete the majority of projects by 2015.

We are also committed to helping private sector investors in our digital network by removing barriers to deployment wherever we can. These include:

– plans to relax the rules on overhead lines;
– guidance issued to local councils on streetworks and microtrenching;
– the development of specifications for broadband in new building and an independent review by the Law Commission of the Electronic Communications Code.

In September we will confirm the funding for the Tier 1 cities that have applied for the Urban Broadband Fund and we will announce the successful Tier 2 cities later in the autumn.

In December Ofcom hopes to start the 4G auctions, with deployment taking place as soon as the final digital spectrum becomes available.

One of the biggest successes of this programme has been to work closely with colleagues in local government. This really matters because planning issues remain very critical to the delivery of this programme, and local authorities are also planning authorities. Most have been extremely supportive – but we still have some frustrating examples of inflexible approaches to planning – not least Kensington and Chelsea, who have deprived their residents of superfast broadband investment as a result. But overall the cooperation from local authorities has been terrific and I want to thank those of you present for your tremendous enthusiasm for this programme.

Conclusion

Let me finish by saying this. Two years ago I promised the best superfast broadband in Europe. After two years, we have the lowest cost, most comprehensive and fastest broadband of any major European country. More importantly when it comes to next generation broadband we also have the most ambitious investment plans too.

Can we do it? I am convinced we can. Of course there remain plenty of hurdles: state aid clearance, planning foresight, contract management and delivery, challenges in our more remote areas. But as Shakespeare said “it is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.” In other words, it’s up to us.

Let’s also not forget some people also said that we could not host a great Olympics either. They were wrong. We’ve just hosted the greatest Games ever. Time and again our winning athletes told us “never let anybody tell you it can’t be done”. So let’s be inspired by that, let’s aim high and make sure that broadband plays the definitive role in our economic recovery that we know it can.

January 19, 2016
Jim Murphy – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, to Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

Good morning.

The conference season marks autumn for many, and what an incredible summer we had. We all have our favourite moment from the summer of sport and London 2012, but I want to start by thanking a group who performed brilliantly this summer.

Some of them with the dust of Afghanistan still in their boots. Men and women with a quiet humility and a pride in their country. We should thank the 17,000 members of the UK Armed Forces who served so that in safety the athletes could compete and we could celebrate.

This year our country has lost 39 service personnel in Afghanistan.

Today there remain almost 10,000 of our service personnel in Afghanistan. Each of them and their families should be in our thoughts. Their efforts are about the Afghan people having the lives and livelihoods they deserve – free from the tyranny of the Taliban, part of a global economy, and a country at peace with its neighbours.

But a distant warning bell should ring ever more loudly with each passing month where there isn’t a political process to match the military might of the past decade. That must be our focus, and we look forward to the day when we can welcome the last of our Forces home as heroes.

Afghanistan remains the UK’s defence priority in a world of profound uncertainty, where unstable states outnumber stable countries two to one.

What has been the Government’s response?

A defence posture without a strategy.

Service personnel sacked just days before collecting their pension.

And who could forget the aircraft carrier chaos?

Only this Government would build two carriers, mothball one, sell our Harrier fleet and have no planes to fly off a carrier for almost a decade.

At each election the Conservatives stand on a platform of ‘government doesn’t work’. Judging by their actions they seem hell-bent on proving their claim.

And what will we hear from them next week? No doubt we will get the same old blame game. But it won’t work because let’s be clear: two-and-a-half years into their Government and in the absence of a defence strategy it just isn’t good enough having a catch-all slogan of “it’s not my fault”.

And what of the Lib Dems? I remember a Lib Dem MP complaining to me at the last election that they couldn’t get votes because the public didn’t know what they stood for. Well say what you want about the Lib Dems but that’s certainly one achievement in Government – never again will they ever lose votes because people don’t know what they stand for: it’s any power over all principle.

As for the SNP, they want to debate how many questions there will be in the referendum because they can’t decide on many of the answers about independence. It’s time for them to come clean about their plans because when it comes to defence, separation is a powerful idea from the 19th century ill-suited to the 21st century.

What does this mean for Labour? We face an enormous challenge from a Tory Party that is born to rule and the Lib Dems determined not to die.

The task for Labour is not just relentless attack – it’s responsible answers.

In opposition we must deal with the issues we would if we were in power.

That is why the Shadow Defence team have been clear about the need for defence savings.

And that is why with a future Labour Government defence spending will be subject to independent expert review. We will account for and justify our spending decisions. No smoke and mirrors, no delay in tough decisions, and a culture of consequence. A defence budget policy alongside a defence industrial strategy that celebrates and supports the 300,000 British workers who do so much to contribute to the defence of our nation.

But while politics is about highlighting differences it is also about making a difference, and while we are out of office we are not without power.

That is why we started a national campaign to end discrimination against our Armed Forces, to strengthen the Covenant and to support veterans’ carers.

Our country is brilliant at turning civilians into soldiers, but we are not good enough when the time comes to turning soldiers back into civilians. Finding work is so important and that’s why we launched the Veterans’ Interview Programme. All answers don’t come from the inside of a Ministerial red box – they can come from our instincts and our values and that’s why I’m delighted that Labour in opposition has signed up some of the biggest companies in the country to guarantee job interviews to unemployed veterans. It is simply wrong for anyone who has served in Afghanistan and comes back to a public parade and heroes’ welcome to be sacked by their Government almost immediately and then be expected to simply join the back of the queue at the local Jobcentre. It’s unfair and it’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen and under the next Labour Government it won’t.

But our task it not just about developing policy, it’s also about changing our Party.

At last year’s conference we agreed the creation of Labour Friends of the Forces, a group to campaign to strengthen the bond between our Party and the Forces.

Then, four patrons joined me on stage. Today I can announce that we now have almost 700 members.

And you’ll remember that together we agreed that we would be the only Party ever to offer a £1 membership for serving and former members of our Armed Forces. I’m delighted to confirm that a fantastic 406 current or former Forces have joined the Labour Party this year.

More than 1,000 new military members and supporters but that’s still not enough. Our commitment to the service community has always been core to our values – now we want it to be part of our Party’s DNA.

Today I can announce that the Labour Party is the first and only party to ensure that our procedures are now in line with the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant. The sacrifice of service will not be a barrier to clear but a badge to be honoured in our movement and no Labour Party member will be disadvantaged as a result of service in the Armed Forces.

Conference, we do all of this because we are idealists. We believe in the utility of service.

Ours is a patriotism that pre-dates the Olympics.

We believe in solidarity with those who have served our country.

Our Forces are central to our national security and to our national character. Let us each make it clear that they are crucial to the future of our Party too.

December 9, 2015
Jim Murphy – 2012 Speech to Reform Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary, to the Reform Conference on 21st November 2012.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to you today. Reform is a home for strategic thinking and intellectual curiosity and this event is certainly in that spirit.

My argument today is that value for money and prioritising affordability in defence should not just be viewed as a response to recent events, but rather essential components of a sustainable and deliverable defence posture.

But I also want to argue that affordability alone is not enough, and that in defence a drive for advanced Armed Forces, maximising high skills, technology and international partnering, is also vital.

This approach, to design an advanced and affordable defence posture, combining constrained spending with far reaching reform, will be Labour’s focus in coming months.

Action to date

During our period of Opposition we have sought to lay the foundations of our work.

Our independent review on defence procurement looked at ways to deliver programmes to time and to cost and will provide the basis of our thinking on defence industrial policy.

Our wider shadow defence review is analysing the threat environment and key capability fields required for a future core equipment programme. This will lead to a more detailed look at Force structures.

Context

The security context in which this work is taking place is transformative.

New threats are matched by new technologies, uncertainty equalled only by unpredictability.

Fifteen years ago it would have been hard to believe that we would experience September 11th, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arab Spring. Forecasting forthcoming years is arguably more difficult. Today energy security, climate change, demographic shifts and the spread of CBRN materials are threats alongside state-on-state warfare or contorted religiously-inspired terrorism.

The growing strength of Al Qaeda in parts of Africa, the rise of new powers in Asia Pacific, weak states outnumbering stable states by two to one and new threats in cyberspace all consume our attention.

In this context the UK must aim to have flexible Forces with whole spectrum capabilities, able to respond rapidly whether through preventative measures, reactive disaster relief or multilateral interventions.

Value for money: the challenge

And these external threats exist in a volatile financial climate in which defence spending is set to increase over the medium term at a lower rate than it did during the last Government’s period in office.

The ambition we have for our Forces is an extension of the ambition we have for our country, but to be realised it must be affordable, and that means we are going to have to do things differently.

The previous Government’s record on defence is strong and we are proud that we increased the Defence budget by 10% in real terms during our time in office. The equipment programme was upgraded and modernised, military operations were conducted with success and welfare for the forces community was greatly enhanced. However, despite all the investment and improvements, during our time in office some of the procurement problems which plagued successive administrations were not sufficiently tackled.

The global economic downturn means the majority of the UK’s allies are making spending cuts across their public sectors, with unavoidable consequences for capability and global reach.

In the UK the challenge has become more acute because decisions taken by this Government haven’t stimulated domestic growth and UK austerity is set to be extended.

In short, budgetary restraint is unavoidable, however undesirable.

Priorities

But if the size of the defence budget is an expression of our nation’s ambitions, the profile of the budget is an expression of our priorities.

For us the priorities are clear.

Carrier strike and improved ISTAR are vital.

Strategic warning capabilities and intelligence will be essential to provide early indicators of threats and potential crises.

Two state of the art fighter fleets, advanced unmanned vehicles supporting all three Services and strategic air lift are also key components.

Skills must be a strategic capability. We need highly trained service personnel able to use higher technology platforms; Reservists using niche civilian skills in military con texts; advanced special forces; a high skilled, broad-based defence industry; and expertise throughout acquisition.

In most conflicts, even counter-insurgency, the edge can be found through technology, which can help minimise casualties while extending global reach. Remote surveillance, manoeuvrability in cyberspace, better communications and acting at distance with accuracy are all necessary features of our future force.

But alongside this must be a greater focus on international alliance-building. Shared threats and financial challenges demand that we pool resource and expertise. The UK-France accord may lay the ground for a landscape of multiple discrete bilateral or regional arrangements between European nations. More widely, NATO is the primary military grouping through which action will be taken, and Europe’s focus should be on greater deployability and burden sharing within the Alliance, not on new EU Headquarters for a joint force the UK will continue to oppose. As the US pivots – and I say this as someone who takes a positive view of our role in the EU – it is vital that European nations work together towards meeting military objectives, not naval gazing on our own structures.

Furthermore, European NATO nations are making deep cuts to defence budgets in isolation of each other, the aggregate consequence of which could be cross-Alliance shortfalls or duplication – Forces by default rather than design. ‘Smart defence’ in Nato must become a reality.

Our defence posture today is also challenged by an internal force we don’t talk about enough, which our domestic public opinion. The public is wary and weary of interventionism following recent conflicts and the financial crisis. There is a risk of a growing ambivalence towards acting on responsibilities beyond our borders, but we cannot let the legacy of Iraq be increased potential for another Rwanda. We must make the case for strong, proactive defence postures, in t urn redefining the nature of interventionism.

Our goal should be prevention before intervention and early intervention before conflict. The careful prevention of development policy and diplomacy can be more effective than the painful cure of military action. Whether in tackling climate change, investing in civil society and governance, or diplomatic engagement, the spectrum of soft power capabilities at the UK’s disposal to defend our interests and promote our ideas in the world should be capitalised on.

People

An enduring priority for Labour will also be supporting our service personnel and their families.

Ed Miliband has spoken about Labour’s One Nation approach to developing a country where everybody has a stake and where we protect the institutions that bind us together. I don’t want to engage you in a debate about one nation politics except to say that on whatever side of the fence you sit, or indeed if you sit on the political fence, upholding the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant is the embodiment of one nation politics. Service is an act of solidarity. We must strengthen the support to those who go to the frontline as well as the bond between the service community and country at large.

We have begun to lay out new proposals in this area. Our country is brilliant at turning civilians into soldiers, but we are not good enough when the time comes to turning soldiers back into citizens. That is why we started the Veterans’ Interview Programme, which has signed up 22 major UK companies to change their HR programmes, including by offering guaranteed interviews, to support service-leavers in finding employment. We want to increase opportunity as a means of smoothing the transition from military to civilian life. Similarly, Labour has argued for legislation to protect veterans from discrimination and for greater support for service carers and orphaned service children. The principles of the Cove nant, we believe, are there for us all to uphold – whether in politics, business, civil society or the Forces.

Government record

In defence our task is to ensure there is no imbalance between projected expenditure and affordability on an enduring basis and that Planning Assumptions are met through advanced Armed Forces.

Ministers may claim that this has been achieved.

There are, however, worries over capability gaps following the defence review, notably in surveillance and carrier strike; the impact of civilian and military skills shortages is unclear; Planning Assumptions now rely an increase in Reservists yet plans are under-developed at best; and only half of the MoD budget is claimed to be balanced yet we have seen no evidence that this is the case.

Labour’s approach

Labour’s approach, by contrast, will combine savings and strategy to match the needs of the frontline to those of the bottom line.

I want to outline to you our emerging thinking on how to strengthen affordability in defence to help deliver advanced Armed Forces, and there are six main areas I want to touch on.

First, we are open about fiscal restraint and the choices that necessitates.

Second, a future SDSR would take a zero-based approach, ensuring every penny is accounted for.

Third, we want to instil a new discipline in defence spending, ending the habit of ‘pushing to the right’, and I will set out how we plan to do this.

Fourth, we want increased, real-time scrutiny of ten-year budgets, with increased accountability.

Fifth, we would reform of procurement practice so more projects are delivered to time and cost.

And, lastly, we would work with industry to design a fresh defence industrial strategy which supports sovereign capabilities and exportability.

Labour cannot make commitments now as to which cuts in defence spending if any we would be able to reverse.

Some decisions we simply could not reverse, for example the loss of Nimrod. Some cuts we wouldn’t reverse because we agree with them, which is why the Shadow Defence Team has been clear about where we would make multi-billion pound savings if in government, including in reform to MoD structures and personnel, the equipment programme, selling assets and reform of the Army’s non-deployable regional structure.

So while there are some we wouldn’t and some we shouldn’t, for other cuts the Government has made we are simply unable to make commitments now because we are not in a position to know what the health of the finances will be in 2015. In the same way that families and businesses worry about the uncertainty of their future financial stability and spending power, so too do all policy-makers.

Not knowing the state of the books in 2015 means we cannot guarantee which of the current government cuts we could reverse, other than through switching existing spendin g or freeing up resources through reform. That is why, for example, we have urged the Government to go further in tackling ‘top heavy’ manpower imbalances and suggested using a portion of the savings to research veterans’ mental health.

We can commit, however, to a Labour government being determinedly disciplined on public spending. We have made it clear that we will hold a zero based spending review, and as part of that approach a Labour SDSR would examine which capabilities could meet our global objectives in line with our financial requirements, questioning and justifying every penny piece of expenditure.

New discipline

And we would go further.

We support the principle of a ten year defence budget with in-built contingency being verified by the National Audit Office. Because this would reach across two Parliaments some may think that this comes close to one Government seeking to bind its successor. This is not the case. A new Government would of course be free to alter the budget, but what I hope would be more likely is that in formulating a decade-long budget a sense of bipartisanship would be encouraged with both Government and Opposition entering into the process.

Within this, Labour would introduce a new discipline in defence spending and would abide by the principle that any increase in cost and expenditure resulting from decisions made in a Planning Round would have to be accounted for across the rolling ten year MoD budget cycle, either through savings or increased revenue. Decisions could not be routinely deferred, creating a bow wave in the budget.

By challenging the MoD’s habit of ‘pushing to the right’ as a short-term fix for in-year savings we would help to prevent against imbalances between the bottom line and the order book.

Under our plan, the NAO would report on the outcome of each Planning Round and judge whether the Core Equipment Programme remained affordable and deliv erable.

The report would include an MoD justification of its decisions and the Defence Secretary would present it to Parliament.

I share Education Secretary Michael Gove’s frustration that the current culture of the NAO and PAC reporting can limit risk, but I don’t share his conclusion. I want to change structures and increase accountability. Real-time reporting with a right of reply for the MoD will allow those with ownership of decisions to explain their actions, which we hope will both increase openness and end a retrospective blame game which can be corrosive to trust and policy-making.

Levene report

This enhanced financial rigour would be coupled with an embrace of many of the Levene proposals. We support, for example, empowering the Service Chiefs to run their Services with greater freedom with a focus on financial accountability, just as we must ensure enabling services such as the DIO are delivered efficiently and professionally.

Economic contribution of defence and Scotland

But while these moves are vital, we believe that the UK will be unable to deliver strategic military goals without wider reform of procurement and industrial policy.

And this is essential not just for defence but for our economy. It is estimated that the UK defence industry employs over 300,000 people and generates over £35 billion per year to the UK economy.

In Scotland the largest single workplace is Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, which employs around 6,500 people. The 4,500 strong workforce at shipyards in Glasgow and Rosyth are sustained by MOD work. Independence would shut these yards, an act of economic vandalism putting families’ futures at risk, not just Scottish security.

Procurement and industrial strategy

While the Government emphasises buying off the shelf as its ‘default’ position, we want to use procurement power to provide certainty, support supply chains, increase transparency and to establish an active industrial strategy in partnership with business. Within this there is a trade off: on the one hand government must provide clear strategic direction, and in return industry must deliver on agreements.

We believe the Government could be more explicit in the capabilities it intends to purchase off the shelf and those it regards as ‘sovereign’. And we are examining whether ‘Off-the-shelf’ purchases should be subject to a ‘UK control’ test that states there must be UK-based upgrade capability to perform UORs.

When an effective market exists competition is of course the best procurement policy. However, the fact is that there is seldom a viable market for major defence projects. It is right that we explore how certain value for money tests could include wider employment, industrial or economic factors, something the MoD has rejected. This is complex, but given the social a nd economic impact of defence procurement it should be looked at on a cross-Departmental basis.

Defence decision-making could be made more transparent through the MoD publishing the cost-benefit analysis which provided the basis for awarding contracts, while respecting commercial sensitivities and any classified security issues. This would also add greater accountability to the senior civil service, something exposed as necessary during the West Coast Main Line fiasco.

A culture of confident professionalism is required in procurement. We propose a new mixed civilian and military service to manage acquisition, offering a permanent professional career choice in procurement, ending two-year stints and the undue influence of “cap badge loyalty”.

We also need a broader new culture of consequence. As sometimes happens in the US, the UK Government could be prepared to return a project to the Main Gate stage when forecast cost or timescale exceed set targets. Changing specifications and an acceptance of missed targets should not be the norm.

Furthermore, many have commented that the search for the ‘exquisite’ can delay the deployment of the excellent. All platforms must provide for 100% of frontline requirements, but we must instil a culture change where design is to cost and 100% of requirement.

There has been a long-running debate over reform of DE&S. We have practical reservations about the GOCO model, in particular over accountability to Parliament and the length of a contract being at odds with the life cycles of equipment programmes.

We support integrating private sector expertise in policy-making. There is no dogma, only a belief in partnership to deliver positive policy outputs. In Opposition, just as would be our approach in government, Labour’s approach will be characterised by learning from those on the frontline of defence industrial decision-making.

But we are also clear that elements of t he MoD-industry relationship need to change. Following cash-for-access revelations in the Sunday Times we proposed a new code of conduct. If someone breaks the rules there should be sanctions; if a company employ a lobbyist this should be done within the rules and with total transparency.

Conclusion

In today’s security landscape we need a policy response as broad as the set of external and internal threats we face.

The global trends reshaping defence are increasingly interdependent in nature and their interaction – unpredictable and complex – can exacerbate threats. Demographic and climate change, for example, can increase the pressure on resources which can in turn inflame regional tensions and the potential for conflict, which can test our international governance structures.

The wrong lesson to learn from recent history is that this complexity and unpredictability inherent to security policy today means that Britain cannot sustainabl y achieve our ambitions in the world, and that we must trade policy in one area against another.

But that is not good enough. That would be the defeatists’ view. A more comprehensive approach is required. I believe that the right lesson to learn is that by working in partnership with industry, the military and our international allies we can achieve this. We must take a longer-term look at the politics of defence finance, change our whole approach to procurement and its culture and see specialist expertise, whether skills or technology, as means to attain competitive edge. Without this, however many painful cuts are made now more may follow because we won’t have put defence on a sustainable footing.

On future structure, equipment, organisation and culture Labour will work with those who bring expertise and insight to the table, but, we will work by the mantra that if you defend the past you lose the future.

Defence is becoming more intricate and complex while the world is becoming more interdependent and multifaceted. Our aim in defence policy is an advanced Armed Forces supported by an advanced equipment programme able to help the UK defend our interests and ideas around the world. And the foundation of that is affordable defence finance.

That is our goal and we want to work with you to achieve it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And our wider economic reforms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working with the banking industry to improve competition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2 governments have reached this agreement in that spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

That is good practice and common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This too is common sense.

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

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

I know that this is what the words mean.

Because I negotiated them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To get the right outcome for the financial services sector.

And the right outcome for Scotland.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2012 Speech to the CBI Conference

Below is the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, to the CBI Annual Conference on 19th November 2012.

I am delighted to be here with you today.

And I want to thank you, the representatives of British business, for the extraordinary work you do, especially in the difficult times we face.

In the last two years since I spoke to the CBI conference I have been impressed by the work you do, creating wealth, and giving young people an opportunity to succeed.

A few weeks ago, I talked about the challenges facing Britain and the idea of One Nation.

One Nation is an idea about how we share prosperity fairly.

But it is also about how we create the wealth.

It also offers a country going through tough times a shared long-term vision about how we will pay our way in the world and succeed as a nation.

With business, government and the British people working together.

There are so many issues that we could talk about today.

How we transform vocational education in this country.

So that you can be in the driving seat to ensure that Britain has the qualified young people we need.

How we can change our banking system.

So that small business can be the engine of job creation in this country.

How we reform corporate governance, so we can relieve the pressures on you of short-termism.

So that you can take the long-term view and create the sustainable wealth that Britain needs.

And how, even in the next Parliament, we can take the difficult decisions over the deficit.

So there is a huge range of issues that I want to have a dialogue with you on over the coming months.

But I want to talk to you today about one big issue facing us:

I am talking about our relationship with the European Union.

For around three decades, our membership of the European Union has seemed to be a settled question.

But you will have noticed, it is not any more.

Public scepticism about European Union has been on the rise for some time.

Some Cabinet Ministers in this government now openly say that we would be better off outside the EU.

And many of our traditional allies in Europe, frankly, are deeply concerned, because they think Britain is heading to the departure lounge.

Those of us, like me, who passionately believe that Britain is stronger in the European Union cannot be silent in a situation like this.

I will not let Britain sleepwalk toward exit from the European Union.

Because it would threaten our national prosperity.

Because it would make it far harder to build the One Nation economy that I believe in.

But above all it would be a betrayal of our national interest.

That’s why I am devoting my speech today to the case for Britain remaining in the European Union.

But I also want to make that case in a new way.

A way that responds to the new challenges Britain and Europe faces today.

From European Ideal to Euroscepticism

Let me start by talking about the causes of Euroscepticism, because it’s very important that we understand them.

The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

To many in Britain today, it seemed almost absurd.

But to my parents’ generation, it would have seemed well-deserved.

My mum and dad came to this country because of the terrors of the Nazis.

For them, Europe was a murderous continent.

A continent that that had gone to war four times in only 130 years.

For many in their generation, the European Union was a noble ideal.

The countries of Europe seeking to put peace and prosperity in place of war and destruction through economic and political co-operation.

But time has passed.

The prospect for a new war between Europe’s major powers has thankfully faded.

And that means the power of the founding ideal has faded with it.

But that is only part of the explanation as to why people’s faith has waned.

My argument is that it’s not just the fading of that ideal which has led to British Euroscepticism.

Nor can we put Euroscepticism down to bendy bananas and bans on British chocolate.

There are real failures.

And I think that’s what the pro-European side often needs to come to terms with.

There are twenty five million people without jobs across Europe today.

Five million young people across Europe looking for work.

The failures of the Euro shakes people’s confidence in the whole European Union.

So do failings in the EU Budget, that often seems to match the priorities of the 1950s, not the 21st century.

And while enlarging the EU was good for Britain’s strategic interest, frankly, the way that we handled immigration without transitional controls increased scepticism here in Britain.

Given all this, I don’t think it is surprising that some people feel unhappy, even angry with the European Union.

And what has been happening in response from people who believe in the EU?

Too many have turned a blind eye to these failings.

Believing their understandable real passion for the case for Britain being in Europe should mean a passionate defence of the institutions of the European Union.

That can’t be right.

The answer is not just to make the same old case for the European Union more loudly.

We need to argue the case in a new way, not simply assume it as an article of faith.

The New Case for Staying In

That case starts with our economy.

Let’s not treat this as an argument of faith: let’s argue the cause.

You know better than anyone about the importance of the single market.

A market of 500 million people.

Producing and selling one third of the world’s goods and services.

And you take advantage of those opportunities every day.

It’s where British businesses do at least 50 per cent of their trade.

And then think about all of our aspirations for the British economy.

High-skills.

High-wages.

High-productivity.

All essential to a One Nation economy.

I think it’s easier not harder to achieve that within the European Union than outside it.

Take our car industry.

Nissan, Tata, Toyota didn’t come to Britain for a low-wage, low-skill economy.

They come to Britain because we offer a gateway to high-income consumers who want high-value goods.

And to make those high-value goods they invest in high-skilled jobs.

Take our high-technology clusters, like Tech-City in London and the Cambridge Cluster.

We have people from all over Europe coming here to be part of those Technology Clusters.

And they’re attracting the best entrepreneurs, the most technically-gifted experts from across the world.

Because of the single market.

So I believe the economic case is strong.

But there is a wider case too.

There are problems in the world today that are simply too large, too complex, too international in scope for any nation state standing alone to deal with.

And to believe otherwise is just to hark back to a bygone age that is not coming back.

Just think about terrorism and organised crime.

They don’t respect borders.

But the European Union helps us cooperate to tackle it.

And it works.

The European arrest warrant helped bring to justice those who tried to bomb London on the 21st July 2005.

Take climate change and energy – something the CBI has been passionate about.

I know from my time in government, that as Britain we represent 2 per cent of global emissions, as Europe around 13 per cent.

Negotiating as part of the European Union is easier not harder than negotiating alone.

And that applies to a whole range of foreign policy problems.

Ranging from sanctions on Iran to playing a role in the growing crisis in the Middle East.

And there is another strategic interest.

While the old idea – that my parents would have understood – of avoiding war between the great powers has passed, we do have an interest in an enlarged European Union.

Where countries seeking the benefit of economic cooperation are required to advance the cause of political freedom, free and fair elections and the rule of law.

And we’re seeing it with some Balkan states as well.

The European Reform Agenda

So there is an economic, a political and a strategic case for Britain remaining in the EU, and we need to make it.

But there is an urgent imperative for us to reform the European Union so that it can help us compete and pay our way in the world.

Collective austerity is not working for working people across Europe.

And it is harmful for our ability to export and prosper.

A Labour government would seek to build alliances for a different approach.

A more pro-growth, pro-jobs approach.

And that applies to the European Budget too.

Agriculture makes up just 1.5 per cent of the production of the European Union.

So it cannot be right that almost 40 per cent of the EU Budget is still spent on the CAP.

I say that we need to build alliances for a comprehensive reform of the Budget.

Let’s ensure more of the money is spent on public goods that help your business, like infrastructure, energy and innovation.

Some of the European Budget is spent on that but not nearly enough.

Think of what it could do for your businesses.

And while we’re on the subject of the European Budget, let me say:

It cannot be part of a Pro-European position to support an automatically rising European Budget.

We also need to complete the single market.

Especially in areas which could benefit Britain, from digital technologies to energy.

And I know from my experience in government that the EU attitude to industrial policy feels woefully out of date.

In government, if the first question is how can government make it easier for business to compete and succeed, too often the second question is: will EU state aid rules allow this to happen?

All this needs to change.

That’s an essential part of working together to build a One Nation economy at home.

The Alternatives

So that’s the case for remaining within the European Union.

And reforming it.

But what about the case for leaving?

I think we need to take that case seriously.

Some will say Britain can stand alone in the world.

Like Norway or Switzerland.

Of course we could do that.

But we would be weaker, not stronger, as a result.

Those in favour of leaving the EU say we could still be part of the single market.

They may be right.

But who would set the rules?

Not us.

It would be those within the European Union.

We would live by rules that we have no say in making ourselves.

Still contributing to the EU Budget, as Norway does, but voiceless and powerless.

Unable to change the terms of trade.

And in or out of the European Union, we will be affected by whether the European economy is growing or not.

The best place for Britain is to be at the table, seeking to shape the economic direction of Europe.

Do we want to be inside the room?

Or do we want to guarantee ourselves a place outside the room?

And then think about the world trade talks.

If we left the EU, be under no illusions, it would be the United States, China, the European Union in the negotiating room.

Literally eating our lunch.

And Britain in the overflow room.

And we need to be absolutely clear about the dangers of that.

Of course, we should reach out to the BRIC countries.

But we have far more ability to do so as a member of a market of 500 million rather than just 60.

And how would Britain compete with the rest of the world it we were outside the European Union?

What would our equivalent be of Norwegian oil and gas or Swiss tax advantages?

Listening to some of those who advocate exit, I fear it would be that we would end up competing on low-wages and low-skills.

An off-shore low-value economy.

A race to the bottom.

That’s not a future for Britain that we should contemplate.

Europe’s Changes

Of course the European Union is changing.

Countries in the Eurozone are driving towards greater political and economic union.

They are on a different path from countries like Britain.

Britain is outside the Euro.

And will, in my view rightly, remain so.

But is that an excuse for leaving?

No.

I believe we must work to ensure that this more flexible European Union, where some countries pursue deeper integration and others don’t, still benefits all.

We need to build alliances to ensure mutual respect between those inside the Euro and those on the outside.

And we know what that means:

Protect our voting influence.

Ensuring that we are part of the decision-making process that affects us.

And above all, ensuring a successful European economy.

Referendum

Now of course, we do not know exactly what the EU will look like after all these changes happen.

But the question for now is should we have a referendum now?

My answer to that is no.

As your businesses strive to come out of the worst economic crisis of our lifetime?

To spend our time now debating whether to exit the European Union would threaten recovery.

At this moment – when you are facing some of the most difficult economic circumstances of our lifetime – this is not the time for it.

Think about a business considering coming to Britain.

What would they think if there was a referendum now?

They would put investment in Britain on hold as they waited to see.

There would be instability in our economy.

And neither does it reflect the priorities of the British people.

Their jobs, living standards and prosperity.

Keeping Britain In

I am pleased to say that my party is united in the view that Britain is stronger in the EU than it would be outside.

And I give Nick Clegg and David Cameron credit for this – I think they do too.

But to do that, we must be clear about the right strategy for Britain.

To ensure that we do not drift toward the exit door.

The Conservative part of the current government tells us that what matters most is the repatriation of powers.

Of course, I will look at what they propose.

But here is my view on this:

Britain needs to keep its eyes on the prize:

Fighting for economic change and for influence in a changing Europe.

We cannot afford to use up our energies and alliances on negotiations that will not deliver.

Like seeking to opt out on Justice and Home Affairs to keep the sceptics happy.

And then opting back in to the European arrest warrant.

Just as with the veto that wasn’t last December.

Increasing frustration and the drive to the exit of those at home, as people claim betrayal of what was promised.

And undermining our status abroad as they write off Britain as a serious player.

Taking us closer to the departure lounge.

It is the wrong strategy for Britain.

Conclusion

I know many of you, look upon the debate in Britain with deep and real concern.

Many of your businesses rely on our being in the European Union.

And I understand that many of you have concern about the drift of the debate over the last couple of years, and I share that concern.

I will fight your corner.

I will fight your corner for Britain to remain in the EU

And I will fight your corner to reform it.

And there is one more reason for resisting the call to exit.

About the character of our country.

Exit would not honour the traditions that have made Britain the great country it is.

It would undermine them.

Britain has always given so much to the world.

We have traded with others.

Not turned inwards.

We have opened up our country to new influences.

Not shrunk from them.

We have engaged with others.

Not stood aside from them.

An ambitious Britain has always been an outward looking Britain.

An inward-looking Britain, can never be an ambitious Britain.

Yes, reforming the European Union will be difficult, will require building alliances, will have its frustrations.

But I am certain it is better than leaving.

I believe our future lies within European Union,

I believe our future demands we reform the European Union.

Because I believe doing so will enable us to build One Nation here in Britain.

And that is why I commit to it today.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2012 Speech to Labour’s Youth Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to Labour’s Youth Conference on 16th March 2012.

It’s great to be here at this Labour Youth Conference.

You know you can judge a party and its prospects for the future by how it’s performing amongst the young.

We need your energy.

We need your spirit.

We need your idealism.

Idealism demonstrated at campuses all around this country where it is Labour students who are campaigning for justice and fairness at work.

By campaigning for their universities to adopt a Living Wage.

Let us applaud their energy, their spirit, their idealism today.

Idealism demonstrated by our young councilors, some of them just 18.

I spoke to one of them, Jake Morrison, one of the youngest Labour councillors in Britain, elected at last May’s elections.

He is serving the Wavertree ward in Liverpool, campaigning for safer streets and against this government’s NHS Bill.

Let us recognize the efforts of Jake and all our young councilors, let us applaud them.

And let us applaud our party members too.

We’ve had tens of thousands of people join us since the General Election.

And I can tell you that the number of people under 27 in our party has doubled in the last three years alone.

Coming to Labour to change our country.

Let us applaud the energy, spirit, and idealism of all those who have joined our party.

And we need that energy, spirit, and idealism because of the challenges facing Britain, and our young people.

Under this government, more than one million young people out of work.

Like the young woman I met recently at a youth centre in London.

She had sent off 137 CVs, and hadn’t got a single reply.

The only job she could find, cash in hand, for less than the minimum wage, working for a couple of months at a fish and chip shop.

She was desperate to work but felt she was banging her head against a brick wall.

Friends, she is a not a layabout.

She has ambition.

She has hopes and dreams for the future.

Her problem is she hasn’t been given a chance.

She doesn’t have a government which matches her ambition.

And what’s true of her is true of the vast majority of those one million young unemployed in this country.

They’re not workshy, they’re not scroungers, they just need the chance to work.

Huge potential going to waste.

You judge the future of a political party by whether young people want to be part of it.

But let us say something clearly today our core belief:

But you judge the future of a country by whether young people feel they have a part in it.

Let me tell you what a sixteen year old once wrote in his diary:

“I am young, I have a potential which hasn’t yet been tapped, and which will not be for quite a while.”

That sixteen year-old was a member of my family.

Not me, but my Dad.

He wrote those words just after he arrived in Britain, a Jewish refugee from Belgium in 1940.

He arrived here with his father, separated from his mother and sister.

Unable to speak English.

After six months of scraping a living doing odd jobs.

And three months after that, he was accepted into Acton Technical College.

He studied at night, in the one room which he shared with my grandfather so he could learn English and pass his exams.

It was his hard work that meant eighteen months after arriving at Dover, he won a place at the London School of Economics.

After that, he never looked back.

He succeeded because he was given a chance.

And that was matched by his sense of striving.

He went on to become a university professor himself, wrote books, and his teaching inspired many young people.

He met my Mum here and they raised a family.

He is still an inspiration to me.

Hard work — and its value.

The genius of it was that it wasn’t some ‘eat your greens’ lecture.

At least most of the time it wasn’t.

It was just a sense that you shouldn’t waste your potential.

And they also taught me something else born of their experiences.

Two people rescued out of the darkness of the Second World War.

And they taught me a simple lesson.

That you had a responsibility to leave the world a better place than you found it.

And no challenge or injustice was too big for us to overcome.

I tell this story because it’s what helped make me the person I am.

Today, we live in a very different time.

Compared to the challenges my parents and their generation faced, ours do not seem large.

Think of that time.

A country shattered by war.

Facing the costs of reconstruction.

No NHS, no proper welfare state.

But the strange thing is that there is more fatalism about what happens in the world.

More cynicism about the ability of any politician to make a difference.

What is the answer to this?

Not to lessen our ambition.

But to be bolder.

To convince people that there is a clear and realistic vision of a better future.

Let’s deal with this government first.

They’ve got no compelling vision for the future.

Even Vince Cable says so.

It has no sense of ambition.

All it knows is austerity.

And it has no sense of responsibility.

‘Don’t blame us, we’re just the government.’

What have they done to young people?

They scrapped the Future Jobs Fund which provided real jobs.

They trebled tuition fees.

The number of young people looking for work for more than six months has doubled over the last year alone.

And there are 49.000 young people who have been looking for work for over a year.

Two and a half times more than there was a year ago.

Just think of that.

And what is their solution?

A Work Programme which doesn’t guarantee work.

And a Jobs Programme which doesn’t guarantee jobs.

Do you know that young people can be left languishing on their programme for 1 year, 2 years, 3 years under this government, without finding work?

What greater example could there be of the lack of ambition of this government?

And as for their work experience:

Work experience of course has a role to play, but it cannot be the summit of our ambitions.

There is only one solution to a jobs crisis.

Jobs.

No young person should be left languishing on the dole for more than a year.

It is not the Britain I believe in.

It is not the Britain you believe in.

And it is not the Britain we would have under a Labour government.

And that’s why my ambition is this:

To conquer long term youth unemployment.

The first line of a Labour Budget would be a tax on bank bonuses to get young people into work.

To business we say: we’ll pay the wages, if you provide the training.

To young people we say: if you’re out of work for a year we’ll guarantee you the opportunity to work.

Responsibility on the part of government to give every young person a chance.

Responsibility on the part of employers to make that chance real.

And responsibility on the part of young people to take that chance.

Saying no is not an option.

And when people ask what’s the difference between ourselves and this government, let’s tell them:

Under Labour, a job is guaranteed.

For at least six months.

At least at the minimum wage.

With real training.

And real prospects.

Labour’s Real Jobs Guarantee.

Real jobs, Real wages, a real chance for our young people.

If I was the Prime Minister, I would seek to mobilize every business in Britain, every voluntary sector organization, every young person too, behind this effort.

I would never stand by.

Labour would get our young people working again.

When I met the young woman who had handed in 137 CVs, just down the road from the City of London, she asked me how it was possible that in the banks a few miles away, these vast bonuses were still being paid to some of people who caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Her friend said: they seem to be carrying on as if nothing has happened, and we are paying the price.

By taxing the bank bonuses to help the young unemployed, we are doing more than coming up with a new programme.

We are saying something about who we are as a party.

We are saying something about what we aspire to be as a country.

We all owe obligations to each other, however rich or poor we are.

And when we talk about the bonus tax for youth jobs, we are showing the difference in our priorities, even in tough times.

We are on the side of those who work hard, strive, play by the rules.

Labour priorities versus Tory priorities.

Their priority is to cut taxes for people who have a job and earn over £150,000 a year.

A tax cut targeted at the richest people in Britain,

And they say we’re all in it together.

Our priority is to stand up lower and middle income families and for our young people who just need a job.

It’s right for them.

And it’s right for the country.

But it’s not enough just to convince the public that we’re decent people with better priorities.

We have to show people that we can manage our priorities and manage their money.

Including when there is less money around.

And so the challenge we face is a demanding one.

To show our radicalism, ambition and vision, even in tough fiscal times.

Not to measure the success of the next Labour government by the money we spend but by the difference we make.

But I know we can make a difference.

By showing our different priorities.

Like we do on the bank bonus tax for youth jobs.

Not going ahead with the government’s tax cut for the banks.

Instead putting the money to a much better cause:

Cutting tuition fees.

And investing in the young people of Britain.

These are just downpayments for the change a Labour government would bring.

A downpayment for the change and ambition this country needs.

But our challenge isn’t just to create jobs for young people, or to cut tuition fees, important though that is.

It is to shape a new economy.

The old economy, the one which seemed to work during your parents’ generation, just won’t do any more.

Not just because of the banking crash.

But because even before then, it was serving the few at the top, not the majority.

It created some high paying jobs in financial services.

But too often, low-wage, low-skill jobs, without good prospects.

Your generation needs not just more jobs, but good jobs.

We need an economy that is about proper training.

I met a group of apprentices here in Warwick at Jaguar Land Rover a few months back.

Their eyes sparkled with excitement about what they were doing.

Building racing car prototypes.

Not everyone can be a racing car apprentice.

But there can be a lot more apprenticeships.

A Labour government ambitious for the future will insist that every business which gets a large government contract must provide apprenticeships for the next generation.

To create an economy that works for working people, we need to back our small businesses, to help them get the finance we need.

A Labour government ambitious for the future would reform finance by planning for a British Investment Bank to help those entrepreneurs create the jobs we need.

To create an economy that works for working people, we need to make low-carbon growth a priority.

A Labour government ambitious for the future would understand that tackling climate change and a good economy are not in conflict, as George Osborne says, but going hand in hand.

To create an economy that works for working people, we need fair rewards from top to bottom.

An ambitious Labour government would reform our system of top pay and make sure there’s an ordinary worker on every remuneration committee.

To create an economy that works for working people, we need to work together to hold power to account wherever it lies.

That’s why a Labour government, ambitious for the future, will work to reform the way our energy market and train companies work, and fight for the consumer and ordinary citizen.

And will stand up to vested interests without fear or favour.

We know that none of this will be easy.

It will not be easy to create a country we believe in.

To create a country fit for our young people.

We will face many challenges.

Old orthodoxies about the way our economy is run.

Powerful vested interests who don’t want change.

High unemployment.

Tough fiscal times.

We must remember what my mum and dad taught me:

However difficult the circumstances, no injustice, no challenge is too big for our country to overcome.

No injustice, no challenge is too big for our party to overcome either.

I will never shrug my shoulders at the sight of one million young jobless.

That’s the difference with Labour.

I will never accept an economy which doesn’t work for working people.

That’s the difference with Labour.

I will never accept that there are interests which are too powerful to be held to account.

That’s the difference with Labour.

That’s why I’m Labour.

That’s why we’re Labour.

Let us hear the call of our party that echoes down the ages:

Change is always possible.

Even in tough times, we can deliver fairness, justice, responsibility, the values we believe in.

That is what should drive us on.

That is what we will campaign for in the council elections.

That is what will enable us to win back trust.

That is what will win us the next general election, and enable us to transform the country.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2012 Speech to the National Policy Forum

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the National Policy Forum on 16th June 2012 in Birmingham.

It’s great to be with you today at our National Policy Forum in Birmingham.

Labour Birmingham.

Labour, in whom the people of Birmingham placed their trust in May.

A Labour council changing the way we do politics with a manifesto built on 12 months of conversations with the people of this city.

A Labour council improving our society with 5,000 new homes a year.

And a Labour council changing our economy by paying at least £7.20 to every city council worker.

A decent living wage.

And let us recognise the work of every Labour council making a difference in tough times.

Liverpool’s new Mayor Joe Anderson and h is council that is building 2,500 homes.

Manchester keeping open its Sure Start Centres.

And Newham, standing up for tenants against unscrupulous landlords.

Labour councils whose examples will inspire our next manifesto.

And let us applaud them for their work.

823 seats gained at the council elections.

Let us applaud all of the Party members, trade union members, local councillors that made this possible.

The British people have given us a platform to be heard once again.

It is our job to seize the moment and show how we can change this country.

And we know this country needs to change.

We know it is crying out for change.

A lost generation of young people who cannot find work.

We say this waste of talent, this betrayal of hope, this denial of ambition is wrong and we must change it.

Families struggling to pay their bills, their living standards squeezed, prices going up and wages frozen.

While top directors are seeing their pay going up by 10 per cent again this year alone.

We know this is wrong and we must change it.

British society divided more and more under this Government.

Between the private economy and the public economy.

We are not a private economy and a public economy.

We are one economy.

Between the richest and the rest.

When we know we succeed or fail together.

Dividing the generations.

This generation of young people who are fearful for the future, in contrast to previous generations who were able to look forward to the future with hope.

It’s wrong and we would change it.

And we know too we have a politics that doesn’t stand up for the right people.

Now some people will see the revelations at the Leveson inquiry as simply a distraction from what matters.

Of course it’s not the biggest issue in most people’s lives.

But it is a symbol.

A symbol for what is wrong with our politics.

Not just a media scandal.

But a scandal about the way Britain is run.

Unaccountable power.

Innocent people paying the price.

Police not investigating.

Politicians not speaking out.

We all need to learn the lessons.

No media organisation should ever be allowed to exercise that amount of power ever again.

The Murdoch Empire must be broken up.

This Prime Minister cannot be the answer.

This is a Prime Minister who sent the texts.

He received the texts.

He even rode the horse.

A Prime Minister who hasn’t learned the lessons.

That’s why we have a tainted Prime Minister.

Tainted because he stands up for the wrong people.

Like Andy Coulson and Jeremy Hunt.

Tainted because he does not stand up to the rich and powerful.

And I’m not just talking about Rupert Murdoch.

Tainted because he cannot be the change this country needs.

And he even seems to believe that ‘we’re all in it together,’ means country suppers with Rebekah Brooks.

When we say we are all in this together, we are talking about the hard working people of this country.

And this Government cannot be the answer for our economy either.

Leaders of the most important economies will gather in Mexico this week for the G20.

There needs to be a decisive shift towards jobs and growth.

That’s also the way to get the deficit down.

That’s what I would be arguing for as Prime Minister.

It’s right to supply credit to our banks, including our banks.

But it doesn’t change the fundamental problem.

Austerity is not working.

It’s not working in Britain.

That’s why we have a double-dip recession.

A recession made in Downing Street.

And it’s not working internationally, either.

And it’s no good the powerful saying to the powerless: we’re in for a few bad years and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Saying there is no alternative to austerity.

It’s not they that will suffer.

Here in Britain David Cameron says Britain is “headed in the right direction”.

Tell that to one million young people out of work.

Tell that to the six people chasing every vacancy.

Tell that to the people struggling to make ends meet.

This crisis is about much more than just the banks.

It’s about whose interests are put first this country is run.

It’s about an economy closed to the concerns of working people.

There is a simple reason why this Government gets it so wrong.

They are stuck with an approach to our economy, society and politics that simply does not work anymore.

A set of orthodoxies whose time is over, and crumbling before our eyes.

The Tories are standing up for the wrong pe ople.

Running our country with the wrong ideas.

Out of touch and out of date.

Like believing the best way to get people back to work is to allow employers to fire people at will.

Now I am very conscious of the scale of the crisis our country faces.

We cannot carry on where we left off in government.

We cannot just make do and mend.

The task we face as an Opposition is no ordinary task.

Our task will be to rebuild Britain.

To rebuild our economy.

To rebuild our society.

To rebuild our politics.

So that we can rebuild our country to ensure that it works for everyone, and not just a powerful, privileged few.

Let me start with the economy.

The task of rebuilding we face starts with the recession made in Downing Street.

The highest unemployment in a generation.

We need real action to get growth moving here at home.

Cutting VAT.

Giving incentives to businesse s to take on new workers.

Advancing investment in our infrastructure.

And putting our young people back to work.

Long-term youth unemployment in Birmingham has doubled in the last year alone.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

I say, we say, tax the bankers bonuses and guarantee jobs for those young people.

A Labour government would get our young people working again.

So we need immediate action.

But we know the problems of our economy haven’t just begun.

The economy hasn’t been working for most working people for a long time.

We have a vision for our future economy which is different from this government and different from what we have managed to deliver in the past.

It starts from simple truths.

It starts from Labour values.

We know what the good economy looks like.

I believe nobody who works should be in poverty.

But today in our country we know that millions are.

I believe every young person, whether they go to university or not, should have a career.

But we know that today in our country, so many young people feel our economy has nothing to offer them.

I believe we must be a country that has a culture from our schools to our banks that prides itself on making things once again.

But that is still not the culture of Britain today.

I believe that the good firm comes with workers, managers, shareholders and customers working together to ensure their success.

But we know that the decades of fast buck, take what you can short termism in our economy prevents businesses from doing that.

I believe in an economy where reward is related to effort and there is a bond between the highest and lowest paid.

But we know that today in our country, people at the top can be paid 100 times, 1000 times more than their lowest paid employee.

So we have to seek to build this good economy.

And it is all the more important because the next Labour government will face a deficit as result of this government’s failure.

We will have to show how we can build social justice even when there is less money around.

It’s this different vision of our economy that drives us on.

That I want the National Policy Forum to work on in the years ahead.

We know the issues we must cover: from skills to housing to how we create a long-term economy.

It must be shared mission for our party.

We must make it the shared mission for our country.

We want an economy that works for working people.

And we need a society of which everyone feels a part.

I am incredibly proud of the work the last Labour government did.

To build and rebuild those great national institutions that we value.

Sure Start.

Schools.

And of course, our National Health Service.

And those institutions are under threat from this Government.

The NHS facing a reorganisation that no-one voted for and nobody wants.

And we have led the way in defending the values of the NHS.

And we will repeal the Bill so we undo the damage of the free market, free for all that this government is inflicting on our National Health Service.

But protecting what we have is not enough.

We need to be more ambitious than that.

My vision of our society starts with its ethic and character.

I believe in an ethic that says there is more to life than the bottom line.

I believe in a society that says we owe each other more than just to pay our way.

And I believe that the decent society is built on care, compassion and looking out for each other, and not on money, market and exchange.

And once we know our ethic we know the society we want to build.

A society of shared responsibility, among rich and poor alike.

A society that is more equal, where people do not lead lives that never touch each other.

A society with public services where everyone feels they are a valued partner, not just a customer or a number on a spreadsheet.

That means that those who use services don’t feel talked down to by an unresponsive and distant state.

And it means that those who work in public services don’t feel demotivated by central control but are trusted because they know their work and do their all.

And the good society is one where we recognise that we hold the environment in trust for future generations.

And that we make the decisions so this generation can speak proudly to the next, telling them that we weren’t the last generation who failed to understand climate change, but the first generation to rise to it.

That’s what a rebuilt British society looks like to me.

And we, the National Policy Forum, need to start planning today.

And we know where our work must focus:

How our public services will cope according to these principles in an era when there is less money around.

How to solve the unmet needs of our communities like care for the elderly.

We have a lot of work to do.

To rebuild our economy so that works for working people once again.

To rebuild our society so that it is true to our ethic and our values.

And to rebuild our politics so that we can make these changes.

After you trudge down the street in the wind and the rain, you know the most depressing thing.

It’s depressing enough when people say they’re voting Tory or Lib Dem, although not many people say that these days.

But the worst thing is when they say

‘You’re all the same, you all break your promises, you won’t make a difference to my life’

People have died in this country for the right to vote.

They are dying in other countries for the right to vote.

We desperately believe it will make a dif ference to people’s lives to vote, but too many don’t believe us.

It’s not their fault, it’s ours.

That’s why politics has to change.

It’s our job to change it.

And if you want to know how it should be done, just come to Birmingham and see what Caroline Badley, Councillor Caroline Badley, has done.

First, she helped mobilise a volunteer army of a thousand people for Gisela Stuart to win her election in Birmingham Edgbaston in 2010.

And then she decided to take on the Tories herself.

And she won her ward with a majority of more than 1,000 votes because she organised local people and local organisations to fight for the issues that mattered to them.

She showed that politics was not just about harvesting votes it was making change in our communities.

She should inspire us.

We need a politics rooted in people’s lives through the work of labour party members, local councillors, and the ordinary men and wo men of our trade unions.

The three million trade union levy payers, the most underused asset in British politics.

We need a politics which stands up for the many against the interests of the few, however powerful they are.

For too long, governments of both parties thought there were interests too big to challenge.

And so the public thought we weren’t on their side.

We need a politics where the decisions that affect people’s lives are made by people accountable to them.

So devolution is right not just for Scotland and Wales but for English local government as well.

We need a politics where politicians look like the constituents they represent.

That’s why we should not rest until 50 per cent of our MPs are women.

That’s why we should not rest until ethnic minorities are properly represented in Parliament and in our party.

And we should not rest until we deal with one of the most glaring omissions:

The skewing of our politics away from working class representation.

And I have asked Jon Trickett from our Shadow Cabinet to lead our work on this issue.

That’s where I want to take our politics.

And we know the areas we must cover: from how our party can be a genuine community organisation in every part of the country to how we devolve power.

That is what we need to rebuild our country.

These plans to rebuild our politics bring me to my final thought today.

People probably ask you sometimes why you joined the Labour Party.

People ask me sometimes why I went in to politics.

People ask me, is politics just about competent management?

Well we certainly would provide more competent management that this omnishambles government.

They ask just about waiting for our turn so we can carry on where we left off in government?

Our government did make Britain a stronger and fairer place.

But what we stand f or must be about much more than competence or carrying on where we left off.

The times are too grave, the demands too serious, the crisis too acute for any of that.

And in our DNA, is something bigger than that:

I learnt it from my parents.

Even in times of crisis people could come together to build something new.

They knew it because it was the story of their own lives.

Jewish refugees who came to Britain.

They saw it in the spirit of the British people.

The spirit of the British people that we saw on the streets during the Jubilee

The spirit of the British people that we will see during the Olympics.

The spirit of the British people that I see in this room today.

A country where we look after each other not one where we are left on our own.

I know that we can rebuild an economy that works for working people.

I know that we can rebuild a society founded on the right values.

And I know that we can rebuild our politics so that every voice counts, not just those of a powerful few.

That is the platform we have earned.

The chance to rebuild our country.

We won’t waste it.

Together lets rebuild Britain.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2012 Speech at Hyde Park

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, at Hyde Park in London on 20th October 2012.

Thank you.

I am here to join with people from all walks of life.

From all parts of our country.

Think about the faces in this crowd.

Young people looking for work.

Like Ashley Parsons from Wolverhampton who you saw on the film.

Let us say we stand with all the young people who want to work in Britain today.

We have nurses determined to fight for the future of our National Health Service.

Let us say we stand with them and all the men and women who serve in our NHS.

Construction workers, like Colin Roach from Greater Manchester, recently laid off.

Let us say we stand with him and people across the whole of British business who want an economy that works for them.

And all the off-duty police officers here today.

Let us say we stand with them as they seek to protect front-line policing and improve communities across Britain.

None of these people think Britain owes them a living.

They are not asking for the earth.

They just have a simple request.

They want a future that works for them.

They believe we do better as One Nation.

Private and public sectors working together.

North and South.

Trade unions and British business.

But they do not see that future under this government.

Instead, they see a government dividing our country.

Andrew Mitchell may finally have resigned.

But the culture of two nations runs right across this government.

They cut taxes for millionaires.

And raise taxes for ordinary families.

They leave young people out of work while the bonuses at the banks carry on.

They even have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who tries to travel first class on a standard class ticket.

It’s one rule for those at the top and another rule for everybody else: everybody like you who plays their part and does the right thing.

The trouble with this government is that while they are think they are born to rule, it turns out they are not very good at it.

A few weeks ago, I asked:

Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, u-turning, pledge-breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower than this government and this Prime Minister?

What have they done since?

They’ve tried to prove me right.

Just this week:

David Cameron tried to keep his Chief Whip, even though the rest of us could see he had to go.

He made up an Energy policy on Wednesday, without any idea of how he could achieve it.

And he clings to an economic plan that is just not working.

David Cameron: a weak, clueless Prime Minister, who cannot stand up for the interests of this country.

And they are not just incompetent.

Their old answers just don’t work any more.

Trickle-down economics.

Cutting rights at work.

David Cameron calls it the “sink or swim” society.

But you don’t build a successful country with sink or swim.

You do it by building One Nation.

And that is what the next Labour government will do.

Of course, there will still be hard choices.

With borrowing rising not falling this year, I do not promise easy times.

I have said whoever was in government now there would still need to be some cuts.

But this government has shown us cutting too far and too fast, self-defeating austerity, is not the answer.

We would make different but fairer choices including on pay and jobs.

So here is what we would do.

Day one, with me as Prime Minister, we start to give all of our young people a stake in the future.

We will tax the bankers’ bonuses and start putting young people back to work again.

We would build 100,000 homes.

And get our construction workers working again.

We will end the privatisation experiment in the NHS.

And repeal the Tories’ NHS bill.

And to all the small businesses across Britain, I pledge instead of a country that serves its banks, we would have banks that serve our country.

I tell you one cut I would never make:

I would never cut taxes for millionaires while raising taxes for everybody else.

One Nation is a country where those with the broadest shoulders always bear the greatest burden.

One Nation is a country where we give hope to our young people again.

And One Nation is a country where we defend and improve our great institutions, like the National Health Service.

One Nation.

A country united not divided.

A future that works.

A future that Britain builds together.

December 9, 2015