UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2012

  • Glenis Willmott – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Glenis Willmott, the Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, to the Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

    Conference, I want to start by telling you about Jack and Ollie.

    Two young people I met on a recent visit in my constituency.

    Two skilled and hardworking young men who left school and started what they hoped would be long careers in the carpentry and glazing trades, only to be made redundant when the recession hit.

    They told me of their experiences of being young and unemployed in Britain:

    – The feeling of worthlessness

    – The constant rejection

    – The closed doors

    – The smashed confidence

    Conference, it is only thanks to Leicester’s Labour Council – working together with a local training provider and rail company – that Jack and Ollie have managed to escape this cycle and have now secured an apprenticeship.

    Their futures now look so much brighter.

    They are the lucky ones.

    Conference, across our continent, young people are being left behind as never before.

    One in two young Greeks and Spaniards are jobless.

    One in three young Italians, Portuguese and Bulgarians.

    And here in Britain, youth unemployment has reached over one million.

    Shocking isn’t it?

    But this is about more than just numbers.

    It is about the blighted lives of the young people who unlike Jack and Ollie, and through no fault of their own, are fast becoming Europe’s ‘Lost Generation’.

    They are a generation paying the price for the recklessness of the global financial elites and the failed policies of their governments.

    Conference, without urgent action, the scars these young people bear will only deepen.

    Experience tells us that their economic and social development will be severely stunted.

    They will face decades of reduced employment and lower earnings.

    That’s why Labour MEPs are putting our nation’s – and our continent’s – youth at the very top of the agenda in Brussels.

    Indeed, today we call on the European Union to bring forward plans to fund a Youth Jobs Guarantee.

    It will allow EU countries to ensure that every young person in long term unemployment is offered a job, further education or work-focused training.

    The fund would be fully flexible – to allow countries like the UK to develop a programme specific to our own needs.

    It can be paid for initially by using 10 billion euros in unused European Social Funding.

    And if it’s a success we can secure long term funding through reprioritising the EU’s Budget.

    Your Labour MEPs will push for specific proposals to be made by the end of this year.

    We will also convene a conference here in the UK this December to bring together young people, activists and social democratic politicians from across Europe to discuss further measures to help and support the jobless young.

    Because there is another way.

    All it takes is political will.

    And because youth unemployment matters.

    It matters to the individuals whose lives and prospects are blighted.

    It matters to the thousands of parents up and down the country who fear for their children’s future.

    It matters to the European governments currently picking up the 2 billion euros it costs for youth unemployment each and every week.

    And it matters to the future of our continent.

    You know, so many column inches have been devoted to the debate over the future of our continent, and in particular the fate of the EU itself.

    And just as there are those who believe that jobless youth are an unavoidable economic casualty of the global economic downturn.

    So too are there those who believe the EU is now an unavoidable political casualty.

    They say that the ineffective, indecisive and often incompetent EU response to recent challenges is evidence that the Union it is not fit for purpose.

    But just as with youth unemployment, it all boils down to political choice.

    Let me make this crystal clear.

    The Europe we see today is the ‘CaMerKozy’ Europe.

    The child of the right wing dogmatists that dominate national governments across our continent.

    It is their Europe of austerity.

    Their Europe of unemployment.

    Their Europe of political stagnation.

    Because Conference, the European Union is not a fixed entity.

    Europe is what we – its member countries – make of it.

    It was created to serve our best interests.

    And it can still do so.

    But there are political choices.

    The Europe we in Labour choose is very different to the one we see today.

    The Europe we choose is one of prosperity.

    Where a strong economy provides quality jobs.

    The Europe we choose is one of fairness.

    Where rewards are earned and the vulnerable are protected.

    The Europe we choose is one of opportunity.

    Where young people can enjoy the dignity of a fulfilling working life.

    This is the Europe your MEPs are fighting for every day in the European Parliament.

    This is the Europe that social democrats across the EU are calling out for.

    We know that the Europe of today must change if it is to become the Europe of tomorrow.

    So we are battling to reform the European Budget – to cut any wasteful spending and focus it instead on supporting an innovative economy and creating decent jobs.

    We are campaigning to ensure millions in EU regional funds get to the British businesses and communities who need it as part of a strategic EU jobs and growth agenda.

    We are putting in place EU-wide laws to end once and for all the casino-capitalism that has wrought such economic misery.

    Conference, we all joined this great Party because we believed that politics makes a difference.

    This is as true today as it ever was – in Brussels just as it is at home.

    Europe doesn’t have to be a bastion of austerity and unemployment.

    We can make a difference.

    We can change Europe.

    Let’s work for our Europe of tomorrow.

    And let’s secure a better future for the next generation.

  • Baroness Warsi – 2012 Speech on World Day Against the Death Penalty

    baronesswarsi

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Warsi on 10th October 2012 to mark the World Day Against the Death Penalty.

    I would like to thank the APPG for hosting this event, members of the expert group who have taken time out to attend this event, the other speakers on the panel, all of you who are here to support and most of all to Baroness Stern, for her tireless work and continued outspokenness on this issue over many years. It is clear there are issues which need to be spoken about and she should continue to be outspoken on this issue.

    One of the important things that Baroness Stern said in her remarks was that this is not a European initiative. Being British, of Asian origin, Muslim by faith and Conservative in politics, and seeing the other speakers on the panel today, it is clear that those who oppose the death penalty come in many shapes and sizes.

    In the early nineteenth century there were about 230 different offences carrying the death penalty in the UK. If you were caught stealing a sheep, cutting down the wrong tree or were judged to have “damaged Westminster Bridge”, you risked death.

    Things have, quite rightly, changed. The UK’s journey towards abolition of the death penalty has taken us from the first Parliament-imposed restrictions in 1957, to abolition for all ordinary crimes in 1969 and for all crimes apart from in times of war in 1998, up to Britain’s commitment to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances in 2004. We have been on a journey.

    Today as much as ever before, the death penalty remains a subject of the utmost importance. Over the next few minutes I want to make clear one, why we oppose the death penalty; two, talk about the global landscape on this issue; and three, set out what we are doing to encourage its abolition globally.

    Why we oppose the death penalty

    There was a question about reintroducing the death penalty in Britain on Radio 4’s Any Questions a couple of weeks ago following the murders of two women police officers – and you could tell from the audience reaction quite how strongly people felt against it.

    That isn’t surprising: the question of a state’s right to take life set against a legitimate wish to punish and deter serious crimes is among the most difficult of moral dilemmas.

    In Britain our view is clear: our long standing policy is to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. And by extension, to work towards its worldwide abolition.

    Fundamentally, we believe that its use undermines human dignity; that there is no conclusive evidence of its value as a deterrent; and that any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable.

    The UK perspective

    When talking about this, it’s easy to slip into abstractions. But we shouldn’t, because it’s about people.

    When Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley were executed in 1950 and ’53, after flawed trials that led to posthumous pardons, it catalysed steps towards abolition in Britain.  It reminded us of the inhumanity of capital punishment.  And the risk – and tragedy – of getting it wrong.

    In a world with countries that retain the death penalty, that risk still exists.  Right now, there are twelve British nationals facing the death penalty overseas. One of the first things I did when I started my role was to ask my officials to print photos of them and give me information on their families. It is important to see them as people, not statistics.

    Foreign Office staff are in constant touch with them. We do our best to give support to them and their families, and we forcefully make the case to the governments concerned that these people, no matter what they are believed to have done, should not die at the hands of state authorities.

    Over the past year we have made representations on behalf of British citizens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, the Central African Republic, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and the US, to name a few.

    It makes a difference: we judge that our interventions have helped to prevent death sentences, or to delay execution dates, giving time for further representations.

    International trends

    There has been growing international momentum towards abolition, particularly over the past two decades. Last year only 21 countries carried out executions, a figure which has fallen by more than a third over the last decade.

    Steps taken towards abolition in recent years by Benin, Gabon, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia and the US States of Illinois and Connecticut are very encouraging; as is last year’s decision by the State of Oregon to introduce a moratorium on executions.

    This progress is welcome – because no legal system is error-proof, and the death penalty leaves no room for error.

    But despite this trend, some disturbing exceptions remain. We are deeply concerned by the increasing use of the death penalty: in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where public executions still take place; in Iraq, where 26 executions were recently recorded in a single week; and in the Gambia, which in August carried out nine executions after a moratorium of 27 years.

    UK action

    So, what does the British Government do?

    We work relentlessly with our EU partners and others to gain support for abolition of the death penalty, or at least a moratorium on its use.

    We seek dialogue with governments of countries which use the death penalty – to urge them to impose a moratorium, and to take steps towards abolition.

    And the FCO continues to fund projects throughout the world to support those campaigning against it.

    And whist doing this at the macro-level, we have an ever-watchful eye on the individuals.

    UN resolution

    In a few weeks’ time, the UN General Assembly will vote on the biennial resolution on the death penalty. It will again call for a moratorium rather than full abolition, allowing states that have suspended but not abolished capital punishment to give it their support.

    There has been good progress since the last resolution in 2010. Several countries have either abolished the death penalty, or taken steps such as ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which addresses the death penalty. In addition, there are many states which keep the death penalty in their legislation but do not use it.

    Our appeal, and my personal appeal at the UN General Assembly just a few weeks ago, is for countries to register an affirmative vote – or at least an abstention, if they have previously opposed the resolution.  Doing so would send a clear signal of their desire to join the growing worldwide movement towards abolition.

    Of the specific countries I have Ministerial responsibility for, five supported the resolution.  These were from the Central Asian states and I am pleased to see some of their representatives here today.

    Conclusion

    Amnesty International has called the death penalty the “ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights”.

    If we continue to work together and spread our message, I believe we can win the argument. And it’s important that we do, because capital punishment should have no place in the world today we live in today.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to Labour Party conference on 30th September 2012.

    Conference, we have heard in today’s debate from delegates on a range of issues, from diversity in our Party and the challenges faced by women, to the impact of the Government’s policies on disabled people.

    But Conference, we, in this Party will not just be debating equality today.

    Yesterday, 800 women gathered for Labour’s Annual Women’s Conference.

    Tomorrow when we debate the economy, we’ll talk about child care, jobs for young people and support for disabled workers.

    On Tuesday our Party Leader Ed Miliband, who has done such a great job for our Party this year, will talk about making the economy work for everyone not just the privileged few.

    And on Wednesday and Thursday we’ll debate our public services.

    The importance of Sure Start in giving all kids a better start in life.

    And the future of our NHS – one of the most important institutional embodiments of fairness and equality in British society. One of Labour’s proudest achievements, now under threat from the Tories. An institution that we will strain every sinew to defend.

    And Conference, as we talk about equality, not just today, but throughout the week, we’ll also talk about why the police need to challenge racism and pursue hate crimes which have been rising.

    And we will remember that in six weeks the country will vote for the Government’s new Police and Crime Commissioners. Our chance to send a message to the Tories about policing.

    But also an important campaign in Bedfordshire, where we are backing Olly Martin’s campaign against a candidate from the EDL.

    Because Conference we must never, never let policing be taken over by racists or extremists. Policing must be fair for all.

    Conference, all week we will talk about Labour’s belief in fairness, in justice, in equal life chances, equal respect for individuals, wherever they come from, whatever their background.

    And our anger that this Government time and again is turning the clock back, widening the gap. Reinforcing, rather than challenging discrimination.

    Look at the way unemployment among young black men has reached over 50 per cent.

    Look at the way David Cameron is taking more money from disabled people than he is from the banks.

    Look at the way 80 per cent of the rise in long term unemployment is among women.

    And the way the squeeze on child care, social care, and universal credit are all penalising women who work.

    And with women bearing the brunt of the tax and unemployment changes, we, Conference, are more proud than ever, because it is more important than ever, that we now have the first woman General Secretary of the TUC – who made a fabulous speech at Labour’s Women’s Conference yesterday – Frances O’Grady.

    Sometimes it is the double discrimination that is hardest.

    For example, for older women, who now face a toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    They’ve seen a 30 per cent increase in unemployment since the election, compared to 5 per cent on average for everyone else.

    And even in the Cabinet.

    David Cameron told Caroline Spelman she was too old for the job, aged 54. Then replaced her with Owen Paterson, aged 56.

    That’s why Labour has set up an Older Women’s Commission led by our Harriet Harman.

    Because the generation who fought for equal pay, for childcare, for maternity leave, will not be silenced now.

    We know too that many disabled workers are getting a bad deal. The Work Programme is missing its target for disabled people by 60 per cent.

    And Conference, it is shocking the way this Government has closed so many Remploy factories with no jobs for people to go to. They have turned their back – we will not turn our back. We will keep campaigning for those Remploy workers because they have a right to work.

    Perhaps the most disturbing thing of all is the rising child poverty that we are seeing across the UK. Families in Britain forced to depend on food banks. That is the shocking state of Britain under David Cameron and Nick Clegg. No child should have to grow up in our country in the twenty-first century feeling hungry, cold or left behind.

    Conference, this isn’t an accident.

    It is the direct result of deliberate policies.

    Economic policies that push Britain back into double-dip recession.

    Fiscal policies that help the richest in the country and make everyone else pay more.

    And an approach to equality which sees positive action as somehow a burden, as opposed to the opportunities and doors that we know positive action can open.

    So the action we took to tackle discrimination is now being dismantled.

    Abandoning Labour plans for pay audits, even though it will take another 65 years for the gender pay gap to close.

    Ending requirements on employers to protect their staff from racist or homophobic abuse.

    Repealing laws that could help older women fight the toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    Introducing a new thousand-pound price tag to purse an equal pay claim.

    Stopping the Equality and Human Rights Commission from assessing whether policies affect the poor.

    Bit by bit they are eroding the protection people have – salami-slicing here and there. And Conference, the Labour Party must not let them get away with it.

    We can build a fairer society. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Progressive campaigning against prejudice and discrimination has changed our country.

    When we brought in Civil Partnerships for lesbian and gay couples there was huge opposition.

    Now the majority of the public agree with finishing what we started – and introducing same sex marriage. Ministers mustn’t chuck this into the long grass because they are afraid of the Tory right.

    When people who love each other want to get married, we shouldn’t discriminate we should celebrate.

    It is time to change the law now.

    But the Government should go further. We respect freedom of religion and that means different faiths will make their own decisions.

    But freedom of religion means we should support the Quakers, the Unitarians, Liberal and Reform Judaism and other faiths who want to celebrate same sex marriage.

    And Conference this is the year of London 2012.

    Britain put on the best Paralympics ever. Ever.

    An amazing spectacular of sporting excellence – role models from Ellie Simmonds to Hannah Cockcroft, Johnny Peacock to David Weir – we celebrate their achievements and stand in awe of their excellence.

    Because, the truth is Team GB made politics look small.

    We have to be inspired by them. Our Paralympians changed Britain this summer – as a result of the Olympics and Paralympics that the whole country built together.

    We mustn’t let it slip back now.

    Because we know how much more all of us can achieve, whatever our circumstances, when we support each other, rather than leaving people to sink or to swim, alone.

    And Conference, I think this – the spirit of the Olympics and the Paralympics – underpins Labour’s vision for equality.

    It is a vision of a society that supports those who care for children or for elderly relatives, who are getting older, or who have a disability, to do all they can do. Be all they can be.

    Equality laws that create a can-do society.

    An economy that works for the working people.

    A government that works for all the people.

    Conference, this is Labour’s pledge on equality.

    This is the kind of Britain we know we can be.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to the Police Federation Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference on 15th May 2012.

    Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to speak at the Police Federation Conference.

    It is 12 months since I joined you in Bournemouth.

    12 months on Thursday to be precise. Today being Tuesday.

    I always have to check what day it is, shadowing Theresa May.

    Or Theresa April as she’s known in the Home Office now.

    When last I came, and when last you gathered, I said then I was worried about the perfect storm building around policing.

    At that time we feared 12,000 officers would be lost

    We feared the frontline would be hit.

    We feared morale was falling.

    We feared that Ministers were not listening.

    Turned out we weren’t afraid enough.

    The Home Secretary told your conference last year she was on “a rescue mission, to bring the economy back from the brink and to make sure the police come through not just intact but better equipped for the future.”

    Since then the economy has gone back into double dip recession. And 5,000 police officers have gone from the frontline.

    Some rescue.

    But as we reflect on the last 12 months, we should also pause to reflect and pay tribute to the serving officers who have lost their lives in the last twelve months.

    Ian Swadling.

    Scott Eastwood-Smith.

    Perviz Ahmed.

    Anthony Wright.

    Stephen George Cully.

    Ramin Tolouie.

    Mark Goodlad.

    Neil Jeffrys.

    Andrew James Stokes.

    Karen Paterson.

    David John Rathband.

    Preston Gurr.

    The whole country was deeply moved and saddened by the tragic death of PC David Rathband.

    He became Raol Moat’s target simply because of the job he did and the public service he gave. Shot and left in darkness by a murderer because he was a police officer.

    An officer who inspired so many by his battle to return to service and to stand up for others injured in the line of duty.

    We must make sure the Blue Lamp foundation stands as his legacy and his tribute now.

    But I also want to pay tribute to PC Mark Goodlad whose funeral I attended in Wakefield at the end of last year and who lived just outside my constituency in West Yorkshire.

    PC Goodlad was a traffic officer. Stood at the side of a motorway helping a woman who had broken down by the side of the road. A lorry driving on the hard shoulder knocked him down and took his life.

    PC Goodlad wasn’t fighting crime when he fell. He was helping someone in need. Like so many officers day in day out. Doing his job. Taking risks to keep the public safe. And he gave his life.

    Police officers are crime fighters yes, but they are so much more besides. And I want to pay tribute and say thank you to all the police officers across the country working hard, taking risks every day of the week to keep us safe.

    But so many police officers and staff are now are worried about the future of policing.

    Over 30,000 police officers gathered on the streets of London last Thursday.

    Constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief constables.

    Police officers on their rest day, taking annual leave, slipping in before the night shift. Over 2,000 from the West Midlands, Over 1,000 from Greater Manchester, 650 from Thames Valley. Officers from Devon and Cornwall getting on coaches at 2am and travelling through the night to make their voices heard.

    Officers from across the country who know that their forces are facing a cliff edge, worried that the service to the public is falling, and afraid that crime and public safety are being put at risk.

    Because the Government is cutting too far and too fast. Hitting jobs and the economy. But also putting public safety at risk.

    Labour MPs have voted four times in Parliament against the 20% cuts.

    David Hanson, former Policing Minister many of you know and here today as Labour’s Shadow Policing Minister has called repeatedly in Parliament for the Government to change course.

    Last week we supported your march against 20% cuts.

    You are right, communities are being put at risk.

    Cutting 16,000 officers is criminal.

    Thank you for gathering last week to stand up for the communities you serve.

    Because we are seeing the real consequences now.

    In the Midlands, officers told me about a 999 call that came in about a hit and run involving a child. Thanks to cuts in response units, the nearest officer was 45 minutes away. He got there as fast as he could. But he arrived to a slow hand clap from the gathered crowd.

    And in the South West, officers told me about a 999 call from a woman who was afraid because her partner was making threats. She was told to go round to a neighbour’s because there wasn’t a car to send. She called a second time as she became more worried and afraid. Only when she called the third time to report an assault was the response car dispatched.

    Eighteen months ago, the Home Secretary promised that the frontline would not be hit.

    Yet now we know 16,000 officers are being cut.

    16,000. That’s the number of officers it took on the streets of London to take back control of the streets after rioters burned Tottenham and Croydon, and looters ransacked Clapham and Hackney.

    The Prime Minister promised:

    “We won’t do anything that will reduce the amount of visible policing on our streets”.

    But over 5,000 police officers have gone already from 999 response units, traffic cops, and neighbourhood police.

    So when 30,000 officers took an hour and a half to march ten abreast past the Home Office to demonstrate the strength of anger and concern, I think the Home Secretary should have answered you.

    We called the Home Secretary to Parliament to respond. It is an utter disgrace that on police cuts she had absolutely nothing to say.

    Everyone recognises the police have to make their share of savings.

    Labour has said repeatedly since before the election that the police budget would have to be cut.

    We supported 12% cuts. Based on expert work in the Home Office and by the Inspectorate. But not 20% cuts.

    We supported £1bn annual savings over the course of a Parliament. And yes that would require pay restraint, reforms and back office cuts to achieve it. But it would also mean you could protect the frontline rather than watching 16,000 officers go.

    Ministers would have you believe that means we support their plans. Quite the reverse. Instead of the £1bn cuts we accepted, they are cutting £2bn. Going too far too fast. And that’s why so many officers are being lost.

    I know and you know that we won’t always agree.

    Labour in government had disagreements with the police.

    And there will be issues we disagree over in future too.

    On pay and pensions, we believe further reforms are needed.

    But they should be done through fair negotiations.

    Some officers I know now support the police having the right to strike.

    I strongly don’t. The police are the emergency service of last resort.

    But there’s a flip side to that.

    Government should respect and value the office of constable on which we depend.

    When I spoke last year I supported your call for a royal commission

    Not because policing in Britain is broken. But because to cut crime and keep the public safe, we should always seek reforms and improvements to make policing better.

    I said then we would press the Government for a royal commission or major independent review of the long term future of policing in the 21st century.

    And I said that if the Government refused to set up any kind of overarching review, then we would do so instead.

    We have done so.

    Lord Stevens, former Commissioner of the Met, has now begun work. Drawing on expert advice and contributions from serving officers, members of the public, academics and top criminologists, former Chief Officers, business people, local government workers, even our security and intelligence agencies, from Britain and across the world.

    Looking at:

    Challenges of the future – more national, international and high tech crimes. Greater expectations for fast and responsive local policing.

    The talented, flexible and professional workforce needed.

    Accountability, checks and balances.

    The balance between national and local policing priorities.

    But this Government has no positive vision for the future of policing.

    Instead we have just chaos and contradictions:

    Scrapping the NPIA with no proper plan for national training and development when it goes.

    Abolishing the Forensic Science Service before sufficient quality services are available in its place.

    Fragmenting forces with elected police and crime commissioners just when forces need to co-operate more.

    Major cuts in service, yet £100m for elections in November that no one wants.

    Promising less bureaucracy yet forcing officers to do more paperwork because so many police staff have been cut.

    Undermining neighbourhood policing – one of the most important and successful reforms Labour introduced – as some areas consider removing officers and leaving PCSOs alone to do the job.

    And demoralising the officers and staff who we need to be highly motivated by the cack handed approach to Winsor reforms.

    The detail of the Winsor proposals is of course a matter for you and your representatives to pursue in the negotiations.

    But let me raise some general points.

    I think there should be reforms to pay and conditions to support modernisation of the police. Many police officers I’ve spoken to recognise that too.

    I think there should be greater emphasis on skills, and the development of talent, faster track promotions, greater flexibility. We supported the Neyroud report. Fitness tests make sense too.

    But the Home Secretary was completely wrong to give whole sale backing to the Winsor report when it raises so many concerns.

    For example:

    Regional pay is likely to cost more not less.

    Calling for higher qualified recruits whilst cutting starting salaries makes no sense at all.

    Too little consideration has been given to the impact on individual officers at a time when family budgets are already being squeezed.

    Compulsory severance looks frankly like a plan for another huge round of cuts to policing or contracting out police work.

    Time and again the Government is failing to value the office of constable or to recognise the complex mix of skills, experience and judgement the police workforce need.

     

    We see it too in their plans to force through widespread privatisation of core public policing with no safeguards in place.

     

    Public private partnerships can be very effective. The police can and should work closely with business on new technology and developing new ways of working. There is important work for the private sector to do.

     

    But government needs to draw a line – in the interests of public confidence and public safety too.

     

    Core public policing – such as neighbourhood patrols, serious criminal investigations, or assessing high risk offenders – should not be contracted out, no matter how cheap the contract price.

     

    British policing is based on consent and it depends on the confidence of the communities being policed.

     

    The public need to be confident decisions are being taken in the interests of public safety, the community or justice, not distorted by contract or profit.

     

    We don’t want private companies on the beat on our public streets, we want crown servants, public servants, police officers doing the job to keep us safe.

     

    Chaotic, fragmented, contradictory changes.

    Cuts and confusion putting at risk the very best of British policing.

    With no vision in its place.

    That’s not reform. It is destructive chaos.

    This Government is giving reform a bad name.

    Reform should make the police service better.

    Reform should improve the quality service to the public.

    Reform should make it easier not harder to cut crime or keep the streets safe.

    And reform should create a highly motivated, talented, committed and professional police force.

    We want to see reforms from the Stevens review that support good policing rather than undermining it.

    And that also means giving police officers the confidence that they will get the backing of the public and the force when they go the extra mile to keep people safe.

    There is one reform the Government could sign up to straight away.

    Doing more, not less, to help those officers injured in the line of duty who want to get back to work in the policing jobs they love.

    Like PC Guy Miller from Kent Police who was run over by a car driven by two men he tried to arrest. At the time it was said that PC Miller would never recover from his injuries.

    Yet less than three years later, PC Miller was back working for Kent Police.

    He has since received recognition for his work in the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, solving crimes, and helping to protect the public.

    Or PC Gareth Rees, a traffic officer for Hertfordshire police, hit by a car at the scene of an incident. Now back on full duties. But only after many operations and two years recovery.

    As he told a journalist, “We are in harms way, but if it all goes wrong you hope you will be put back together again”.

    Under the Government’s plans officers who want to return, but who need time to recover and rebuild will be penalised and probably forced out.

    I believe we owe a duty of care to officers like PC Miller, PC Rees, or PC Rathband hurt working to keep us safe.

    When a police officer, seriously injured in the line of duty, is determined to return to the policing job they love, they should not be penalised. I think they deserve the confidence of knowing their force will back them all the way.

    And we need more action too from the Government to make it easier for the police to do their jobs – cutting crime and keeping people safe.

    Because in the end that is what policing is all about.

    In thirteen years of Labour government, crime fell by 40%.

    That was the result of hard work by police and communities. Reforms that built partnerships with councils and housing associations to prevent crime. More police. New PCSOs. Neighbourhood policing to get back into the community. New powers on anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, knife crime or counter terror.

    Most people think crime is still too high and they want it to come down further.

    And that in the end should be the joint aim of communities, the Government and the police.

    Instead the Government is making it harder for the police to do the job:

    Fewer police.

    Fewer powers.

    Making it harder to get CCTV, taking rape suspects off the DNA database, ending ASBOs, watering down counter terror powers.

    More bureaucracy not less.

    And no over-arching strategy to cut crime.

    Yet in the end, that means it is communities that pay the price.

    Victims of crime who get less support.

    Families who feel less safe.

    Personal acquisitive crime already going up by 13%.

    Other crimes have stopped falling when they should still be coming down.

    I believe we can work together again – the police and communities, forces, councils, voluntary sector, businesses and government all pulling in the same direction to do more not less to keep people safe.

    But it needs the Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to change course before it is too late.

  • Nick Clegg – 2012 Speech to CentreForum

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to CentreForum at the Royal Commonwealth Society on 17th December 2012.

    Tomorrow it will have been five years since I became leader of the Liberal Democrats. Roughly half of that time has been spent in opposition, and half in government.

    I don’t suppose it’s exactly controversial to suggest that I and my party have changed over that period. Today I will argue that we’ve changed for the better.

    Because my purpose here today is to explain, clearly and simply, what the Liberal Democrats offer the people of Britain, and why it’s an offer which speaks to modern Britain.

    Our offer is different from that of the Conservatives.

    It’s also different from Labour’s offer. That won’t surprise you.

    What will surprise you, perhaps, is that it’s different too from the offer of the Liberal Democrats in opposition.

    What I want to set out is a case for why Britain should be governed from the centre ground. A case for both a stronger economy and a fairer society, because we can have both – they are not mutually exclusive.

    Serious parties know that that the centre ground is the only place from which Britain can be governed. And serious leaders try to keep their parties in the centre ground.

    But in times of economic distress, when people and parties are under pressure, when there are no easy answers, no silver bullets, only tough choices – at times like these, politics quickly becomes polarised as the homing instincts of ideologues to the right and the left kick in.

    The Tory right dreams of a fantasy world…

    – where we can walk away from the EU, but magically keep our economy strong…

    – where we can pretend the world hasn’t moved on, and stand opposed to equal marriage…

    – where we can refuse to accept the verdict of the British people and pretend the Conservatives won a majority of their own.

    The Labour left lives in a different, but no less destructive, fantasy world…

    – where their irresponsible borrowing in government can be remedied by borrowing more…

    – where every budget reduction can be opposed without explaining where the money should come from…

    – where games can be played with political reform and EU budget policy without long-term damage to their credibility.

    It is at times like these that Britain needs a party rooted in the centre ground, which anchors the country there.

    The Liberal Democrats are that party. We’re not centre ground tourists. The centre ground is our home.

    While the tribalists in other parties desert the centre ground under pressure, the Liberal Democrats have done the reverse. Under pressure, we’ve moved towards the centre.

    Governing from the centre ground means applying pragmatic liberalism to the policy challenges of our time.

    But pragmatic liberalism is not the same as dogmatic liberalism. And that is what distinguishes Liberal Democrats in opposition from Liberal Democrats in government.

    The greatest strength of our party is our idealism. But in our strength lies our weakness – because sometimes idealism can turn into dogma, or at least an unwillingness to engage fully with the day-to-day experiences and perspectives of the British people we seek to serve.

    A party of government knows that workable solutions need to be grounded in values – but also that they must respond to the hopes and fears of reasonable people.

    This is the lesson we’ve learnt in government. The challenges of governing at a difficult time have given us a harder edge and a more practical outlook.

    It’s worth pausing here for a moment and making a point about the immediate future of my party. There are two alternatives.

    If we are to become a more permanent fixture of government, then it will be, at least at first, as a partner in coalitions.

    That means embracing the realities of coalition government, and becoming better and better at negotiating successfully on behalf of those in Britain who expect us to stand up for them.

    It means accepting compromise.

    It means putting up with people who object that we haven’t got everything they wanted, and who can’t see the value in getting much, much more than we ever could in opposition.

    Because that is the alternative – a retreat to the comfort and relative irrelevance of opposition.

    But – and let me make this very clear – choosing opposition over government is not a values-free choice.

    It is a dereliction of duty. Because if our values and principles matter to us, we should want to see them deployed for the good of the British people. It’s not about us, after all. It’s about the people we serve.

    Let me offer an example of how, in government, the Liberal Democrats have tacked towards the centre, not away from it.

    In opposition, it would have been easy to decry the less pleasant consequences of austerity. No matter how rational opposition parties try to be, it’s just too easy, too tempting, to go for the quick win. That’s why opposition parties are so good at spending ‘savings’ two, three or four times over. Play budgeting with play money.

    But in government, we’ve not been able to do that.

    We know from experience now: if you protect the health and education budgets, as we correctly did, you can’t oppose every reduction in the welfare budget.

    If you want to protect welfare as well, you’ve got to accept that you’ll end up gutting the crime budget, or the BIS budget, or local government. We get that now. We’ve learnt to live with a host of invidious choices.

    Another example: in these distressed economic times, the ideologues to left and right find comfort in the shibboleths of their preferred economic doctrines and turn their backs on evidence and reason.

    So the prescription of the right is all supply-side – deregulate, cut, get out of the way.

    The prescription of the left is all demand-driven – tax, borrow, spend, intervene.

    In government, we’ve rejected these Manichean alternatives and stuck with a more flexible approach.

    Yes, we have to cut expenditure to bring down the deficit. Otherwise we put ourselves in hock to the bond markets, drive up interest rates and impoverish future generations.

    And yes, we have deregulated:

    We’ve stripped back accountancy rules for the smallest businesses.

    We’ve simplified the rules around maternity leave and flexible working.

    We’ve extended the qualifying period for unfair dismissal so businesses can be confident about hiring new staff.

    But we have also taken steps to drive demand:

    We’ve put money back in the pockets of the low and middle income families we know are most likely to spend it with our income tax cut.

    We’ve taken every opportunity to increase investment in capital – infrastructure, roads, rail, schools

    We’ve established the Regional Growth Fund, the Growing Places Fund and multi-billion pound Treasury guarantees for investment to unlock private sector growth.

    We have resisted the false choice between a state that steps in and assumes control, and a state that backs off and washes its hands.

    We have embraced the challenge of building an enabling state that acts where necessary and backs off where not…

    Promoting, inspiring and facilitating growth and opportunity.

    But recognising that the strong economy we want can only be built on the back of hard work and responsibility by citizens themselves.

    So we’ve been on a journey. But our journey has been towards the centre ground, not away from it. Because the centre ground is where liberals are best able to fulfil our purpose in politics.

    For Liberal Democrats, our purpose is to enable every person to be who they want to be and to get on in life. Freedom and opportunity combined. Or what the philosophers might call ‘substantive freedom’.

    To deliver on our purpose, we need to build a stronger economy in a fairer society.

    We need a stronger economy because without resilience and sustainable growth, our economy will never be able to deliver the jobs and the opportunity people need.

    We need a fairer society because unless we ensure everyone has the means to get on, some will be left behind while others race ahead, and our society will become increasingly unfair and unequal.

    And so every policy we promote has to make our economy stronger and our society fairer.

    What underpins our ‘stronger economy, fairer society’ agenda, and gives it a distinctly liberal flavour, is a very clear conception of the appropriate balance between the role of the state and the role of the citizen.

    For us, that relationship is clear: it is the government’s responsibility to ensure every person has the opportunity to get on, but every person must take personal responsibility for using those opportunities by working hard.

    We cannot absolve people of their responsibility for improving their own lives, because to do so would be to turn them into dependants – and so deny their agency and compromise their dignity. You can’t build a stronger economy with people lost to dependency.

    At the same time, we cannot wash our hands of those without the means and advantages to get on in life alone. To do so would compromise their potential and diminish their dignity – a tragedy for them and a waste for society. You can’t build a fair society when you deny some the chance to fulfil their potential.

    Our commitment to opportunity has deep roots. Liberals have an unshakeable belief in human potential. We know that children born in the most difficult circumstances can rise above them and live the fullest of lives – but only if they’re given the help to do so.

    Parents know what I mean. You look at your children and yearn with hope for their future. You do whatever you can to give them every advantage. You worry about the obstacles they will face, and you plan to help them overcome them all.

    But equally, parents know that kids need to learn to look after themselves. Slowly but surely, we guide them into independence and adulthood. Because we know that to be happy, they will need the means and capacity to run their own lives – and pass their love and skills on to the grandchildren they might give you one day.

    Parents know instinctively that a balance of opportunity and responsibility are what human beings need to thrive. Why would the state treat people otherwise?

    And so we need both – a stronger economy and a fairer society; more opportunity and more responsibility.

    Every one of our policies needs to meet this test.

  • Nick Clegg – 2012 Speech to ELDR Congress

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to the ELDR Congress in Dublin on 9th November 2012.

    It is a pleasure to be here in Dublin. I want to begin by paying tribute to the tireless work of Graham Watson as ELDR President and to the whole ELDR team for making this Congress possible. And I hope to be able to welcome to you to the 2013 ELDR Congress in London. I also want to say a big thank you to Micheál Martin and Fianna Fail for their excellent hospitality and for making sure that that this Congress will, I have no doubt, be a real success. And I would like to congratulate Mark Rutte and the VVD on their recent election results. I know Mark couldn’t make it today but he and I have been good friends for some time and it’s great to see him and his VVD colleagues back where they deserve to be – in government.

    Congress, I am particularly pleased to be here today, because it is my strong conviction that it is at times of great turmoil that Europe needs liberals the most. In the middle of the 20th Century those who came before us took a continent scarred by war, a place of great uncertainty, fear and hardship, and set about building a continent whose citizens would live together in peace, work together in mutual respect, and grow together in shared prosperity. Whatever the challenges that face the European Union, our nation states and our shared institutions, it is liberals who will make sure we always rise to those challenges.

    Europe needs liberals now more than ever. The shared challenges we face are ones that can only be tackled when like-minded people across Europe work together: how to create jobs, particularly for our young people, and bring back prosperity; how to tackle climate change and build the new, green economies we need for our future; and how to keep our citizens safe in an uncertain and fast changing world. Those at home and abroad who want us to pull up our drawbridges and remove ourselves from the outside world, to cut us off and go it alone, cannot rise to those challenges. We must remain open, outward-looking and optimistic. Pulling together, not falling apart.

    I haven’t come here to rehash the arguments we all know too well about the future of the Eurozone, about the budget or the bailouts. At a time of great division in Europe I want to talk about the things that unite us: as people; as nations; and as liberals. Europe needs liberals now more than ever because it is only with agreement, co-operation and shared priorities that we will rise to these challenges.

    Youth Unemployment

    Liberals have always played a key role in challenging consensus, pushing for change and coming up with new, radical thinking. One of the gravest threats to the long-term future of our economies and societies is youth unemployment. Millions of young people across Europe are leaving education and finding either that there are no jobs, or that employers who are hiring are not prepared to take a chance on them. True, the rates of youth unemployment vary across Europe, but the underlying problem is one that is facing every single country in the Western world. Here in Ireland, almost one in three young people is unemployed. In the UK, we have a million young people not in work, education or training.

    Youth unemployment is not only an economic tragedy, it is a slow burning social disaster. Research shows that the more time you spend unemployed when you are young the worse you will do over your working life. It crushes the hope of young people who send out application after application but rarely ever receive a reply let alone an interview. And it means businesses miss out on the enthusiasm, innovation and productivity of a generation.

    Liberals believe fundamentally in spreading freedom and opportunity. But there is no quick fix or silver bullet. And no one country can claim to have all the answers. So we need to learn from each other. That’s why next week I am travelling to France to discuss youth unemployment with the Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault. And it’s why much of what we are doing in the United Kingdom is influenced by colleagues overseas.

    In the UK, Liberal Democrats are leading the way in tackling youth unemployment. Because we understand the importance of equipping our young people with the skills they need to thrive we are overseeing a massive expansion of apprenticeships. But it would be wrong for us to pretend that we are taking on these problems without benefiting from the experiences and ideas of our fellow liberals and neighbours.

    For example, in the UK, and despite the pressures on budgets, we have developed a £1bn Youth Contract, which will provide nearly half-a-million new opportunities for 18-24 year olds. Targeted job subsidies for employers who will give young people a chance, much like those that operate in Belgium and Netherlands. New work experience placements to break the cycle of joblessness, like those we see across Sweden, Finland and Denmark. And a new programme to help the most disengaged 16 and 17 year olds – getting them back to school or college, onto an apprenticeship or into a job with training. In fact, our apprenticeship scheme unashamedly seeks to emulate the phenomenal success of Germany’s long-standing apprenticeship schemes. The pool of radical ideas and new thinking is vast when we choose to look beyond our national borders. And I am delighted to see much of this radical thinking being done here in Ireland by our hosts Fianna Fail. Encouraging entrepreneurship. Expanding the national internship service. And giving new support to train young Irish people in the skills they need to succeed.

    Europe needs liberals because we believe fundamentally in spreading freedom and opportunity, and too many of our young people have too little of both. As we rebuild our economies we must make sure the skills and livelihoods of our young people are put at the top of our priorities.

    Growth 

    Europe needs liberals because we understand the way the world is changing. Globalisation and the information revolution have transformed the way we communicate and do business. They have spread democracy and empowered parts of the world to grow at remarkable rates. And they have helped fuel the great rise of the emerging powers whose economic and political might grows daily. Liberals know that we in Europe must adapt to this modern world with openness as our watchword. We are open minded internationalists.

    Where other politicians see risk, we liberals see potential. Where other parties see threats, we liberals see opportunity. The opportunity to spread prosperity by completing the single market in services and digital, unlocking over €4,000 in extra income for every European household; the huge growth potential for Europe to lead the world in research and development and high tech industries, by unlocking investment and venture capital for our innovators and through agreeing a new EU-wide patent; and the chance for us to use our collective weight to drive forward free trade agreements for the benefit of European businesses and consumers. Deals like the recent EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement that, in just one year, has increased European exports by €1.7bn; or game-changing deals with some of the biggest markets in the world, such as Japan and the United States.

    In fact, if the EU can complete all of its current free trade agreements with third countries, it would permanently add more than 2% to the EU’s GDP or some €275 billion annually, and create more than 2m new jobs. I would like to pay particular tribute to our friends in the European Commission for keeping the single market and free trade agenda moving forward, and urge them to keep it up, to go further and to go faster.

    Green Agenda

    When it comes to understanding how the world is changing, there can be no clearer example than climate change. Some people say that at times of hardship and economic uncertainty we cannot afford to care about the environment. It is a foolish and dangerous argument. Climate change is no less a threat to us when times are tough.  If we shrink from the task of cutting our emissions then our legacy to our children and grandchildren will be disaster. If we want our children and grandchildren to live in peace and prosperity then we must act now and act decisively before it is too late. So we must tackle climate change now with the same urgency, if not more, than we have in the past.

    Europe needs liberals because we understand that the only way we can tackle a problem of this scale is by working together, leading by example and pooling our resources. But Europe needs liberals not just because we understand the urgency of the challenge but because we see the opportunity it presents. We are all looking for ways to get our economies growing and ways to create jobs that last. The green goods and services market is a key part of the answer. It is one of the fastest growing sectors in the world, worth over €4trillion today, and all the projections are that it will grow and grow at an increasing rate.

    I’m proud that companies in Britain, including in South Yorkshire where I am an MP, are at the cutting edge of green innovation. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats in Government are expanding our renewables sector. Rolling out a massive programme of energy efficiency in our homes and businesses. And creating a revolutionary Green Investment Bank. An idea developed by Liberal Democrats, put in our manifesto, argued for in our coalition negotiations and being delivered by a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State.

    At the European level, we liberals must come together to ensure that Europe taps into the huge potential of green jobs in this area. Through driving forward new ambitious emissions targets. Through implementing in full the Commission’s Low Carbon Roadmap. And through investing in low carbon energy infrastructure to develop a European supergrid, linking up our countries to enjoy efficient, clean and secure energy, just like the exciting ideas for interconnecting Britain and Ireland, so that excess wind energy in Ireland can be transported and used in the UK.

    There is so much to do to deliver a full low carbon energy transformation, to unlock millions of green jobs and to establish thousands of world leading clean tech businesses, and it is Europe’s liberals who must be bold, ambitious and radical to make sure this become a reality.

    Security and Justice 

    As liberals we also understand the importance of working together to keep our citizens safe in a dangerous and uncertain world. The UK and Ireland, two nations with a shared land border, are painfully aware of the value of cross-border co-operation on policing and security. We all know that cross border crime and terrorism is a major threat to us as individuals, as nations and as a European community. And we know that when crime crosses borders, justice should too.

    So together we have built the world’s most advanced system for cross-border police and justice co-operation. Co-operation that in 2010 cracked open a pan-European human trafficking network, rescuing over 180 children; that last year broke up the world’s largest online paedophile ring, freeing over 200 children who were being systematically abused; that, as we speak, is investigating hundreds of serious and organised international crimes, like the recent and tragic murder of a British family in Annecy, in France.

    There is a live debate in the UK on the level of UK involvement in European police and justice measures. The Government has said our current thinking is to opt out of these measures en masse, before seeking to rejoin those measures which are important to our safety and security. It’s true that some of the measures may be old, out of date or defunct. And yes, some need improvement. But I want to be absolutely clear: a final decision has not been taken, and the Liberal Democrats will only agree to doing that if I am satisfied we can opt back in to the measures needed to protect British citizens. Liberal Democrats in the UK’s Coalition Government, like liberals across Europe, understand that we are all safer when we work together.

    Conclusion

    So as we face this array of economic, environmental and security challenges, it is fitting that the ELDR Congress should be held here in Dublin. As Ireland prepares to take on the presidency of the European Union, there can be no doubt its economy is coming back. All the indications point to this: growth in exports and in agriculture; a well-educated young population; continued investment from the technological industry; a country gaining increasing confidence from the financial markets due to its strong implementation of EU and IMF-supported programmes.

    But there is a long way to go for all of us. European countries can’t deal with these major challenges – growth, jobs and youth unemployment, climate change and security – by themselves. Europe needs liberals because we understand that the challenges that face us all right now require a collective, liberal response. Europe needs liberals because we understand that it is only by spreading freedom and opportunity that we will thrive as individuals, as nations and as a continent. Europe needs liberals because we understand that all of us are richer, greener and safer when we stand together, and that we are all weaker when we stand apart.

  • Nick Clegg – 2012 Liberal Democrat Conference Speech

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference on 26th September 2012.

    This summer, as we cheered our athletes to gold after gold after gold, Britain remembered how it feels to win again. But more importantly, we remembered what it takes to win again. Whether from Jess Ennis or Mo Farah, Sarah Storey or David Weir, the message was the same: we may be the ones on the podium, but behind each of us stands a coach. And behind the coach, a team. And behind the team, the organisers, the volunteers, the supporters. And behind them, a whole city, an entire country, the UK nations united behind one goal.

    What a contrast from a year ago when England’s cities burned in a week of riots. When the images beamed to the world were not of athletes running for the finishing line, but the mob, running at police lines. When the flames climbed, not from the Olympic torch in east London, but a furniture shop in south London. A 140 year-old family-run business, which had survived two world wars and countless recessions, razed to the ground. Of course, even then, amid the smoke and embers, we saw our country’s true character when residents came out onto the streets to clear up the mess.

    And we saw it again this summer when the Reeves furniture shop in Croydon re-opened in new premises, the walls decked with photos of young people holding up messages of hope. And who put those pictures up? Young volunteers from Croydon and an 81 year-old man called Maurice Reeves, who, like three generations before him, ran the shop before handing it over to his son. Maurice, your example should inspire a generation.

    You see, what Maurice has shown – what our Olympians and Paralympians have reminded us of – is that, for most people, success doesn’t come easy or quick. That’s what our culture of instant celebrity obscures: that real achievement in the real world takes time, effort, perseverance, resilience. The war veteran: a victim of a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, competing at the Paralympics. The businessman: a victim of an arson attack in south London, serving his customers again. The millions of people up and down the country, who, no matter how heroic or mundane their battles, keep going, keep trying, keep working, whatever life throws at them.

    These are the qualities that will see our country through these tough times. And these are the qualities that will guide our party through tough times too. So let us take our example from the British people as together we embark on the journey ahead. Our party: from the comforts of opposition to the hard realities of government. Our country: from the sacrifices of austerity to the rewards of shared prosperity. Two journeys linked; the success of each depending on the success of the other. Neither will be easy and neither will be quick, but it will be worth it. And be in no doubt. If we secure our country’s future, we will secure our own.

    We live at a time of profound change, almost revolutionary in its pace and scale. Here in Britain, we are faced with the gargantuan task of building a new economy from the rubble of the old. And of doing so at a time when our main export market – the Eurozone – is facing its biggest crisis since it was formed. And while the European economy has stalled, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China continue to grow, and at a phenomenal rate.

    The potential consequences of this shift in power, should we in the West fail to respond, cannot be overstated. Our influence in the world, our standard of living, our ability to fund our public services and maintain our culture of openness and tolerance – all are in the balance. For power would move not only away from the liberal and democratic world, but within it too; from moderates to hard liners, from internationalists to isolationists, from those committed to the politics of cooperation to those hell-bent on confrontation. If history has taught us anything, it is that extremists thrive in tough times.

    So yes, if we fail to deal with our debts and tackle the weaknesses in our economy, our country will pay a heavy political price. But the human cost would be higher still. Not only would we fall behind internationally, we would leave a trail of victims at home too.

    So to those who ask, incredulously, what we – the Liberal Democrats – are doing cutting public spending, I simply say this: Who suffers most when governments go bust? When they can no longer pay salaries, benefits and pensions? Not the bankers and the hedge fund managers, that’s for sure. No, it would be the poor, the old, the infirm; those with the least to fall back on.

    Labour may have thought it was funny, after crashing the economy and racking up record debts, to leave a note on David Laws’ desk saying: “there’s no money left”. But it’s no joke for the most vulnerable in our society; the people Labour claim to represent but let down the most. So let’s take no more lectures about betrayal. It was Labour who plunged us into austerity and it is we, the Liberal Democrats, who will get us out.

    It’s easy to forget sometimes that the debate we’re having in this country is playing out across our continent. It’s a debate between those who understand how much the world has changed, and those who do not. And between those who understand the need to adapt to those changes, and those who baulk at the size of the challenge. And the fate of every European country – ours included – will depend on the outcome.

    In the coming years, some countries will get their own house in order. But some will not. Those that do will continue to write their own budgets, set their own priorities and shape their own futures. But those that do not will find their right to self-determination withdrawn by the markets, and new rules imposed by their creditors, without warning or clemency. That that will never happen to us is often just blithely assumed; the comparisons with Greece, breezily dismissed. Yet it is the decisions we take – as a government, as a party – that will determine whether we succeed or fail. For the first time, the future is ours to make.

    Our journey from austerity to prosperity starts, of course, with economic rescue; dealing with our debts and delivering growth. If you listen to Labour, you could be forgiven for thinking that austerity is a choice; that the sacrifices it involves can be avoided; that if we only enacted Ed Balls’ latest press release we’d be instantly transported to that fantasy world where there is no “boom and bust” and the money never runs out.

    But the truth is this: there is no silver bullet that will instantly solve all our economic problems. Some of our problems are structural, others international. All will take time to overcome. We are dealing with an on-going surge in global energy, food and commodity prices. An existential crisis in the Eurozone. And a banking collapse which, more than four years on, is still blocking the arteries of our entire economic system.

    Ranged against these forces, the idea that if government just deregulated a bit more as Liam Fox proposes, or borrowed and spent a bit more as Ed Balls proposes, we would, at a stroke, achieve strong and lasting growth, is just not credible. In my experience, if you’re being attacked by Liam Fox from one side, and Ed Balls from the other, you’re in the right place.

    You see, what is needed – and what we’re delivering – is a plan that is tough enough to keep the bond markets off our backs, yet flexible enough to support demand. A plan that allowed us, when the forecast worsened last year, to reject calls for further spending cuts or tax rises and balance the budget over a longer timescale. A plan that, even at the end of this parliament, will see public spending account for 42 per cent of GDP – higher than at any point between 1995 and 2008 when the banks collapsed. And a plan that, because it commands the confidence of the markets, has given us the room to create a Business Bank, provide billions of pounds of infrastructure and house building guarantees and an £80 billion Funding for Lending scheme – the biggest of its kind anywhere in the world.

    Of course so much of this is about perception. People keep telling me we should be doing what Barack Obama did with his fiscal stimulus. What they don’t tell you is that much of what the President had to legislate for, we are already doing automatically. So let’s not allow the caricature of what we are doing go unchallenged. If Plan A really was as rigid and dogmatic as our critics claim, I’d be demanding a Plan B, and getting Danny and Vince to design it. But it isn’t. Which is why you were right, earlier this week, to overwhelmingly reject the call for us to change our economic course. We have taken big and bold steps to support demand and boost growth. And we stand ready to do so again and again and again until self-sustaining growth returns.

    Of course, arguments about economic theory are of no interest to the millions of people just struggling to get by right now. The home-help whose earnings barely cover the cost of childcare. The builder who knows the company will be laying people off, but doesn’t yet know if he’ll be one of them. The couple who want to buy their first home but can’t raise the money for a deposit.  To them and to all the other hard working families just trying to stay afloat, I say this: the Liberal Democrats are on your side. You are the ones we are in government to serve. Not with empty rhetoric but real practical help. That is why we promised to cut your income tax bills by raising the personal allowance to £10,000. So you can keep more of the money you have worked for. So your effort will be properly rewarded. So the task of making ends meet is made that little bit easier.

    At the last budget, we made two big announcements: that we were spending three thousand million pounds increasing the tax-free allowance, and just fifty million pounds reducing the top rate of tax while recouping five times that amount in additional taxes on the wealthiest. I insisted on the first. I conceded the second. But I stand by the package as a whole. Why? Because as liberals, we want to see the tax on work reduced, the tax on unearned wealth increased, and the system as a whole tilted in favour of those on low and middle incomes. The budget delivered all three.

    But let me make one thing clear: Now that we have brought the top rate of tax down to 45p – a level, let’s not forget, that is still higher than throughout Labour’s 13 years in office – there can be no question of reducing it further in this Parliament. All future cuts in personal taxation must pass one clear test: do they help people on low and middle incomes get by and get on? It’s as simple as that.

    At the next election, all parties will have to acknowledge the need for further belt tightening. That much is inescapable. But the key question we will all have to answer is who will have to tighten their belts the most? Our position is clear. If we have to ask people to take less out or pay more in, we’ll start with the richest and work our way down, not the other way around. We won’t waver in our determination to deal with our debts. But we will do it in our own way, according to our own plans, based on our own values. So we will not tether ourselves to detailed spending plans with the Conservatives through the next Parliament.

    Colleagues, we should be proud of the fact we have delivered fairer taxes in tough times. We should be proud of the fact that we’re taking 2m people out of income tax altogether and delivering a £700 tax cut for more than 20m others, and should never miss an opportunity to tell people about it. But as we do so, remember this: our tax cuts, like our extra support for childcare, for schools, for pensioners – these are not stand-alone consumer offers. They are part of a broader agenda of economic and social reform to reward work, enhance social mobility and secure Britain’s position in a fast changing world. In short, national renewal. That is our mission. Our policies either serve that purpose, or they serve none at all.

    One of the things about governing is it forces you to confront the inconvenient truths oppositions choose to ignore. Like the fact that, over the last 50 years, our economy has grown threefold, but our welfare spending is up sevenfold. Or the fact that, to sustain our spending, we are still borrowing a billion pounds every three days. Or that, as a result of that borrowing, we now spend more servicing the national debt than we do on our schools. In combination, these three facts present us with a fundamental challenge: to not only regain control of public spending, but to completely redirect it so that it promotes, rather than undermines, prosperity.

    How we do that – how we reshape the British state for the economic challenges of the 21st century – is a debate I want our party to lead. For there are only two ways of doing politics: by following opinion, to get yourself on the populist side of each issue, or by leading opinion, and standing on the future side of each issue. The first brings short-term rewards, of course it does. But the big prizes are for those with the courage and vision to get out in front, set the agenda and point the way.

    So let us take the lead in building a new economy for the new century. An open, outward looking economy in the world’s biggest single market. A strong, balanced economy built on productive investment, not debt-fuelled consumption. An innovative, inventive economy driven by advances in science and research. And yes, a clean, green economy too, powered by the new low-carbon technologies. Britain leading the world.

    But I have to tell you, we will not succeed in this last task unless we can see off that most short-sighted of arguments: that we have to choose between going green and going for growth. Decarbonising our economy isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s a fantastic economic opportunity. The green economy in Britain is growing strongly right now, bringing in billions of pounds and creating thousands of jobs – in wind, solar and tidal energy; the technologies that will power our economy in the decades to come. Going green means going for growth. But more than that, it means going for more energy that we produce ourselves and which never runs out; it means going for clear air and clean water and a planet we can proudly hand over to our children. Going green means going forward.

    So let the Conservatives be in no doubt. We will hold them to their promises on the environment. Of course, there was a time when it looked like they got it. It seems a long time ago now. When the Tories were going through their naturalist phase. The windmills gently turning; the sun shining in. As a PR exercise, it was actually quite brilliant. Until, at last year’s party conference, they went and ruined it all, admitting that you can’t in fact “vote blue and go green”. Well of course you can’t. To make blue go green you have to add yellow, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

    As we plot our path from austerity to prosperity, we need to remember that nothing we do will make a decisive difference if we don’t make the most important investment of all: in the education and training of our young people. For we will only fulfil our collective economic potential, if we fulfil our individual human potential. Yet the legacy of educational inequality in Britain is an economy operating at half power, with far too many young people never getting the qualifications they could get, never doing the jobs they could do, never earning the wages they could earn.

    The true cost of this cannot be counted in pounds and pence. Yes it’s a huge drag on our economy, but more than that, it is an affront to natural justice and to everything we Liberal Democrats stand for. Because if you strip away all the outer layers to expose this party’s philosophical core, what do you find? An unshakeable belief in freedom. Not the tinny sound of the Libertarian’s freedom – still less the dead thud of the Socialist’s – but the rich sound of Liberal freedom, amplified and sustained by the thing that gives it real meaning: opportunity. The freedom to be who you are. The opportunity to be who you could be. That, in essence, is the Liberal promise.

    And that is why this party has always been – and must always be – the party of education. Because just as there can be no real freedom without opportunity, so there can be no real opportunity without education.

    Every parent knows how it feels when you leave your child on their first day at school. That last look they give you before the door closes behind them. The instinct to go with them, to protect them, to help them every step of the way. That’s how we should feel about every child. That’s the responsibility we have to every parent. To support them at every stage: from nursery to primary, from primary to secondary and from secondary to college, university or work.

    That’s why we’re providing more money so the poorest two-year-olds, as well as every three and four-year-old, can now benefit from pre-school education. Delivering our Pupil Premium – £900 per child next year – so the most disadvantaged children get the more intensive, more personalised support they need. And why, when they leave school, we’re providing scholarships, bursaries, grants, loans, apprenticeships and wage subsidies, to help them go on learning or start earning.

    But extra resources won’t make a difference unless matched by greater ambition. Which is why money must be accompanied by reform. Reform to ensure all children can read and write. To make schools focus on the performance of every child. To turn around failing schools, and put more pressure on coasting schools. And yes, reform to replace GCSEs, not with an O Level, but with a new more rigorous qualification that virtually every child will be able to take, and every well taught child will be able to pass.

    And to ensure they do, I can announce that from this year, we will provide a new ‘catch-up premium’ – an additional £500 for every child who leaves primary school below the expected level in English or maths. If you’re a parent whose child has fallen behind; who fears they might get lost in that daunting leap from primary to secondary school; and who is worried by talk about making exams tougher, let me reassure you. We will do whatever it takes to make sure your child is not left behind. A place in a summer school; catch-up classes; one-to-one tuition; we are providing the help they need. So yes, we’re raising the bar. But we’re ensuring every child can clear it too.

    I am proud of the resolve we Liberal Democrats have shown over the last two and a half years. We’ve had some real disappointments: tough election results, a bruising referendum. But through it all, we have remained focused, determined, disciplined. It hasn’t always been easy, and, when we’ve made mistakes, we’ve put our hands up. But we’ve stuck to our task – and to the Coalition Agreement – even as others have wavered. The received wisdom, prior to the election, was that we wouldn’t be capable of making the transition from opposition to government. The choices would be too sharp, the decisions too hard.

    The Liberal Democrats, it was said, are a party of protest, not power. Well two years on, the critics have been confounded. Our mettle has been tested in the toughest of circumstances, and we haven’t been found wanting. We have taken the difficult decisions to reduce the deficit by a quarter and have laid the foundations for a stronger, more balanced economy capable of delivering real and lasting growth. But conference, our task is far from complete, our party’s journey far from over.

    I know that there are some in the party – some in this hall even – who, faced with several more years of spending restraint, would rather turn back than press on. Break our deal with the Conservatives, give up on the Coalition, and present ourselves to the electorate in 2015 as a party unchanged. It’s an alluring prospect in some ways. Gone would be the difficult choices, the hard decisions, the necessary compromises. And gone too would be the vitriol and abuse, from Right and Left, as we work every day to keep this Government anchored in the centre ground.

    But conference, I tell you this. The choice between the party we were, and the party we are becoming, is a false one. The past is gone and it isn’t coming back. If voters want a party of opposition – a “stop the world I want to get off” party – they’ve got plenty of options, but we are not one of them. There’s a better, more meaningful future waiting for us. Not as the third party, but as one of three parties of government.

    There’s been a lot of discussion on the fringe of this conference about our party’s next steps; about our relationship with the other parties; and about what we should do in the event of another hung parliament. It’s the sort of discussion politicians love – full of speculation and rumour. But I have to tell you, it is all based on a false, and deeply illiberal, assumption: that it is we, rather than the people, who get to decide. In a democracy, politicians take their orders from the voters.

    So let’s forget all the Westminster gossip and focus on what really matters: not our relationship with the other parties, but our relationship with the British people. Imagine yourself standing on the doorstep in 2015 talking to someone who hasn’t decided who to vote for. This is what you’ll be able to say: we cut taxes for ordinary families and made sure the wealthiest paid their fair share. We put more money into schools to give every child a chance. We did everything possible to get people into work – millions of new jobs and more apprenticeships than ever before. And we did the right thing by our older people too – the biggest ever cash rise in the state pension. But most importantly, we brought our country back from the brink and put it on the right path.

    Then ask them: are you ready to trust Labour with your money again? And do you really think the Tories will make Britain fairer? Because the truth is, only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on the economy and relied upon to deliver a fairer society too.  And to help get that message out there, I can announce today that Paddy Ashdown has agreed to front up our campaign as chair of the 2015 General Election team. I must admit, I’m not quite sure I’m ready for all those urgent e-mails and 5am phone calls. But I can’t think of anyone I’d rather have by my side. Paddy, it’s great to have you back.

    Fifty, sixty years ago, before I was born, small groups of Liberal activists would meet up to talk politics and plan their campaigns. Stubborn and principled, they ignored the cynics who mocked them. They simply refused to give up on their dreams. They refused to accept that Liberals would never again be in government. And they refused to accept that Liberalism, that most decent, enlightened and British of creeds, which did so much to shape our past, would not shape our future. We think we’ve got it tough now. But it was much, much tougher in their day. It was only their resolve, their resilience and their unwavering determination that kept the flickering flame of Liberalism alive through our party’s darkest days.

    At our last conference in Gateshead, I urged you to stop looking in the rear view mirror as we journey from the party of opposition that we were, to the party of government we are becoming. But before we head off on the next stage of our journey, I want you to take one last look in that mirror to see how far we’ve come. I tell you what I see.

    I see generations of Liberals marching towards the sound of gunfire. And yes, I see them going back to their constituencies to prepare for government. It took us a while but we got there in the end. These are the people on whose shoulders we stand. They never flinched, and nor should we. We owe it to them to seize the opportunity they gave us, but which they never had. Taking on the vested interests. Refusing to be bullied. Refusing to give up. Always overturning the odds. Fighting for what we believe in, because we know that nothing worthwhile can be won without a battle. A fair, free and open society. That’s the prize. It’s within our grasp. So let’s go for it.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Speech at the Paralympics Flame Ceremony

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of Mr Cameron’s speech on Friday 24 August 2012 at the lighting of the Paralympics Flame Ceremony at Trafalgar Square in London.

    After a fortnight of Olympics withdrawal symptoms, it’s time to dust off the GB flags and get ready for two more weeks of spectacular sport. The London Paralympic Games 2012 are finally here.

    Already this is looking to be an incredible event. Ticket sales have smashed records. Some sessions have been sold out for months. Our Paralympic venues are looking fantastic. Our team are geared up to beat the medal count they made in Beijing: 102 medals and second in the table.

    Just like the Olympics we’re going to see international friendship, fierce rivalry and the sheer sporting genius of athletes who have trained day-in, day-out for years. But we can’t deny there’s something particularly inspiring about the Paralympics.

    Why? Because being a Paralympian takes an extra measure of guts and steel. A lot of the athletes arriving in London would have been told from a young age about everything they can’t do – and they decided to throw everything into what they can do, whether that’s smashing a ball over the net, running on prosthetics or swimming faster than the rest.

    That example – of overcoming the difficulties you’ve been handed, pushing yourself to the limits, going way beyond the expectations others have set for you – is truly inspiring.

    So I want to wish everyone competing in these Games – and particularly ParalympicsGB – the best of luck. The whole country will be cheering you on.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Speech at Olympics Press Conference

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at a press conference at the Olympics on 26th July 2012.

    It gives me great pride to welcome you all to London on this truly momentous day for our country. Seven years of waiting, planning, building and dreaming are almost over.

    Tomorrow the curtain comes up, the spectators arrive and the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 can officially begin. I want to set out three things you’re going to see over the coming weeks.

    Number one: you’re going to see beyond doubt that Britain can deliver. We’ve delivered this incredible Olympic Park on time, on budget and in real style. 46,000 people have turned a wasteland the size of Hyde Park into an extraordinary city town within one of the world’s most exciting cities.

    Millions of cubic metres of soil have been excavated. Eight kilometres of waterways have been laid. A stadium, an aquatics centre, a velodrome have been built. According to Jacques Rogge, the athletes are ecstatic with the training venues – and he likes the facilities so much he’s staying here.

    All around the park a new transport network has taken shape. Dozens of underground stations have been upgraded, capacity has massively increased and all of it is being overseen by a state-of-the-art Transport Co-ordination Centre.

    And what’s so great about these Games is that we’ve built not just for the coming weeks – but the coming decades. When all the fireworks have died down and the athletes have gone home there is going to be a genuine legacy.

    A physical legacy – with a new quarter of London for people to live and work in. An economic legacy – with businesses getting a big international boost to trade. And a sporting legacy – with people all over the country inspired to get active and get into sport.

    So we’re delivering a world-class Games, a well-connected Games – and above all a secure Games. Our absolute top priority is keeping people safe. I have personally chaired regular security meetings in the run-up to this and I’m pleased to tell you that all plans – including detailed contingency plans – are in place.

    There are extra police on the streets of London, in the skies above and in the waters of the Thames. We’ve got our intelligence services working round the clock. And I am proud too that we have some of our finest men and women – our armed forces – guarding the Olympics venues.

    This is the biggest security operation in our peacetime history, bar none, and we are leaving nothing to chance. All of this goes to show what we can achieve as a country.

    And it sends out this powerful message to the world: If you’re looking for a great place to do business, to invest, to work, to study, to visit – then look no further than Great Britain.

    The second thing you’re going to see here is a real sense of community. We always said the success of these Games wasn’t just about what Government does or what business does – it’s about our people and the welcome they give to the world.

    We want this to be the friendly Games – and already we’re seeing that. When the call went out for Olympics volunteers, a quarter of a million people came forward. 70,000 of them were chosen.

    On top of that, 8000 Londoners are acting as Ambassadors for this city. Between them they are volunteering for 8 million hours. So this is not a state-run Games, it’s a people-run Games. It’s about the people of the UK showing a really warm welcome – and showing respect to all the teams and nationalities who come here.

    On that note, it’s right that in 2012 – 40 years on from the Munich Olympics – we remember the Israeli team members who were killed there. We will be properly marking the anniversary of that tragedy with a special commemoration and every day of these Games we’ll be demonstrating that there is no more diverse, more open, more tolerant city in the world than this one.

    The third – and most important – thing you’re going to see and feel over these coming weeks is that infectious spirit of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Beyond all the grand ceremonies and great displays, we’ve got to remember what this is all about.

    The athletes up at dawn to train. The swimmers in the pool day-in, day-out for years. The children who dream and make it big. The people who come from nothing to represent their nation. Their efforts are the heart of this Games.

    Right at the heart of the Village, the words of the British poet Tennyson have been engraved. They read: ‘To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.’ It’s about never giving up, pushing yourself to the limits, relentlessly pursuing glory and greatness – the best of human endeavour. And it’s this spirit that is going to shine out from London.

    We want this to be the Games that lifts up a city, that lifts up our country and that lifts up our world, bringing people together. So we are delighted to host you here in London today and I hope you have a fantastic Games over the coming weeks.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Transcript of Q&A at Zayed University, Abu Dhabi

    davidcameron

    Question

    Good afternoon, Prime Minister.  My question is, you mentioned about the long-term relationship that England has with the UAE and the investments that the UAE has had with the United Kingdom.  What are some examples of future endeavours that the United Kingdom might participate  in with  the UAE in the near future?

    Prime Minister

    Thank you.  Well I think we are standing in a good example of one.  You obviously are going to be building fantastic universities like this one, to provide great education for future students.  I think one of the strengths that Britain has is a very strong university sector, not just Oxford and Cambridge and University College London, London School of Economics, but also all of the universities in Britain: Newcastle, Durham, Edinburgh; these are all excellent institutions.

    And I think we need to do more, not only to encourage students from the Emirates to study in Britain and let me just make the point that there is no limit on the number of people who can study at a British university; as long as you have a basic English language qualification and a place at a British university, there is no limit on the numbers.

    But I think also we should be smarter in making sure that our universities and your universities are co-operating, collaborating, setting up campuses in each other’s countries, and actually using the internet as well to have a distance learning programme.  So I think that there are all the traditional things our countries have done together, obviously in the oil and gas industries, in infrastructure and building, but I think we now need to go to the next level, looking at cooperation in things like education, the creative industries, there is obviously a lot more to do in financial services.  But I think we need to be more creative about the partnerships we can form for the future.

    Question

    So you were talking about how strong our countries are and the relationship between them.  Can you please comment on the EU resolution and why Britain is sort of putting pressure on the UAE in terms of human rights and, in specific, women’s rights?

    Prime Minister

    Well thank you very much for that question.  First can I compliment you on the fact that it seems to me from looking around that almost more than three quarters of the students at this university are women?  And I think many countries could learn a lot from how well you are doing at making sure there are good education programmes and good equality of access.

    Let me directly answer the question about human rights.  My country very strongly believes that giving people both a job and a voice is vital for creating stable, prosperous societies, and we have a history of supporting human rights around the world.  Now that does not mean that we preach or lecture; different countries take different pathways to becoming more open societies.  We should be respectful of the different journey that countries are taking.  We should be respectful of different traditions, different cultures.

    But I do think that standing up for human rights and standing up for the right of people to have a job and a voice around the world is important, and I think this is a discussion that our countries can have.  Nothing is off-limits in the relationship that we have.  When you are close friends, close partners, it is quite like a family; you have to be able to discuss the difficult things as well as the easy things.  And that is the sort of relationship that we have.  But as I say, it is one that is based on mutual respect and understanding, and it is not a relationship based on lecturing or hectoring.

    Question

    My question is that both the NATO and the UN have been under a lot of criticism lately, so you as a prime minister, what do you think they should do to re-evaluate their role as peacekeepers or guardians [in Syria]?

    Prime Minister

    I think it is a very important point.  The United Nations plays a vital role in our world.  Of course, it is not perfect, and of course one can make criticisms of it.  But it is the only thing we have at a global level that can actually try to lay down some rules and some resolutions and stand up for oppressed people around the world.

    And what saddens me is that when it comes to Syria, I think the United Nations has failed the world.  Because in the case of Libya, countries saw what Colonel Gaddafi was doing, that he was murdering and brutalising his own people.  And at the United Nations, we were able to pass a very strong resolution condemning that appalling brutality, and then an alliance of like-minded countries was able to act and to help the people of Libya get rid of this brutal dictator.

    And that alliance of countries around the world included countries in the Gulf such as the United Arab Emirates, such as Qatar, and it was also fully endorsed by the Gulf Cooperation Council; it was fully endorsed by the League of Arab Nations.  I think this was an important moment for the world when we saw that if there is political will, then the United Nations can do a good and vital job.

    But I think in the case of Syria, I am afraid that the United Nations has let the world down, and that is really because two of the permanent members, China and Russia, have not been prepared to see a really strong resolution that condemns what Assad has done to his own people, and that supports proper political transition in Syria.  Because that is what is required.

    I worry that when the history books are written and maybe not in many years from now people will look back and say, ‘Why could we not do more when we see 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 people losing their lives?’  So I am determined that we go on pushing at the United Nations for tougher resolutions, for tougher action against Syria.  And like-minded countries like our two countries should go on working together, trying to see what more can we do to help the Syrian people to throw off this brutal dictator who is murdering so many of his fellow countrymen.

    When you watch the television now and you see helicopters, aeroplanes, bombing from the air whole districts of whole towns and cities, you know that Bashar Assad cannot possibly stay running his country.  There are no circumstances in which he could be part of a transition for a peaceful Syria.  So he has to go.  But it is sad that the United Nations has not been able to play as leading a role as I would have liked over this vital issue.

    Question

    Prime Minister, I would like to ask you, given the current economic status of the UK, how do you see the relationship with the UAE going further?

    Prime Minister

    Well I would argue that the thing about our two countries is that we need each other.  We are actually quite complementary economies.  Clearly, this year, you have very successful growth here in the UAE; you have bounced back from the global problems of 2008, and it is hugely impressive.  And in Britain, we are finding it harder going; we had a very big banking sector that suffered very badly at that collapse, we had a big budget deficit which we are having to pay down.  We paid down a quarter of that deficit in two years, but our growth is not as fast as yours.

    But where I think our economies are so complementary is that because you are a big oil-producing nation, you have a surplus to invest I think countries like Britain that are very open, very welcoming of countries like yours to come and invest, I think that is a good output for your investment.  And likewise, Britain needs to trade its way out of recession.  It needs to link up with the fastest-growing economies of the world.  50% of our exports go to Europe, and clearly those are going to have a difficult time, as the European economies are struggling.  But 50% of our exports go to the rest of the world, and if you think of our exports to your country, in the last six months in the first six months of this year they are up 16%.  We are well on course to double our trade and investment, as we promised some years ago.

    So I think our two economies are very complementary.  We are making a lot of goods and services that people in the UAE want to buy.  We are a great home for investment from your country.  And as I am going to be arguing, debating this week with your government, I think there is a lot more collaboration that we can do over, for instance, projects like defence, where it should not anymore be a question of one country simply selling items to another country, but two countries collaborating, working together, transferring technology, setting up joint projects, investing together for the future.  And it is that sort of relationship that I think we can have between Britain and the United Arab Emirates.

    Question

    Good afternoon, Prime Minister.  My question is on energy sustainability.  I would like to know, what is Britain’s strategic direction in collaborating with the United Arab Emirates in that field?

    Prime Minister 

    Well I think this is a really vital question for all economies around the world, as after a while, we will see hydrocarbons, oil and gas begin to peak and then to turn down.  But I think it is a particularly important question for the United Kingdom, because we have been quite a substantial producer of oil and gas from the North Sea, but that is now past its peak and beginning to decline.

    And so our energy policy is to make sure that we have a diversity of supply, so we have a nuclear industry, and we are re-investing in that nuclear industry, civil nuclear power, with new nuclear power stations.  We have the largest amounts of renewable energy in Europe in terms of tidal power and offshore wind power, and we are harnessing that through a system of subsidies which is going to build offshore wind farms and wave energy projects.

    So our vision is one where there is a balanced energy policy: some nuclear, some renewables, and then also obviously gas which we will be producing some ourselves, but we now are major importers of gas from particularly Qatar, but also elsewhere.  And so we think we will have a balanced energy policy.  But I think what all countries have to understand is that as we move to electric vehicles from petrol vehicles we are going to see a big increase in electricity demand.  And so if we want to meet targets for reducing carbon emissions, we have to recognise that as electricity demand grows, we must try and meet more of that demand, either from nuclear or renewable sources, or, where necessary, from gas.  But where possible, we should be looking at carbon capture and storage projects.

    And I think what is interesting about this is we must not see this as only a cost and an obligation.  We should see it as an opportunity.  All countries will have to move to greener forms of energy, so the first countries that can produce new batteries for cars, the first countries that can harness wave and wind power, the first countries that do better at storing electricity: these countries will have a massive competitive advantage as the world moves towards more renewable forms of electricity.

    And I would like to pay tribute to your government and your country, because as far as I can see, you are not just resting on the laurels of having a very successful oil and gas industry; you are also big investors into renewable technologies, into the green technologies of the future.

    Question

    What is your next step in Arab Spring countries?

    Prime Minister 

    It is a short question but it will have to be a long answer, I am afraid: what is your next step in Arab Spring countries?  I mean, let me be frank.  I am a supporter of the Arab Spring.  I think that the opportunity of moving towards more open societies, more open democracies, I think is good for the Middle East, for North Africa.  I say this as someone who is a liberal conservative: I think we should respect the different traditions and pathways that countries take, we should not think that all countries are the same, and we should not also think that just being an open society means just holding election and that is it.

    What I think is important in these countries is what I call the building blocks of democracy: the rule of law, rights for women, a free press.  Putting in place these building blocks and moving towards more open societies I think is good for these, good for countries, particularly in countries like Libya, where there was a particularly brutal dictatorship.  So their need for change was all the greater.

    Now I know that a lot of people will say, ‘Look at the results of the Arab Spring’.  They will worry, have we replaced one form of tyranny and dictatorship with the problems of extremism?  And my answer to that is, we must judge these new governments by what they do.  If these new governments take sensible steps to reform their economies, to open their societies, to guarantee people a job and a voice, we should support them.  But if they take steps towards political or religious extremism, then we should say that is not the right path.

    So we should not be naïve: the Arab Spring is not just going to lead to instant transformation, but I think it gives people an opportunity, particularly in countries where they were completely denied it, it gives people an opportunity of a better prospect of a job and a voice.  So I think it will be a difficult period.  There will be ups and downs: sometimes countries will take two steps forward and one step back.  But the idea of more open societies, more open economies, I think is a good one.

    Question

    My question is, the European Union has been under a lot of critical threats lately, and Britain, although it is protected from these threats, it is still vulnerable.  How much latitude does your government have in protecting itself from the economic crisis?

    Prime Minister

    It is a very good question.  The short answer is that all the European economies, whether they are part of the euro single currency, like France and Germany and Spain and Italy, or whether they have their own currencies, like Britain, all of us will be affected by what is happening in the eurozone.  Because, as I said, about 50% of our trade goes to the European Union; about 40% goes to eurozone countries.  So if Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece – if those economies are suffering, that will have an effect on the UK.

    But I think what lies behind your question is important, that does it advantage Britain having our own currency?  Yes, I think it does.  Because at least in responding to the economic difficulties of recent years, we have seen our own currency depreciate, which has meant that we have had a greater opportunity to try and trade our way out of difficulty. And that is why my government spends so much time trying to link up with the fastest growing countries in the world.  I have led trade missions to Brazil, to Russia, Indonesia, China, India, Malaysia, and now the United Arab Emirates, although I would hasten to add this was the first country I visited as Prime Minister, and I am back already in two and a half years.

    So we have that opportunity to do that, and we are also members of the single market.  So we have the whole of the European market open to us, but clearly, the problems in the eurozone are going to take time to resolve.  And because they take time to resolve, every country that trades with Europe is going to notice that effect.  Why does this take so long?  Well it is because if you put 17 countries with 17 different histories and 17 different economies into one single currency, that does create tensions and pressures.  That would be the same if you attempted a single currency across the Gulf, you would find tensions and pressures.

    And that is what the eurozone is going through at the moment.  On the one hand, they know that they have to transfer more sovereignty and power towards some central authority, to make their single currency work.  But they know that is very difficult, because that is asking people to give up an element of their sovereignty and their democracy.

    So there is a struggle going on at the heart of the eurozone which will create tensions and pressures.  Britain is better off outside the eurozone, but we will be affected by what happens there.

    Question

    What is the greatest challenge you face as Prime Minister?

    Prime Minister

    The greatest challenge?  Thank you.  I think the greatest challenge for a prime minister probably for me definitely the greatest responsibility I feel is for our armed services who are serving in Afghanistan.  And I feel very acutely the challenge that there are 9,000 mostly British men, but some British women, serving in a very difficult country and very difficult conditions, and I am responsible for their safety.

    I think what we are doing in Afghanistan is right and I am very proud of the fact that Emiratis are serving alongside British soldiers in Afghanistan.  Because we have to remember that that country, when it was so badly broken that the Taliban took over, it became a haven for the training of terrorists.  It became part of the world centre for extremism and terrorism.  And the whole world has suffered from that.

    And so it is important the work that we are doing, to try and build up the Afghan government, the Afghan army, the Afghan police, Afghan society, so it is a country capable of running itself.  But that is probably the biggest single challenge, because that is the biggest single responsibility.

    Question

    My question is, what can we do as university students?  Because we still face stereotypes against us, especially as women.  So what can we do to build these bridges between two nations and cultures?

    Prime Minister

    Well I think it is a very good question.  I think probably the best thing is more exchanges between universities.  I mean, to me, the point of university is to open your mind, to open your mind to fresh thinking, to fresh ideas, to challenge some of the ideas that you start with.  And if that is the point of university, then the greatest amount of exchange with different universities, different students, different cultures, seems to me a thoroughly good thing.  And I think you are so well placed to do that here in the UAE.  Your country is a hub where people come and travel here from all over the globe.  And so I think there is a great opportunity for student exchanges.

    I was in Nottinghamshire; Nottingham, a city in my country, has opened a university in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, and it is a remarkable campus.  I did an event a bit like this at this university, and I think only 50% of the students are from Malaysia; the rest are from India, from China, from Brazil, from the Philippines, and then many students from Britain.  Lots of people at Nottingham university go and spend a whole year at this campus in Malaysia.

    And I remember speaking to these students and answering their questions, and thinking that this was a brilliant institution that is going to connect up East and West.  And I think the challenge in our world; as I said, we are in this global race, this global competition, and if we are going to succeed as countries, we need to take the best of everyone.  And so I think opening up universities to those sorts of exchanges will make a difference, and then I think you can challenge those stereotypes yourselves.

    Question

    My question is regarding security.  Recently Iran, I should say, has been on a big move, causing an uproar in the Gulf regions, especially in the nuclear department.  And my question is, how much of a threat do you think Iran could possibly be?  Also I would like to get your opinion on foreign policies, taking part in other countries’ affairs.

    Prime Minister

    Well let us start with Iran, that is a big enough question to deal with.  I think to answer your question directly, I think Iran does pose a threat.  In two ways: first of all, if Iran is embarked on trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, as I believe it is, that is a threat in itself, particularly given what Iran has said about other countries in the region, and in particular, about Israel, about wanting to wipe it off the map.

    So I think in itself, it is a hugely concerning development, a desperately bad development for our world, and that is why we should do everything we can to stop it happening.  But I think there is a second reason why it is so concerning, and that is, I think it could trigger a nuclear arms race across the whole region, and that would consume a huge amount of resources in energy, but also I think make the Middle East a more unstable, more dangerous part of the world.

    So I think for all those reasons, it is right for like-minded countries to do everything they can to try and persuade the Iranians to take a different course.  And I pay tribute to your country here, particularly the emirate of Dubai, who I believe 25% of their trade was with Iran, and that has now gone to almost zero.  So Dubai has, and the Emirates have played their part in the very tough sanctions that we put in place on Iran.  My country has played its part, the European Union has an oil embargo, this is having, I think, a big effect on the Iranian economy, they have noticed the damage that it is doing.

    But really the message to Iran should be this: it is not acceptable for you to have a military nuclear path, but we are quite prepared for you to have a civilian nuclear path; if you want access to civilian nuclear power in order to diversify your supplies of energy, that is perfectly acceptable.  And the message we need to say to Iran is there is a peaceful path; there is a path that you can take that will remove the pariah status from your nation, and that is to accept that you can have civil nuclear power but not military nuclear power.  And then we can have a proper discussion about how to normalise relations between Iran and the rest of the world.  But while they keep pursuing this nuclear path, I think it is very important that countries like ours keep up the pressure, keep up the sanctions and keep up the work in persuading Iran to take a different path.

    Now the last point of your question, what about what we do in other countries.  This is a huge issue of debate and controversy, and fundamentally, we should respect countries’ national sovereignty, we should respect each other’s choices.  I do believe in a world of nation states, a world of nation states, though, cooperating with each other.

    But there are occasions when something happens within a country of such huge consequences for its people that the world has to sit up and, I believe, act.  And I think Libya was such a case.  Colonel Gaddafi was – his forces were bearing down on Benghazi, he said he was going to shoot those people like rats, and I think it is right that the world acted.  And I think the world does need, as I have said about Syria, to do more, particularly at the United Nations.

    So I do not believe you can draw an absolute rule.  But the basic presumption is that we are world of nation states, a world where we should respect each other’s sovereignty and a world where damaging that sovereignty is not right.

    Question

    What is your message for us students of Zayed University?

    Prime Minister

    Well I suppose my message ought to be work hard; that is part of it, obviously.  I think you have an enormous opportunity to be a student in your country at this time.  Your country has travelled this extraordinary path from the 1970s to today.  You are not just an oil-producing nation with oil-related wealth; you have created a diverse economy which has got incredible connections to the rest of the world.

    And I think the challenge for the next generation is what do you do with that inheritance?  How do you further diversify your economy?  How do you go on, I believe in your interests, having very strong relations with Western countries like the United Kingdom, but also, how do you grow all your relationships with some of the emerging countries of the South and the East?

    You can be quite a pivotal, influential country, both in this region, and in the wider world, and I think you should obviously work hard and study hard while you are here, but think about what you can contribute to the future of this extraordinary country.  But I hope a big part of that will be in partnership with countries like the United Kingdom, for all the reasons that I have given.

    Question

    I have a question regarding democracy.  In terms of the need of good government, is democracy the only answer?

    Prime Minister

    I that I think that all countries benefit if they give their people the chance of a job and a voice and a way of participating in their country.

    And I believe all countries are on a path; we should respect the different paths that countries are on, and the different traditions as I have said.  But I think countries that put in place what I call the building blocks of democracy and open societies, I think in the end will be the most successful countries, because then you harness all the abilities, all the enthusiasms, of your people, and also you give them a way of making decisions and being consulted over decisions that can actually allow them to speak out and to make that clear.

    Where I think people can make a mistake, and perhaps in the West, some have made a mistake in the past, is the idea that the very act of holding an election, that is enough.  I think that is completely wrong.  You know, democracy is not just about every five years having a vote and then nothing else.  What matters for, I think, the long-term success of a country is all of the building blocks that you put in place.

    Do you have the access of women to university?  Do you have equal treatment under the law?  Do you have courts and a rule of law that work properly?  Is there a proper place for the military in your country?  All of these are important questions, as well as the issue of elections.  And I think we need to explain that, because otherwise we can sound a little naïve by just saying, all that matters is an election.

    Clearly there are lots of countries in the world that have elections that are not very free countries.  So I think it is looking at all of the aspects of what I call the building blocks of open societies.  And I think that is a very important part of all countries’ progress, because as I say, different paths, different timetables, different tracks, and we should show respect for different countries, particularly when it so clearly is the case in, for instance, the country we are in today, where there is clearly a government that takes very seriously the consent and concerns of its people.

    I gave a speech to the United Nations about this issue saying that it is the building blocks that matter most of all.  And that is what I think can build genuinely open societies and open economies, which I think are in the interests of both governments and people.