Tag: 2013

  • Baroness Warsi – 2013 Speech on the First World War

    baronesswarsi

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Warsi on the First World War and the contribution from the Commonwealth. The speech was made at the Royal United Services Institute on 8th November 2013.

    Introduction

    In his speech ‘A Time of Triumph’, Winston Churchill praised those who came “from the uttermost ends of the earth” to fight alongside Britain in the Second World War. “From the poorest colony to the most powerful dominion”, he said, “the great maxim held: when the King declares war, the Empire is at war”.

    Both of my grandfathers were among those brave men. And for that reason I have always known something of British India’s role in that conflict. But for many years I was unaware of the role their fellow countrymen played 30 years earlier. The 1,500,000 from modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who served, fought and fell for Britain in the Great War.

    So many others from what is now the Commonwealth served too. Nearly half a million from Canada. The same number from Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Newfoundland. 74,000 from South Africa. 16,000 from the West Indies. 30,000 from other dominions. And many more from beyond the British Empire.

    As I’ve said on many occasions, our boys were not just Tommies – they were Tariqs and Tajinders too. And for far too long this has been overlooked, like a chapter torn from the book of our history. This project, the lectures, the multi-media presentations, are a way of using the forthcoming centenary to make us all better informed.

    Real stories

    It’s important that the focus is on the individuals. Using letters and photographs; war diaries and anecdotes. To reveal the stories behind the statistics. As the Prime Minister said: some will make you cry, some will make you laugh. Let me tell you one which inspired me.

    Mir Dast, from Tirah, Pakistan, found himself in a poisonous gas attack on the Ypres Salient. There were no gas masks. His comrades resorted to makeshift measures to survive. Dipping their turban ends in chloride of lime and holding them over their mouths. Meanwhile, Mir Dast rallied all the men he could. He brought in 8 wounded officers, despite being wounded and gassed himself. For this, he won the highest military honour.

    And this is how he described it to his family:

    The men who came from our regiment have done very well and will do so again.

    I want your congratulations. I have got the Victoria Cross.

    What astonishing humility – putting his comrades first in his letter, just as he had done on the battlefield.

    Interfaith co-operation

    Earlier this year I visited the battlefields of Belgium and northern France. And those long, even lines of headstones give some insight into the scale of sacrifice. Each one representing a life extinguished and a family bereft. The inscriptions and symbols on the stones…Christian crosses. But also Stars of David. Urdu and Hindi script. Even Chinese lettering.

    For me that diversity is the starkest reminder: that comradeship, companionship and co-existence cut cross all faiths.

    Of course, this doesn’t sit particularly well with extremists’ views. And it doesn’t fit the extremists’ narrative that other faiths have no place in Britain. It dispels the myth that you cannot be both devoted to a faith and loyal to a country. Our shared history scuppers their argument. It says to the far-right: this wasn’t the all-white war you believe it was.

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, we may have wrestled the Union Flag back from the extremists.

    And I believe highlighting these multi-ethnic, multi-faith stories will reclaim our proud, patriotic history too. There will be many who don’t want these stories to come to light.

    Whether it’s the extremists on the far-right. Or ignorant people like Anjem Choudary and his followers. Because this is about commemorating, honouring and, above all, learning – and it is good for Britain.

    Conclusion

    So I’m delighted to stand here and see this project come to fruition.

    Can I thank the Curzon Institute, whose blood, toil, sweat and tears have especially helped to make this happen.

    I know how important the support of the former chief of the defence staff has been.

  • Baroness Warsi – 2013 Speech to the UN Security Council

    baronesswarsi

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Warsi to members of the the UN Security Council at Lancaster House in London on 11th February 2013.

    I am delighted to welcome you here tonight.

    We are honoured to be joined by both our current partners on the Council and by those who left at the end of last year.

    And I would like to extend a particular welcome to my fellow parliamentarians and our guests from the United Nations Association-UK.

    In January we said farewell to Germany, South Africa, India, Portugal and Colombia, who stepped down from the UN Security Council.

    I want to thank their representatives here tonight for the excellent collaboration we have enjoyed over the past two years – without which the Council would have been unable to respond effectively to international crises, not least the huge changes we have seen across the Middle East and North Africa.

    I now have the pleasure to welcome five new members onto the Council – Argentina, Australia, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea and Rwanda.

    Each of you will bring new perspectives and priorities to the Council’s agenda. I’m sure you will also bring with you a sense of pragmatism, and a commitment to working together to bring about peaceful resolutions to the myriad challenges to global peace and security.

    Colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – whether in London, New York or elsewhere in our overseas network – are ready to work closely with you on all UN issues…

    …not just the issues we agree on, but those we may approach from different perspectives.

    This is, after all, the purpose of the Security Council.

    The Council is the fundamental UN instrument for maintaining international peace and security. It is what the world looks to when there are threats to international peace and security or humanitarian disasters.

    It brings together different ideas and a range of perspectives. It is the forum for negotiation and debate, and for seeking international consensus on matters that affect all of us.

    This is not an easy process, and it can at times test Council unity. But it is a process to which we must all remain committed and it is vital that we work closely together.

    The issues at stake are too important for us not to.

    I have been Minister for the United Nations for only a few months, but have already had the privilege to visit New York twice to see the UN and the Security Council in action.

    My first was in September to attend the UN General Assembly Ministerial week where Heads of State, Government and Ministers from around the globe convened in New York to mark the start of an intense period of debate and negotiation on the full spectrum of international issues.

    And last month I attended a debate in New York on Counter Terrorism chaired by Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar. In that debate I stressed the importance of a comprehensive global approach to countering terrorism in all its forms.

    This shared commitment to tackling threats to our collective peace and security is the driving force behind Council business. And while 2012 was not without its challenges, we can still be proud of our achievements.

    In Somalia we have ensured that the transition roadmap obligations are delivered and that there is adequate support for the peacekeeping mission, AMISOM…

    In Yemen, which hosted a Security Council visit last month, we have supported the political process to help keep transition on track…

    And in Sudan and South Sudan it was the Council’s action that gave the African Union’s roadmap the strength and resources it needed to successfully bring both parties to the negotiating table and prevent all-out conflict.

    These achievements are all too often overlooked, amid questions of Council effectiveness.

    It is of course right that we continue to set a high bar for the important work the Council does. But the examples I mention show just a fraction of what can be achieved when we come together and take decisive action.

    And it is in this spirit that we should look ahead.

    There’s little doubt that we will face new challenges in 2013.

    In Mali, the Security Council and its members will be instrumental in supporting the pushing back of the armed militia, and in doing so protecting millions of civilians…

    In Somalia, which remains a personal priority for my Prime Minister, the Council will need to set the long-term response and ensure stability…

    In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Council will need to support a unified process to ensure stability and prosperity in the eastern part of the country…

    And, of course, the Council will need to put aside differences and commit to reaching resolutions in Syria and between Israel and Palestine. I cannot stress this point enough. The Council must united and act decisively to encourage all parties to come to the negotiating table.

    It is clear that we have a lot to do. But if we work together, I believe we can achieve a great deal.

    Before I wrap things up, I would like to thank again those member states who left at the end of 2012 for their contribution to the Council over the past two years.

    We have greatly valued your tireless work and commitment in what has been an immensely busy period.

    We look forward to continuing our work with you bilaterally and multilaterally in the years ahead, as we do with the new Council members.

  • Baroness Warsi – 2013 Speech at the Islamic Cooperation Summit

    baronesswarsi

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Warsi, at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Summit in Cairo on 7th February 2013.

    Your Majesties, your excellencies, it is a pleasure to speak at this OIC Heads of State meeting – and a privilege that I’m the first British Government Minister to do so.

    I am delighted to be here in Egypt, which among many other things is the home of Al Azhar, the ‘Manaratul ‘Ilm’ for many Muslims across the world. I was deeply honoured to have met his Eminence the Shaykh Al Azhar yesterday and His Holiness Pope Tawadros II today.

    The invitation to speak here is a clear demonstration of the strengthening bonds between the OIC and the UK. I am grateful to our hosts, Egypt, who have of course taken over the OIC’s presidency this year.

    I said at the meeting of OIC Foreign Ministers in Kazakhstan in 2011 that we in Britain are deeply committed to building our relationships with the Muslim world.

    I am particularly pleased that we were able to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the OIC at the UN General Assembly in September.

    This would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of His Excellency Secretary-General Ihsanoglu – whom I am sure you will agree has steered the OIC towards being a relevant and important player on international issues, and whom I personally consider to be a friend.

    Freedom of Religion or Belief

    We have heard today about many important issues. But I want to focus on one. One which threads into so much of what we have discussed. One which is in itself a challenge, but that if we get right, will unlock solutions to so many other challenges we face.

    That issue is Freedom of Religion or Belief.

    Islamophobia

    Now, I know that the OIC has for many years been concerned about the scourge of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim hatred, and other hate speech.

    As a practising British Muslim, as a proud member of a minority faith in a majority Christian nation, and as a Government Minister, I am also deeply concerned about this issue. But concern alone will not bridge divides.

    The question is, how do we address this scourge? How do we defeat it?

    I believe that the answer is to tackle religious intolerance head-on where and when it occurs, and to protect the rights of all in society.

    UK experience

    In the UK we have sought to do exactly that. We legislate against incitement to hatred on the basis of religion or belief, be it behaviour that is anti-Muslim or intolerant of any other religion or belief. But legislation is not the only answer. While incitement to religious hatred remains an offence in Britain, a blasphemy law once on our statute book was abolished in 2008 – in part because we felt it was incompatible with the freedom of speech.

    To truly achieve societies that are founded on tolerance and acceptance, on love and understanding, we need more than just legislation. We need to nurture these values, to engrain them into the way we look at the world.

    There are no short-cuts here. It requires patience and time, sometimes a generation or two.

    So in the UK we are seeking to combat negative media stereotypes…

    To develop resources for teachers…To support victims……and to improve hate crime reporting.

    Building a pluralistic society

    But it’s not just about dealing with incidents when they arise. If we want to truly defeat this scourge we must put in place the building blocks that support a pluralistic society based on tolerance and inclusion.

    A society where respect for the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief is universal.

    One in which people are free to make the basic choices of how they decide to live their daily lives.

    Those choices might include whether to be guided by one faith or another, or no faith at all…Whether to go to a church, a mosque or a temple…Whether to wear a cross around their neck, or to cover their head with a hijab or a kippah…Whether to read the Bible, the Torah or the Quran……or to send their child to a religious school or keep a religiously-proscribed diet.

    In short, this is all about real life. It is about the choices that people across the world, myself included, make every day.

    Over the past two years, people across this region have taken to the streets calling for dignity, for freedom, for jobs…demand for basic rights.

    And of these, the Freedom of Religion or Belief is absolutely fundamental; a universal right for all.

    And yet people across the world are still denied this basic freedom. They can be victimised or unfairly imprisoned simply for having a religion or belief, and some pay with their lives. For me, being a Muslim is about humanity.

    I believe that human rights underpin Islamic values, and that those rights are not limited to a specific religious belief or ethnic grouping.

    This is what motivates me to speak as passionately as I do about the rights of Christians, Jews and others of faith, or indeed of no faith – as I do about the rights of fellow Muslims. The basic duty of governments is to provide security for their people. That responsibility can have no exceptions.

    So if there is just one message that I hope you will take back from my contribution, it is the universality of Freedom of Religion or Belief.

    Your Excellencies, some peddle the notion that people of different faiths and beliefs cannot co-exist peacefully, with respect for each other’s views.

    This misguided notion is held in the West, as it is in the East. Some use political ideology to justify this viewpoint…others use extremist religious views.

    But I reject that notion. I reject it because history tells us otherwise, and I reject it because of my own experience.

    The UK’s culture of tolerance

    The UK is by no means perfect. But I am proud of its culture of religious tolerance; of its position as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious state.

    It is a country in which people have traditionally been confident of their nation’s Christian heritage and cultural identity. That confidence, together with a history of freedom of speech, has I believe made Britons open to the identities and religions of others.

    So yes, I accept that there are challenges in tackling this problem, and that overcoming them is not easy. But I have seen through my own experience that in Britain we are rising to them.

    Consider this simple question: in how many other countries could someone like me, the daughter of a poor Muslim immigrant, rise to a seat at the Government Cabinet table?

    I believe that we can build consensus and lead efforts to influence cultural norms in our countries in support of religious tolerance. Tolerance between religions, but also tolerance within religions.

    UNHRC Resolution 16/18 and the January Ministerial

    And the foundation has already been laid.

    UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on combating religious intolerance, now under the umbrella of the Istanbul process, provides a strong basis from which to work. UN member states have all jointly signed up to a call to action to implement the resolution.

    But what we need is greater political will.

    Since the meeting in Istanbul in 2011, the discussions and debates on this agenda had only taken place within UN fora or among experts. I felt that we needed to go further.

    Two weeks ago I hosted a high-level meeting in London on this very issue. I was delighted that His Excellency Secretary-General Ihsanoglu was able to join us, along with Ministers from Canada, Pakistan, the United States and representatives from a wide spread of other countries.

    I hope that the discussions we had in London will be the beginning of this dialogue. A dialogue in which we speak with confidence and openness, learning from one another and sharing best practice about how we have tackled these issues in our own countries.

    I am grateful that His Excellency the Secretary-General has agreed to host the next meeting as part of the Istanbul process.

    This is important, because an honest, open and frank dialogue on Freedom of Religion or Belief and tackling religious intolerance is something we must sustain.

    Conclusion

    Your Excellencies, we live in an interconnected world; one in which we can communicate more quickly and over greater distances than we have ever been able to in our history.

    I believe that it is outdated to view this world through the prism of Christians in the West and Muslims in the East. This is simplistic and historically untrue.

    Solutions that accept the reality of the pluralistic nature of our nations – long-term solutions – may well be led by Christians in the East and Muslims in the West. By people of faith across the world. Because, like the OIC, I don’t accept that religion is constrained by national boundaries.

    We need to continue to span these boundaries, to build a better future for our people.

    It is why as a Muslim from the West, representing the United Kingdom, it is a pleasure and a privilege to be invited to speak and be allowed to play a small part in reaching out to better understanding.

  • Lord Wallace – 2013 Speech on Devolution

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Wallace at the Our Future Conference in Kirkwall, Orkney on 20th September 2013.

    Introduction – the road to devolution

    Congratulate the Islands Councils on holding this conference

    Very often I hear people speak at conferences about the welcome they have received and how they have been made to feel at home.

    In my case, I am very much at home here in Kirkwall today.

    I have had the honour of serving as the elected Member of the UK Parliament for Orkney and Shetland for over 18 years; and Orkney’s Member of the Scottish Parliament for 8 years.

    I joined the Scottish Liberal party at the age of 17, not least because of its policy of a Scottish Parliament within a United Kingdom.

    But consistent with that Liberal outlook, I argued during the 1997 referendum and beyond that devolution doesn’t stop in Edinburgh. The new Parliament should be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of Scotland’s many diverse communities and not least the islands.

    The Scottish Parliament is responsible for many areas of policy that affect each of us and our families every day. It was a milestone in the decentralisation of power.

    And it has delivered changes that matter, not least in its operation and policies for our islands.

    Tavish Scott, when Transport Minister, delivering the air discount scheme;

    Kirkwall Airport having an instrument landing system;

    EMEC established in Stromness;

    a power of local initiative given to local authorities.

    I recall the significant reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2004-05. The input and level of consultation with local NFUs in shaping that policy was greater than could ever have been achieved when the decisions were Whitehall-centric.

    You may recall how the first Scottish Government pursued a relocation policy – often in the face of opposition from vested interests – decentralisation, taking civil servants out of the centre, changing minds sets and perspectives. For example, Crofting grants to Tiree; gov telephone no to call centre in Kinlochleven and yes, SNH to Inverness.

    It is worth reflecting that today’s young Scots cannot remember a time without a Scottish Parliament, and no one seriously suggests putting the clock back.

    But even from a Westminster perspective, devolution didn’t stop in 1999. This Government has continued that process of devolution.

    The Scotland Act 2012 will see fundamental reforms to the way that we all pay our tax.

    From 2016 the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for setting a tax rate, that will determine what services we can afford, and what competition we want to provide for our businesses and communities to thrive.

    UK Government working with communities

    And as a Government we firmly believe in devolution – not just transferring power from London to Edinburgh.

    As Cllr Gary Robinson from Shetland Islands Council said yesterday – devolution should not just stop at Edinburgh. We agree. Nor, indeed, should it stop at Kirkwall, Lerwick or Stornoway.

    One of the challenges of today is to identify the most appropriate level for decision-making, As a Government, we believe in passing power right to the individuals and communities who know the best decisions to take for local people, and we are open to discussions on how to pursue that.

    I am well aware of local views on management of the Crown Estate, and the calls for more involvement in decision-making.

    There are ways to make this work sensibly, and some have already happened.

    In fact, I probably have longer experience than most here in dealing with the Crown Estate.

    A historical perspective will remind us that because of the Zetland County Council Act and the Orkney County Council Act the islands authorities were responsible for the works licences for aquaculture developments in harbour area waters.

    The councils to all intents and purposes undertook a marine planning role, which the Crown Estate performed in other coastal areas.

    It is almost certainly a testimony to the effectiveness of that arrangement that marine planning responsibilities were subsequently extended to all relevant local authorities

    Coming up to date, earlier this year, Local Management Agreements were finalised, with North Uist and Skye serving as pilot projects. These are now bedding in as a vehicle for local asset management, and showing positive results.

    Indeed, North Uist can take much credit for pioneering these agreements, not just in a Scottish but also a UK context.

    I am delighted to announce today that the Crown Estate has agreed to invest £380,000 to support development at Lochmaddy in North Uist, as a result of this agreement. And Gigha has just confirmed that they too will adopt a Local Management Agreement for their community.

    The Coastal Communities Fund is also a step forward. Drawing on 50% of the Crown Estate revenues from marine renewables, this is helping communities benefit directly from the advances that we see around us.

    Last month, the Fund was boosted by 5% to £29 million, and the next round of successful bids will be announced later this autumn.

    So far, the Fund has granted hundreds of thousands of pounds to some excellent, creative projects in the islands, including creation of a new modern harbour in Barra and refurbishment at Ardminish Bay on Gigha.

    With this funding, both ventures have been able to do something practical to assist the fishing industry and marine tourism.

    And there is encouraging institutional change underway – much of it as a result of the Calman Commission – with establishment of a Scottish Commissioner and new structures at the Crown Estate’s operations in Scotland.

    There is more to do – something I have discussed with both the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in recent days. But we are witnessing a real shift in how the organisation is doing its business in a more flexible, open way.

    Things have moved on since the late 1980s when the First Crown estate Commissioner, the Earl of Mansfield, reportedly described a lunch with the six Highlands & Islands MPs as the most radical bunch of lefties he’d ever sat down with. And I think it’s fair to pay tribute to those locally engaged by the Crown Estate in seeking to transform and improve the organisation.

    The UK Government is also firmly committed to collaborate with the islands to realise renewables potential and create green jobs.

    Here in Orkney, the renewables revolution is staring us in the face.

    The European Marine Energy Centre – supported by millions of pounds of funding from both the UK and Scottish Governments – is something that we can be extremely proud of.

    The islands have plenty of natural resources and the UK Government is working hard to get the right economic framework in place for investment to take off.

    Earlier this week, my colleague Energy Secretary Ed Davey confirmed a unique draft “strike price” for onshore wind energy produced on the Scottish islands.

    The proposed higher strike price of £115 per MegaWatt hour will provide an incentive for renewables companies to invest in wind and attract green jobs.

    This is great news for the industry and for island communities. And there are two relevant lessons here.

    Firstly – this is the first time that the UK Government has announced a different strike price for a particular part of the UK.

    And this was made possible by clear commitment by the UK Government, Scottish Government and island councils to recognise the unique circumstances and potential of Scotland’s Islands.

    But secondly, this measure is economically viable only because of the islands’ unimpeded access to the large UK consumer market.

    Matching the same levels of subsidy from a smaller Scottish consumer base alone would inevitably affect energy bills.

    Benefits of the UK

    This brings me to my central point about the benefits for those of us who live on the islands gain from being part of the United Kingdom.

    We here in the islands are very comfortable with more than one identity – Orcadian, Shetlander or from the Western Isles – Scottish, British, European. A decision to lose one of those must be based on more than misplaced sentiment or disagreeing with a particular aspect of government policy.

    This is a fundamental decision. One for which there is no going back. And we need to consider the facts of what the United Kingdom offers.

    This Government has a track record of using the advantages of the size and scale of the UK to help recognise the unique nature of island life.

    The rebate on fuel duty, the new strike price, the Coastal Communities Fund – we are tapping into the economic strength and diversity of the UK to address the particular circumstances of island communities.

    Think of some of our islands’ key industries and how closely ingrained they are to the UK’s economic priorities.

    North Sea oil and gas production – so important to Shetland in particular – will be sustained for the longest possible period by billions of pounds of fiscal incentives by the UK Exchequer.

    Exports for world-class products like Harris Tweed, the whisky industry and the wider food and drink sector are supported through one of the largest, most well-regarded trade promotion networks in the world, UK Trade & Investment.

    With more than 1,000 staff in over 100 countries, UKTI has helped over 500 Scottish companies to export last year alone. With a bigger UK market, we have greater ability to break down trade barriers and get our local products into new markets.

    And I don’t want to see that diminished in any way.

    And like every other community up and down the country, the islands too benefit from the certainty and pooled economic strength of the UK – retaining the pound as our currency, safeguarding pensions, backing the banks – things we all rely on, and so often take for granted.

    Powers and principles

    There are real benefits for the islands as part of the UK, and our constitutional settlement already allows us considerable flexibility to change our governance arrangements. We just need to make the case.

    From the Prime Minister down, the Government has made clear our commitment to keep transferring power away from London.

    We have a track record of delivering devolution in Scotland and in passing power to local authorities in England.

    On our part, we are open to change.

    And for this to make sense, it’s important that we establish some key principles to guide decisions.

    The Secretary of State has always considered there to be three conditions for transferring power – (1) that granting new power to one part of the UK is not done at the expense of another; (2) that there is widespread consensus, across parties and the community in support of change; and (3) that proposals for change are solidly based on evidence.

    Those three tests were applied during the development of the Scotland Act 2012. They should apply here too.

    And to do that, we must work together to examine the evidence and look at the facts.

    Working together not just as Government and Council leaders, but with our communities and people across the Islands.

    Many of the opportunities for change identified by the Councils – on agriculture, transport, education, culture, language, public sector reform – are for the Scottish Government to consider as devolved matters.

    There are some important areas that are for the UK Government to consider as well – control of the seabed, energy, relations with the European Union.

    And we will consider these.

    As the Secretary of State’s three conditions highlight, it is important that proposals for change are not just a wish list. They must be robustly planned and justified.

    I readily understand the Councils’ desire to use the referendum debate to focus on what is best for the islands. But we must not just be opportunistic – we must have solid, thought through plans.

    So the Secretary of State, when he meets with the three Council leaders later this year, will want to examine the detail of the proposals from the Islands.

    Thinking through the consequences, considering the evidence.

    That was the way of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and of the Calman Commission.

    It is a proven process. It works. We should apply those principles again.

    Conclusion

    So as a member of the UK Government, a long-time believer in devolution – as an islands resident now for over 30 years – I welcome the campaign that the Island Councils have launched.

    I look forward to seeing the outcome of the work that the UK Government and the Islands will take forward together.

  • Alistair Darling – 2013 Speech to Scottish Labour Party Conference

    alistairdarling

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Darling to the Scottish Labour Party Conference on 19th April 2013.

    Thank you very much for your warm welcome.

    One of things I have noticed in the three years since I stood down from frontline politics is just how nice people are about you when they are absolutely certain they are not coming back. But I am back, back for this referendum because it is one of the most important decisions that we will take at any time in our lifetime. Where Scotland will take one of the biggest decisions that has taken in the last 300 years.

    Remember this, we are not electing another government for five years, where if you don’t like it you can kick it out. You are voting on something that – if we decide to vote for independence – is irrevocable. There is no way back. They only have to win once and by one vote. And there is no going back.

    Now, as people have said in the last debate: this isn’t just about constitutions or intuitions they are there to serve us. This is about values. And we believe that we are better, we are stronger when we stand together. That’s why we joined the Labour Party. That’s why we joined trade unions because we can achieve so much more together than we can as individuals. And look at some of the things that we have set up that have given effect to that belief. The NHS – there when you need it no matter where you are in the United Kingdom. Or the minimum wage –avoiding a race to the bottom where workers in Dundee are pitted against workers in Durham. Or as some people have just been saying in relation to corporation tax – we do not want to get in to a race to the bottom where the Scottish Government might cut corporation tax then the rest of the UK does it and it gets lower and lower. The losers in that are the people in this country who would have to pay the taxes to make up the difference. We are better and stronger, when we stand together.

    We are proud to be both Scottish and British. We don’t have to choose. We do not want to choose between the two of them.

    And there is another element too – the influence we have to shape the world to be a better place. In the first debate that we had this morning we talked about developments in the world. Why walk away from the influence the UK has in the World Bank, in development, and the United Nations when we can be a force for good. We are better and stronger, when we stand together.

    But of course, the key to this debate will be the economy. It’s about standards of living. It’s about the money that we could afford to spend on health and education.

    It’s about jobs. It’s about what we are leaving to our children and their children.

    Now, Douglas Alexander when he spoke earlier this morning talked about the changes that are taking place across the globe – where people are coming together, rather than breaking apart.

    We are part of the single market of the United Kingdom – tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on their firms being able to sell goods and services in to the rest of the UK. So we are sharing opportunities, and yes, we are also sharing risks. Anas just mentioned what happened four years ago. I know from my own experience that when I heard that RBS was within three hours of closing its doors and switching off its cash machines I had the strength of the United Kingdom to say: we will not let that happen.

    Now, I don’t argue that Scotland couldn’t go it alone. Most countries can. I do think though that we would be very heavily dependent and very exposed to North Sea oil. Nobody is saying that the oil is going to run out tomorrow. We are not saying that. But it does not go on forever and we know that that its price is volatile and if you are dependent on nearly 20 per cent of your tax revenues from one source you are very exposed if something goes wrong. And it’s no wonder that John Swinney in his private moments told the Scottish Government cabinet that he was worried about the volatility of the North Sea oil price and the fact that ultimately it will decline. It’s no wonder that he was having to question how much he could spend on public services and the sustainability of the state pension. The only problem was that what they are saying in private. In public, they are saying something quite different. And when they were confronted with this, rather than saying to the people of Scotland: let’s be honest about the choices we have to make, let’s be honest about the realities that we are so dependent on North Sea oil. What did they do? They cooked the books and inflated the oil price – something their own financial advisers told them they shouldn’t do.

    Now, central of course to the economic argument is the question of currency. But you know there is a pattern emerging with the nationalists – the more you ask questions, the more you find their arguments fall apart. Look at Europe, when they told us hand on heart they had a legal opinion that said that we would automatically remain members of the European Union. What happened? When we pressed, we found there was no legal opinion. Scotland had been quite deliberately deceived in to believing that nothing would change when of course the reality is that we would have to apply again to become members of the European Union. The same thing with NATO. And critically, when we came to the question about currency they are being evasive – they are not being straightforward with the people of Scotland. In the last 12 months alone, they have gone from being in favour of the euro (which is as popular in Inverness as it is in Essex), to using the pound (like Panama uses the dollar, where you would have no central bank which would completely undermine the financial services industry in this country), to now saying they will have a currency union.

    And when you think about it, the practicalities of this – if we have actually vote to leave the UK we would actually then have left the bank that prints the currency that we presently use. The pound sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom. That is what it is at the moment – it’s not a currency union. In order to keep the pound, what the nationalists now say we would have to enter in to a currency union. Now yesterday Nicola Sturgeon was saying that of course within a currency union you could do what you want, there would be no constraints, you could spend money on what you want. That is utter nonsense. Imagine what would happen.

    Just look at what has been happening in the Eurozone for the last four or five years. We know that in a currency union it is the large economies that call the shots.

    We also know that a currency union would mean that another country – which would then be a foreign country – would have to approve our budget, our tax, our spending and our borrowing. That is not freedom. If you vote for independence you are voting yourself into a straightjacket from which you can never escape and the consequences of that would be very bad for Scotland.

    It’s no wonder, when this squeeze comes on, and we start facing the challenges of an ageing population in Scotland or if you suddenly had a drop in oil prices, or if you had another banking crisis sometime in the future – you’re on your own. The burden, far from being shared across the United Kingdom, falls on six million people living in Scotland. Where is the sense in that? We are better and stronger, when we stand together.

    Now of course some nationalists have twigged this. Some nationalist supporters and some academics now realise exactly the blind alley they are going down and what they are saying is lets have our own separate Scottish currency. Well let’s just think about that for a moment. Every time you go and visit somebody south of the border you would have to change your currency. Every time your granny, or your uncle or your auntie came up here they would have to get their currency in order to come and visit you. Or business is trying to trade with the rest of the UK would have to factor in the cost of the exchange rate. And of course, launching a new currency now in arguably the most turbulent economic times we have seen in modern times – that is what they would say in Yes Minister terms is “truly courageous”. You would be asking people to take a gamble on a currency that is wide open to manipulation and open to speculation as oil prices rise and fall. It is an absolutely ridiculous policy that would be gambling with Scotland’s future in a way that I think is totally unacceptable.

    Now, of course, Alex Salmond has said that he won’t debate the currency issue with me. The reason for that is that he does not have the answers to these questions but he cannot hide for the next 17 months. Scotland is entitled to an answer. What currency would we use? What will the consequences be?

    And Scotland will be entitled, as I suspect it will, believe that the nationalist stance on this is – as on so many other things – is incredible and is falling apart.

    I believe there is a much better choice for our future than separation. The last thing we need at the present time is more uncertainty and divisions.

    If we walk away from the UK, we give our children a one way ticket to a deeply uncertain destination and that to me is totally unacceptable.

    You know, as Scots, we know that there is nowhere better but we understand that there is something bigger.

    That is why we are better and stronger together.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2013 Speech to the Police Federation

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth on 14th May 2013.

    Thank you for that welcome John.

    It’s a pleasure to be at the Police Federation conference – and to have been following it so far on Twitter.

    It’s impressive the way police have embraced twitter as a public forum for debate and also to get out the message on missing persons or public order.

    My experience on Twitter has not been quite so successful. I was once excited to find I was trending. Not so excited to find I had managed to tweet from my handbag:

    “Hgggg“.

    Retweeted many times. Sometimes with a sympathetic comment. Mostly with something along the lines of “what a change to hear a politician talking sense”.

    That I suspect is your concern at the Police Federation whenever you have politicians addressing you too.

    Your theme this year, 20/20 Vision, Policing the Future Together, is the right one.

    Because I don’t believe there is a vision for policing right now

    And I think one is needed.

    But let me first pay tribute to those police officers lost in service this year

    In September the whole of Manchester, and indeed the whole country paid tribute to the bravery of PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes

    Murdered answering a routine 999 call.

    Murdered because they were police officers.

    We remember too 

    Inspector Preston Gurr, DC Adele Cashman, PC Andrew Bramma, PC Bruce Stevenson, PC Steve Rawson, Sgt Ian Harman.

    And we should pay special tribute to the remarkable bravery of PC Ian Dibell.

    Off duty. And yes, he ran towards danger not away from it. Fatally shot because he went to help others. Proof that a determined police officer is never off duty. Someone the whole country should honour for the bravery he showed to protect us all.

    And we’ve seen how the policing family also stand together in tough times. The support I know the Police Federation has shown to the families of those who lost their lives.

    And the determination to keep their memories alive.

    And a particular thanks to Fed Rep Steve Philips, who has done a charity run from Manchester to Bournemouth, over six days, to raise money for the North West Police Benevolent Fund and the Care of Police Survivors charity in honour of PC Bone and PC Hughes.

    I also want to pay tribute to someone I know will be missed here in this hall, who spent his life fighting for British policing and British police officers.

    A good man who always had a serious and thoughtful contribution to make to any policing debate. Someone who loved life – which makes it so tragic he has lost it. Many of us know we miss a friend as well as a colleague. I would like to pay tribute and say thank you to a great champion of British policing, Paul McKeever.

    And he is also best remembered through his own words, in his last interview with the Fed magazine. They sum up both Paul and Paul’s vision of policing.

    When asked what stood out for him in 35 years as a police officer, Paul describes very poignantly taking the father of a young man killed in a motorcycle accident to identify his son in St Thomas’s, and he describes with great sympathy the pain and devastation for a man who has lost a son, then he says “that to me encapsulated the rawness of humanity and the rawness of some of the situations we have to deal with. It’s not just the physicality of dealing with the crime scene, it’s dealing with people”.

    And Paul is right.

    Policing is a unique public service.

    Yes the bravery and the unknown risk – as PC Dibbell, PC Bone and PC Hughes showed us.

    Yes fighting crime, catching criminals.

    But so much more than that.

    Picking up the pieces of people’s broken lives.

    And we should thank every officer out there on duty today, who is doing exactly that.

    When I first addressed your Conference, two years ago, I said we supported your calls for a Royal Commission or proper review of policing in this country, on how we could work together to prepare a police service truly fit for the 21st century.

    When the Government did not agree, we set up the Independent Review into the Future of Policing, chaired by Lord John Stevens. That review is now in its final stages, and it will report in the coming months.

    The Review has reached out to over 30,000 officers and staff.

    With surveys of staff, evidence from officers, partners, local communities, businesses, members of the public and academia.

    I can’t pre-empt the conclusions that they reach. But I want to say a bit about why it matters given the challenges policing faces:

    – plummeting morale

    – scale of cuts

    – chaotic reforms and fragmentation

    – policies which risk making it harder not easier to do the job

    – and that crucial lack of vision to tackle the challenges of the future

    For a start I think it is serious that policing morale has plummeted in the last few years.

    You will have seen some of the review research.

    Over half of officers and 40 per cent of police staff say they are considering leaving policing.

    Officers feeling they could not influence decisions or unhappy about the structure of career progression, or under pressure over pay or pension changes.

    Over 90 per cent responding, feeling they were not valued by the Government.

    That matters.

    It’s not just a problem for the Police Federation, Chief Constables or the Home Secretary.

    It’s a problem for all of us.

    When policing is under such strain from resource cuts, we need more than ever to have determined, motivated, valued police officers, able to go the extra mile.

    British policing relies on the strength and dedication of officers and staff.

    That’s why we need better training, support, career development.

    But the Government’s reforms are confused. They talk about talents and experience, but they cut starting salaries and make it harder for people with mortgages, experience or families to join the workplace.

    We support the College of Policing and think there is much more that it could do.

    But that’s not enough.

    The police are the public and the public are the police.

    Far more women now join the police. But too few make it up through the ranks.

    Parents and carers are finding their family friendly working has been ditched as shifts are restructured to meet the cuts.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers being recruited.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers stay on.

    We need a police force that is properly rooted in and representative of the communities it serves.

    And we need officers who feel valued, well managed and well motivated, with the discretion to get on a do a good job.

    We need Government to recognise the value of the job they do.

    The second problem has been the scale of cuts.

    As you know, we said from the start that 20 per cent cuts went too far and too fast – and we supported 12 per cent cuts instead.

    And we are seeing the consequences.

    11,500 officers cut already.

    At least 15,000 to go in total.

    These huge cuts are starting to hollow out policing.

    Having to do less with less.

    Crime falling more slowly.

    But justice falling too.

    For ten years while crime came down, we saw a higher proportion of crimes solved, and more offenders brought to justice.

    Yet now we are seeing the opposite.

    200,000 fewer arrests.

    30,000 fewer cases solved

    Officers I’ve spoken to know they can’t make arrests because too few officers on the streets and it will take them off the streets for too long when other problems might kick off.

    Officers who have told me they’ve had to use Community Resolutions to write cases off – even when they know the crime is serious because they haven’t the time and resources to follow it up.

    A quote from an officer who had to write to local businesses and residents to raise the money for a car, “at present we have to rely on lifts from our colleagues in marked vehicles, a pool car, public transport and regularly walking two miles to the nearest point or 10 miles to the farthest point.”

    Doesn’t look much like the 21st century does it? Officers thumbing a lift down the dual carriage way to get to the scene of the crime.

    Theresa May’s failure to fight for policing in the first spending review hit policing and justice hard.

    And with the second spending review looming – they need to do a better job.

    It is clear that all those promises the Government made that these cuts would get the deficit down have fallen through because they couldn’t get growth.

    Now it looks as though policing and communities will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure again.

    But the problem is not just about resources it is about the chaotic nature of reforms and fragmentation that are making it harder not easier for the police to do more with less.

    Policing needs to keep reforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    But too often the Government’s reforms have been chaotic, piecemeal and confused, creating greater fragmentation and rearranging the deckchairs rather than creating a strong sense of direction and purpose.

    Consider Theresa May’s flagship reform, the Police and Crime Commissioners she said would secure “a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box”.

    Instead, she spent £100 million on shambolic elections and only one in eight people turned out to vote.

    Reforms are needed, but they shouldn’t waste money or create confusion.

    They need to be rooted in a positive vision of policing for the future.

    That is why the Stevens Review is looking at the different responses needed at local, regional, national and international level to deal with changing patterns of crime and disorder.

    And making sure that the great achievements of neighbourhood policing introduced over the last fifteen years are not lost – embedding police properly in local communities, working in partnership to prevent crime and keep order not just flying in to the 999 emergency call.

    Many police officers have told me that the Crime and Disorder Act in the late 90s was the most important and powerful reforming legislation on crime in decades. Because it forced not just the police but local councils, probation, the NHS, community organisations to work in partnership to tackle crime.

    Yet too many organisations are pulling back and pulling in – retreating to their core business, just when we need partnership more than ever. We need a new push for partnership in leaner times if we are to keep communities safe.

    For example we do need a clearer framework for raising standards and taking action when things go wrong.

    When things go wrong – as they did so terribly at Hillsborough – we need proper transparent investigations that can get swiftly to the truth, rather than denying victims justice for years, and also casting a shadow over policing too.

    That’s why we’ve asked the Stevens review to look at a better framework for standards, inspection and complaints to make sure mistakes are learnt from and not repeated too. How we set up a new Police Standards Authority to replace the IPCC.

    But let me say something two area of reforms I know many Federation members are concerned about at the moment.

    First compulsory severance, and second private contracting.

    I think everyone would agree that standards of policing need to be upheld, and officers need to maintain a proper level of training, skills and ethical standards to do the job. And of course they can’t stay if they don’t.

    But I have three concerns about the major changes to the Office of Constable built into the Government’s approach.

    First, I fear that this is just a cover for more cuts. You have to wonder why the Government are in such a rush to do this in time for the spending review.

    Second, there are insufficient safeguards to prevent abuse or the appearance of abuse in the new climate. If Police and Crime Commissioners can sack Chiefs and Chiefs can sack everyone else with very few safeguards in place, the principle of the independent office of Constable is fundamentally changing.

    And that is not something that should be done in such a reckless way.

    My third concern is that there was a compact on policing which is being carelessly ripped up without consultation. Police officers can rightly be summoned on duty at any time, as the service of last resort, with few industrial rights. In return police officers had the unique responsibility of the Office of Constable, valued by government and with no compulsory severance.

    I never supported the right to strike for police officers and I don’t now. But I do think the Government needs to show respect for the Office of Constable in return.

    Did anything exemplify the Office of Constable more than going the extra mile to deliver a safe Olympics?

    Officers came to London at short notice, had leave cancelled, holiday re-arranged, personal lives disrupted again, families putting up with it.

    And that disruption was made worse when a private contract badly failed.

    Yet Ministers are pushing for big private contracts to replace much of the work police do. Nothing ruled out. Not even detective work or neighbourhood patrols.

    Massive contracts with single companies for complex work.

    And many forces are looking at how to use it for the police.

    Be clear, public private partnerships can be valuable – new contracts will be needed for example on information technology.

    But contracts must pass tough tests:

    – On value for money.

    – On resilience and security.

    – On transparency and accountability.

    – And most of all on public trust.

    For the Labour Party, and for people across the country, there are red lines – or perhaps we should say blue lines.

    Policing by consent means the police need the confidence of the public.

    And the public need to trust that policing is being done in the interests of the justice not the corporate balance sheet.

    We should be blunt about this. We don’t want private companies patrolling the public streets of Britain, we want police officers and PCSOs doing the job.

    The Government’s job is also to make it easier not harder for the police to do their job.

    Too often the reverse is happening.

    The DNA of 4,000 rape suspects being destroyed – even though we know rape is a hard crime to solve.

    And under their new plans ASBOs will no longer include any criminal sanction if they are breached.

    And worst of all, they want to ditch the European Arrest Warrant just because it has Europe in the title.

    This is the real consequence of the Conservative party’s frenzy and infighting over Europe.

    The European Arrest Warrant allowed us to swiftly deport 900 foreign citizens suspected of crimes in their own country.

    And it helped us catch terrorists, kidnappers and serious criminals who fled abroad and bring them back to face justice.

    This weekend Spanish police tracked down and arrested Andrew Moran – the Salford man who has been on the run for four years after a £25,000 armed robbery involving guns and a machete.

    He was found sunbathing in a villa in Alicante.

    Under the European Arrest Warrant he was rapidly arrested and should shortly be returned home.

    But remember Ronnie Knight the East End armed robber.

    He fled to the Spanish coast too – before the European arrest warrant came in.

    He spent his time sunbathing in a luxury villa down the coast from Alicante in Fuengirola.

    But unlike Andrew Moran he didn’t have to hide or change his appearance. He opened an Indian Restaurant and R Knights nightclub.

    Because we could not get the Spanish police to arrest him and we could not get the Spanish courts to send him home.

    The Home Secretary needs to listen to the police and to the evidence on the European Arrest Warrant, not to the hysteria of Tory backbenchers.

    If they decide sound tough on everything with Europe in the title, the Government will end up being soft on crime.

    Be it about policies on crime, chaotic reforms, resources or morale, in the end the real problem remains in your conference title – where is the 2020 vision?

    And where is the plan for policing together for the future?

    I don’t believe this Government has a vision for policing.

    We want to build a vision for policing with you. Together.

    That in the end was what we set up the Stevens commission for. We will look forward to its conclusions.

    Building on the international reputation that British policing can be proud of.

    From forensics to neighbourhood policing, from counter terror to the Olympics, decade after decade this country has led the way. We want to do so again.

    Reforming together.

    Protecting the public together.

    Cutting crime and getting justice for victims together.

    But only if we have the vision of policing together – 2020 policing.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Speech on Education

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, on 24th October 2013 at Morpeth School in Tower Hamlets, London.

    The fundamental reason why, I believe, education matters so much is to ensure every child has a fair chance of a successful life. That’s also why, I expect, many of you got into this profession in the first place.

    Yet despite the efforts of successive Governments and the progress made to raise education standards in this country, on average, children from poorer families still do worse than their better off peers.

    As last week’s report from the independent Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission shows, here in Britain, your parents’ income still remains the biggest indicator of what you’ll go on to achieve. More than your talent and potential. And more than in most other countries in Europe.

    Some claim this is just a fact a life. They argue that any chance for social mobility in this country ended when the final bell rang for grammar schools, and disparage any efforts to break the link between disadvantage and achievement as social engineering at its worst.

    I cannot accept this view. In politics, and in this Coalition, what motivates me and my party – more than any other issue – is increasing social mobility: building a fairer society, where everyone can succeed, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth.

    So, when we came into government, in education, we prioritised three things:

    First, ending Labour’s micromanagement of our schools. For thirteen years, Labour responded to every problem in our education system with a new target from the central government – frustrating our teachers and stifling the creativity needed to drive excellence across the board.

    Second, we wanted to use the muscle of the state to level the playing field so that all children can flourish – not just the well-off. That’s what our £2.5 billion pupil premium is for – additional money to help close the gap, which we are beginning to see having an effect.

    And, third, we wanted to make sure that the state is intervening where it can make the biggest difference – when children are young. Access to high-quality early years education helps give children the best possible start in life. That’s why I have made the early years a personal priority: we have increased the hours available for three and four year olds and extended it to two year olds in families which are most feeling the squeeze. Last month I announced free school meals for all children in infant school; and, one of the first things David Laws did when he became Schools Minister was insist that we rebalanced the pupil premium so that more of the money goes to children when they are in primary school, to help them catch up before they fall too far behind.

    Freedom for schools; a level playing field for all children: and more support for children in their earliest years.

    It’s an approach that seeks to drive diversity and autonomy within the schools system, but with the guarantee of opportunities for all.

    So freedom, yes, but with fairness too. For liberals, it is essential we provide both.

    FREEDOM WITH FAIRNESS

    I’m proud of our work over the last three years to increase school autonomy, which, in Government with the Conservatives, has been through the academies programme. It is Liberal Democrat policy to give all schools, whether they are academies or not, those same freedoms to attract and reward excellent teaching, set their own term dates and vary their school day.

    We believe greater autonomy enables school leaders to take responsibility in those areas where they know what’s best for their pupils, whilst also giving them the freedom to innovate.

    But it shouldn’t surprise you if I say that, although we work well with the Conservatives, our two parties still have differences of opinion – some strongly held. And looking to the future, there are aspects of schools policy currently affected by the priorities of the Conservative Party which I would not want to see continue.

    For example, whilst I want to give schools the space to innovate, I also believe every parent needs to know that the school their child attends, whatever its title or structure, meets certain core standards of teaching and care. A parental guarantee – if you like.

    Parents don’t want ideology to get in the way of their children’s education. They don’t care about the latest political label attached to their child’s school. What they want, and expect, is that their children are taught by good teachers, get taught a core body of knowledge, and get a healthy meal every day.

    What is the point of having a slimmed-down national curriculum if only a few schools have to teach it? Let’s teach it in all our schools.

    And what is the point of having brilliant new food standards if only a few schools have to stick to the rules? Let’s have quality food in all our schools.

    That’s my philosophy. Diversity amongst schools, yes. But good universal standards all parents can rely on too.  And, frankly, it makes no sense to me to have qualified teacher status if only a few schools have to employ qualified teachers.

    Over the last ten years, there’s been a revolution in the way in which we’ve recruited and trained our teachers. Whether it’s through the on-the-job learning offered through schemes like Teach First and School Direct or the continued contribution of our universities to educating generations of Britain’s teachers.

    Together, these diverse routes into the classroom have raised the public profile and status of our teachers and enabled more graduates, more teaching assistants and more people from a range of backgrounds to join this profession. What all of these routes have in common is that at the end of them you are recognised as a Qualified Teacher. And I want every parent to know that their child will benefit from this kind of high quality teaching.

    That’s why I believe we should have qualified teachers in all our schools.

    That means free schools and academies too.

    This view has sparked quite a bit of excitement this week – and some criticism: the idea that, if you seek to give parents reassurances on basic standards, you are somehow turning your back on school autonomy. And, equally, that having open differences of this kind is bad for Coalition government.

    Let me say something on both points.

    In my first ever speech as Lib Dem leader, back in 2008, I called for a new generation of schools which could be set up by different providers, like educational charities, parents and voluntary organisations, providing they had the right credentials. My party supports school freedom. At our conference in the spring of this year, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion celebrating the unprecedented freedom granted to head teachers and teachers by the Coalition Government. The party wants to see all schools have more freedoms like academies.

    But I am totally unapologetic for believing that, as we continue to build a new type of state funded school system – in which parents are presented with a dizzying range of independent, autonomous schools, each with its own different specialism, ethos or mission – parents can make their choice safe in the knowledge that there are certain safeguards. A safety net, if you like, to prevent their children from falling through the cracks.

    So, yes, I support free schools and academies, but not with exemptions from minimum standards. That’s the bit I want to see change. And that will be clearly set out in our next General Election manifesto.

    There is nothing – absolutely nothing – inconsistent in believing that greater school autonomy can be married to certain core standards for all.

    And I am totally unapologetic that the Liberal Democrats have our own ideas about how we do that.

    Ultimately, the Labour Party is hostile to school autonomy – their instincts always take them back to Whitehall’s heavy hand.

    Meanwhile, many on the Right are hostile to setting minimum educational standards. At least they are in academies and free schools. In maintained schools, however, the Conservatives seem to believe it is alright to micromanage things down to which ancient British kings are taught in history class. All that I ask is that we seek to deliver the same balance of freedoms and core standards across all schools.

    And, in the liberal centre, the Liberal Democrats – and, I believe, most parents – know that there is a balance to be struck:

    So in the future, the Liberal Democrats will seek to build on everything we have achieved in this Coalition – driving greater diversity and freedom in all our schools.

    But, as we do, we will also strive to make sure that every parent can send their children off in the morning, knowing that, whatever kind of school they go to – academy, free school, maintained school, whichever – their sons and daughters will be taught core subjects, by qualified teachers and they’ll get healthy meal.

    On this and other aspects of education policy the Liberal Democrats will carry on setting out our stall: for example, last month I made it clear that I will want to see schools funding protected in the next Parliament – that’s a Liberal Democrat priority for our next manifesto.

    People have a right to know what our vision for the future is. And explaining that vision is perfectly consistent with the Liberal Democrats being proud of what we have done in this coalition, and continuing to work with our coalition partners to deliver radical reform and the strong government the country needs. Being in Coalition today doesn’t prevent either of the Coalition parties setting out how we may differ in the future. That’s how Coalition works.

    TEACHERS

    And I can tell you today that one area where we have agreed further reform is on better support for our teachers and school leaders – the people who are too often missing from the debate on structures and standards.

    It’s a cliché to say it, but no less true that what you never forget about your school days are those teachers who changed your life.

    A good teacher knows how to inspire and enthral a class of children to learn – whatever the subject.

    He or she recognises each child for the individual they are, and does whatever they can to help that child build on their talents for a happy, successful life.

    As a father of three school-age children, I also speak from experience when I say these are the teachers that your children never stop talking about when they get home from school.

    That special connection – with someone who makes you as enthusiastic about learning, as they are about teaching – is what defines, for many of us, the very best in education.

    It’s what we want for our children. It’s what we expect from our local schools. And critically, it’s what the brightest and best teachers in Britain strive to achieve every single day.

    As Jemima Reilly, the head of this school, told us, “We are proud to attract and maintain good quality teachers…we give our teachers the space to grow and in turn their students grow and flourish alongside them.”

    And as Ofsted has pointed out, if you’re a poor child going to school in some parts of Britain, you’re less likely to do well than poor children here in Tower Hamlets.

    This isn’t just Britain’s inner cities that we’re talking about here. In some cases, these are relatively prosperous regions like West Berkshire and Shropshire and our seaside towns like Blackpool or Hastings.

    The issue isn’t that there aren’t brilliant schools or teachers in these areas. There are.

    But there are also weak schools and schools which have simply stalled.

    These schools are failing many children – including from disadvantage backgrounds – who with the right support and attention could thrive.

    The good teachers in these schools want to learn from their better performing neighbours. But they don’t have a clear idea about how to start that conversation.

    They want to improve. Do more for local children and parents from all backgrounds. But they don’t have the right leadership and skills on site to boost their performance.

    They want to share their own knowledge of what works beyond their own classroom with their colleagues. But don’t know how to make that happen.

    They can’t progress. Their schools are stalled and could do much better. And, worse of all, the children they teach are heading for a life defined by their background not their talents.

    We already know that some good Local Authorities are meeting that challenge by helping schools in their area find good leaders. And our ‘Similar Schools’ data is designed to help schools – without that kind of support – to link up and learn from outstanding schools tackling the same issues as them. So, as we improve the information available online, I’d encourage more schools to use it.

    But we need to do more if we’re to tackle this issue nationally and ensure that more schools can benefit from the expertise of our best head teachers.

    CHAMPIONS LEAGUE – HEAD TEACHERS

    That’s why I’m pleased to announce today that the Government will be setting up a programme to get outstanding leaders into the schools that need them the most.

    The Department for Education will be setting out further details in due course. But what I can say is that there will be a pool of top talent within the profession, a Champions League of Head Teachers, made up of Heads and Deputy Heads, who will stand ready to move to schools in challenging circumstances that need outstanding leaders.

    So if you’re a school facing tough challenges and finding it hard to recruit an exceptional leader, you’ll be able to call on this team and request someone with a proven leadership track record.

    We’re looking for experienced Head Teachers ready for a new challenge, or bright Deputy Heads looking to take the next step and lead a school.

    If you are selected, we’d need you to make a real commitment to the school, its staff and its children.

    You’ll receive help to relocate to the areas where you’re needed and the necessary professional support to turn around your school. And we will work to help you in your new role taking on this challenging school.

    This is entirely voluntary. No one will be forced to accept one of these positions or move.

    We want the first of these leaders to be in place from September 2014.

    Initially the scheme will start small, but our ambition is for this team to become as important to our education system as Teach First.

    CONCLUSION

    So in conclusion, if we’re to build a stronger economy and fairer society in Britain then we need every child in every region of our country to be succeeding.

    That’s the vision I have for education in this country. A system built on greater choice, innovation, accountability and excellence: designed to benefit everyone.

    Where every school has the freedom, autonomy and resources to thrive.

    Where every teacher is empowered to be the best, progressing and improving throughout their career.

    Where every parent has a guarantee that their child will receive the best standard of education available.

    And where every child gets the attention, support and excellent teaching they need to achieve the happy and fulfilling life they want.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference (Second Speech)

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Glasgow on 18th September 2013.

    Three years ago – nearly three and a half – I walked into the Cabinet Office for my first day as Deputy Prime Minister.

    Picture it: history in the making as a Liberal Democrat leader entered, finally, into the corridors of power, preparing to unshackle Britain after years of Labour and Conservative rule. Only to arrive and find an empty room and one shell-shocked civil servant promising me we’d get on with things shortly – but first he had to get us some desks.

    You saw the calm bit in the rose garden. What you didn’t see was the utter chaos indoors. To say the Coalition caught Whitehall off guard is a massive understatement. The Government machine had no idea how it was going to handle power sharing – and not just the furniture, this was going to need a complete overhaul of how decisions would be taken and departments would be run. And – while no one really wanted to admit it at the time – the truth is, no one was quite sure how it was all going to work.

    Here we were, this anti-establishment liberal party – which hadn’t been in power for 70 years – smack bang in the middle of Her Majesty’s Government: a Government machine built to serve one party, with only one party leader at the centre, now suddenly having to answer to two parties and two party leaders. Alongside us were these Tories, who we had been at war with for the past month – well, actually, more like the last hundred years.

    The country was deep in economic crisis, in desperate need of stable Government. And the whole thing was set to a soundtrack of pessimism and naysaying: the Liberal Democrats had signed their own death warrant. The Coalition would fall in a matter of months. Britain would be the next Greece.

    So let’s just stop and think about where we are now: The country’s economy growing stronger by the day. Stable, successful coalition – something that seemed impossible now accepted as the norm. And the Liberal Democrats proving that we can be trusted with the biggest responsibility of all – fixing the economy.

    I know how hard it has been getting here – facing down all the vitriol from our opponents. Trust me, there were days I thanked my lucky stars that my children were too young to understand some of the things that were written and said. But every insult we have had to endure since we entered Government, every snipe, every bad headline, every blow to our support: That was all worth it – because we are turning Britain around.

    We haven’t won over every critic; we’ll be tested a million more times. But the big question mark that has always hung over the Liberal Democrats – could we handle Government, and handle it when the going got tough? – that question mark is now gone. This recovery wouldn’t be happening without us.

    We have made sure the deficit is being cut at the right pace. We were the ones who said you don’t just get growth by cutting red tape – Government also needs to invest in things: infrastructure, apprenticeships, regional growth.

    So I want you to feel proud today. Feel proud that the country’s fortunes are turning. Feel proud that, when we were under pressure to buckle and change course, we held our nerve. Feel proud that we are right here, in the centre of Government and the centre of British politics, standing up for the millions of people in the middle.

    I have talked to you before about our journey from the comforts of opposition to the realities of Government – but not anymore. Liberal Democrats – we are a party of Government now. And just think of what we have achieved in three short years.

    For the first time ever, our schools get given money – our Pupil Premium – to stop children from the poorest families from falling behind – the first time ever. More than a million men and women have started training as apprentices – record numbers. Businesses across every region are being given billions to help them grow.

    We’ve made the biggest investment in our railways since the Victorian times. We’ve created a bank devoted to clean, green industry – a world first. Elderly people will no longer have to sell their homes to pay for social care because we’ve capped the crippling costs. Mothers will no longer be worse off in retirement because our new simpler, fairer state pension recognises the value of raising a family.

    Fathers will have the choice of staying at home once their children are born because we’re transforming parental leave.

    All parents will get free, extra childcare, paid for by the state, when their children turn three or two for the families who need it most. We stopped ID cards. We’ve taken innocent people off the DNA database. We’ve ended child detention in the immigration system. 0.7% of national wealth spent on aid for the world’s poorest – our party’s policy for years. Not to mention getting the banks in order and helping create over a million new jobs.

    And, one last one: at a time when millions of people are feeling the squeeze, when every penny counts, we’ve cut income tax bills by £700 and taken almost three million people on low pay out of paying any income tax altogether.

    The Tories like to claim credit for that one now, don’t they? But do you remember the TV debates? David Cameron turned to me, in front of the whole country, and said: ‘I would love to take everyone out of their first £10,000 of income tax Nick, but we cannot afford it’. Well, we can afford it. And we did it. A stronger economy and a fairer society too.

    Actually, just one more, and my new favourite: just a few months ago, our Government – our Government – passed a law that will make Britain a place where we finally celebrate love and commitment equally between couples whether they are gay or straight: Equal Marriage. Three years. Three years. We’re not even done yet.

    Can you imagine what we could do with five more? You should be able to –we’ve spent the last five days talking about it. This whole week has been about looking forward and one thing is very clear: the Liberal Democrats don’t want to go back to the opposition benches, because we aren’t done yet.

    Because here’s what’s at stake at the next election: The country is finally emerging from the biggest economic crisis in living memory. The absolute worst thing to do would be to give the keys to Number 10 to a single party Government – Labour or the Conservatives.

    All of the sacrifices made by the British people – the pay freezes, the spending cuts, the lost jobs, the daily grind of austerity – all of that would be for nothing. Labour would wreck the recovery. The Conservatives would give us the wrong kind of recovery. Only the Liberal Democrats can finish the job and finish it in a way that is fair.

    In 2015 the clapped out politics of red, blue, blue red threatens everything we have achieved. But, back in Government – and next time that will mean back in coalition Government – the Liberal Democrats can keep the country on the right path.

    Imagine the next round of leaders’ debates everyone watching to see who agrees with whom this time. David Cameron will say to Ed Miliband: you’re irresponsible, you are going to drive the economy to ruin. Ed Miliband will say to David Cameron: you can’t be trusted to help everyone, your party only cares about the rich. For once, I will agree with them both. Because they’re both right: left to their own devices, they’ll both get it wrong.

    But, Liberal Democrats, we have learned a lot since getting into Government, and one of the main things I have learnt is this: If we’re asking people to put us back in the room next time round, if we want them to know why it’s better to have us round the table when the big decisions are made, they need to be able to make a judgement about what we’ll do there. And that’s as much about values, character, background as anything else.

    They need to know who we are. Who I am. Why I’m a Liberal Democrat and why I’m standing here today. So, let me start with this: I was part of a generation raised – in the 70s and 80s – on a constant diet of aggressive, us-and-them politics.

    I have so many memories of my brothers, my sister and I watching television and asking our parents why everyone seemed so upset. Angry, shouty Labour politicians. Union leaders gesticulating furiously, next to pictures of rubbish piling up on the streets. And later: stand offs between crowds of miners and rows of riot police.

    At school I was being taught all about the Cold War – the backdrop to all of this; I even remember a history teacher telling me and my petrified classmates that we probably wouldn’t make it until Christmas because there was bound to be a Soviet strike. So the world I grew up in was all about stark, polarised choices. Us vs them; East vs West; Left vs Right.

    An incompetent Labour Government had been replaced by a heartless Conservative Government. All anyone seemed to care about was whose side you were on. So I steered clear of party politics.

    Then, one day, when I was 22 and studying in America, the phone rang and it was my mum. She had just heard on the News that the Berlin Wall was coming down. So my flatmate and I tuned in our radio, and we sat and listened for hours to reports of people coming out of their homes in the middle of the night and literally hammering away at this symbol of division and hate.

    And I can remember so clearly the sense of optimism and hope. Anyone here who’s my age will understand: it really felt as though the dark, drab days of angry politics and conflict could now give way to something better. But, in the weeks and months that followed, when I looked to the Government of my country, the British Government, to see if they were raising their sights to help shape this brave new world.

    All I could see was a bunch of Tories too busy tearing strips off each other – embroiled, surprise surprise, in rows about European Treaties and widget directives. It was so totally dispiriting: everything I’d come to abhor about the politics with which I’d grown up: insular, petty, polarised.

    And if that had been the end of the story, I doubt I would have entered politics at all. But it wasn’t. Enter Paddy Ashdown. I met Paddy, for the first time, when he came into a dingy, grey, bureaucratic office I was working in in Strasbourg. It was the middle of a major trade dispute between America and Europe.

    He marched in, everyone instinctively stood to attention, and in what seemed like the blink of an eye: he ordered a cup of coffee, instructed the room on how to solve the world’s trade wars, issued a series of action points that should have been delivered yesterday, reassured us all it would be alright, and then swept out.

    This was the first time I’d seen a British politician talking with passion and conviction and without defensiveness or fear about the challenges in the world and the leadership Britain needed to show. The Liberal Democrats seemed so outward looking and forward looking, compared to the tired, old, introverted politics of Labour and the Conservatives. For me, that was it. That’s how I found our party.

    So I know what it is like to look at the old parties and want more – to want a party that speaks for big, enduring values. And what the Liberal Democrats gave me 20 years ago. Showing me there was something better than the tired choice between Labour and the Conservatives is something I want us to give to people across Britain today.

    What do you think Britain would look like today if the Tories had been alone in Whitehall for the last three years? What would have happened without Liberal Democrats in this Government? I haven’t said enough about it.

    It’s a bit old fashioned, but I always thought it was better, in politics, to tell people about the things you’ve achieved not just the things you’ve stopped. But people do need to know how coalition operates and what we do day in day out inside Government.

    Ultimately it’s up to the Prime Minister and me to make this work; where there are disagreements, we try and seek compromise, and by doing that we’ve cracked problems that single party Governments have struggled with for decades: social care, pension reform, reducing reoffending, and so on.

    But sometimes compromise and agreement isn’t possible and you just have to say “no”. Inheritance tax cuts for millionaires – no. Bringing back O’ levels and a two-tier education system – no. Profit-making in schools – no. New childcare ratios – no. Firing workers at will, without any reasons given – no, absolutely not.

    Regional pay penalising public sector workers in the north – no. Scrapping housing benefit for young people – no. No to ditching the Human Rights Act. No to weakening the protections in the Equalities Act. No to closing down the debate on Trident. Had they asked us, no to those ‘go home’ poster vans.

    No to the boundary changes if you cannot deliver your side of the bargain on House of Lords reform. And if there’s one area where we’ve had to put our foot down more than any other, have a guess. Yep, the environment.

    It’s an endless battle; we’ve had to fight tooth and nail; it was the same just this week with the decision to introduce a small levy to help Britain radically cut down on plastic bags.

    They wanted to scrap Natural England, hold back green energy. They even wanted geography teachers to stop teaching children about how we can tackle climate change. No, no and no – the Liberal Democrats will keep this Government green.

    I don’t pretend it’s always easy to say no. Sometimes I’ve had to wrestle with some genuinely difficult dilemmas – not just Tory party dogma.

    With the Snoopers’ Charter, I took months listening to Home Office officials, the IT experts, the security services and the police because, as much as I am in Government to protect civil liberties, I also have to go to sleep at night knowing I did my bit to keep people safe.

    Government ministers, loud voices in the Labour party, the securocrats and Whitehall were all adamant I should say yes. But, when push came to shove, it became clear that the surveillance powers being proposed were disproportionate: they would have massively undermined people’s privacy, but the security gain was neither proven nor clear. It was right for the establishment, but wrong for the people. So I said no.

    Obviously, we haven’t been in coalition with Labour. I could give you a hypothetical list of bad ideas the Liberal Democrats would have to stop – but that would involve Labour producing some actual policies. Who here knows Labours plan for our schools? Or welfare? What would they do for the NHS? For industry? To cut crime?

    Well, Labour may not have an economic strategy, but fortunately we do. A bold plan for growth agreed by conference two days ago, built on sound public finances, with house-building, infrastructure and lending to business at its heart – Liberal Democrats turning Britain around.

    The truth is, Labour haven’t set out any kind of vision for Britain because they didn’t think they needed to. They have spent the last three years lazily assuming austerity would drive voters into their laps. For them, 2015 is all about the coalition parties losing rather than Labour having to actually try and win. And that tells you everything about why they act the way they do: their deliberate decision to put tactical victories ahead of long-term reform.

    Remember the AV referendum? Not a happy memory for the Liberal Democrats, I accept. But do you remember that AV was in fact in Labour’s manifesto? Yet it was Labour figures who were most staunch in the defence of the status quo – just to score points against us. Lords reform – something they historically believe in. Yet when they had the chance to vote for it they found excuses not to – just to score points against us.

    Even when we hear good news about the economy, they’re miserable – they’d rather it be bad, just to score points against us. So I have a message for Labour today: you can’t just duck responsibility for the past – refuse to spell out what you’d do in the future – and expect people to give you a blank cheque.

    You can sit and wait for the British people to come back to you, but don’t hold your breath. And if there is one area all of the parties need to put politics aside, it’s Europe, and Britain’s place in it. The Conservatives have this bizarre view that we can turn our back on Europe and still lead in the world.

    As if we’ll be taken seriously by the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, all the big superpowers when we’re isolated and irrelevant in our own backyard. But the truth is we stand tall in Washington, Beijing, Delhi when we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

    I know it because I worked there; I have seen with my own eyes what can be achieved for Britain by engaging with our neighbours and building the world’s largest borderless single market upon which millions of jobs in our country now depend.

    Of course the European Union needs reform – no one is saying it doesn’t. But we cannot allow the contorted confusion of the right, the outright isolationism of UKIP, to jeopardise millions of British jobs and diminish Britain’s standing in the world.

    Liberal Democrats, it falls to us to stand up for the national interest: we will be the party of In. I am an internationalist – pure and simple; first by birth, then by marriage, but above all by conviction. We may be an island nation, but there’s no such thing as an economic island in an age of globalisation.

    And Britain is always at its strongest and proudest when we are open to the world – generous-spirited and warm-hearted, working with our neighbours and a leader on the world stage. That’s the message I will take to New York next week, when I represent the UK at the United Nations General Assembly.

    There are some in the world who seek to present us as pulling up the drawbridge, following Parliament’s decision not to consider a military intervention in Syria – but they will hear from me that they are wrong.

    My views on Syria are well known: I believe the use of chemical weapons – a war crime under international, humanitarian law – should be stopped wherever possible.

    But I understand why some people are wary of another entanglement in the Middle East – Iraq casts a long shadow – and we now have the opportunity to work with the UN, the Russians, the Americans, the French and others to put these heinous weapons beyond the reach of Assad’s regime.

    What matters now is that we are clear that this nation is not heading into retreat. It would be a double tragedy if the legacy of Iraq was a Britain turned away from the world.

    Others look to our values and traditions for inspiration. Democracy, peaceful protest, equality before the law. That, in itself, confers a leadership role on us. Not as some military superpower. Not out of some nostalgic impulse after the loss of empire.

    But because we believe in the virtues of law, peaceful dissent, political stability and human rights as enduring liberal values.

    These are values that my own family – affected by the wars and conflicts of the past like so many other families – never took for granted.

    And Miriam and I try to teach our sons that they shouldn’t take these values for granted either. After Spain moved to democracy in the 1970s, Miriam’s father was the first democratically elected Mayor in a small agricultural town in the middle of the countryside.

    He single handedly brought better schools, more jobs and better housing to his community. He was hugely proud of being the first Mayor to serve his community through the ballot box. He sadly died some years ago, and there’s a small statue of him today outside the church in Miriam’s village.

    Our small boys see that statue every holiday and Miriam tells them of the wonderful things he did. And they always ask about why he was elected and no one before him. We teach them that democracy and freedom are a fragile and recent thing in many parts of the world.

    We teach them – just as my parents taught me – that rights and values should never be taken for granted, and if you believe in them, you should stand up for them.

    And that is the United Kingdom that I want my children – all children – to grow up in: a United Kingdom that defends and promotes its values – our liberal values – at home and abroad.

    It is now a year to the day until the Scottish people decide whether or not to leave the UK. The independence referendum. I unambiguously, unequivocally want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. The nationalists don’t have a monopoly on passion in this debate. I love the way the UK is made up of different peoples, different traditions, different histories.

    I’ve sat in rugby grounds shouting my head off for England while the Scottish fans have shouted back just as loud – and it is a very special thing when good natured rivalry can flourish side by side with a feeling of affinity and closeness that comes from being a family of nations. And on every single level we are stronger together than we are apart.

    We live in uncertain times, in an uncertain world – these are not days to build walls. They are days to bring them down. The decision in a year’s time does not need to be between breaking the bond or keeping the status quo – that’s a false choice.

    ‘No’ does not mean no change.

    A Scottish decision to remain within the UK family can and must give way to a new settlement for this nation. The Liberal Democrats have always fought for more powers for Scotland – and Wales and Northern Ireland too. In Coalition we have overseen the biggest transfer of financial freedoms in 300 years. And, from Gladstone to Grimond to today, we continue to believe in home rule.

    Ming Campbell has recently produced a superb report setting out how we think home rule will work in the future. Our vision is of a proud and strong Scotland, within the United Kingdom, in charge of its own fate but part of a family of nations too. This is a vision shared by many Scots and, increasingly, the other major political parties.

    That is why – once the issue of Scotland’s continued participation in the United Kingdom is hopefully settled next year – I want to see a new cross party approach to the next advance in Scottish devolution.

    Willie Rennie has signalled his willingness to work with the Scottish Labour and Conservative leaders ahead of next year’s vote – and I support him.

    Delivering Home Rule is a tantalising prospect that is now closer than it has been for a generation.

    So let’s get out there to win the referendum in favour of keeping our nations together – and then work with others to deliver the future Scotland wants.

    I had the pleasure of meeting one of Scotland’s finest this summer – Andy Murray. It was at a reception in the Downing Street garden the day after his stunning Wimbledon victory. David Cameron, Ed Miliband and I were all kind of fluttering around him, trying to ask clever questions about the Djokovic match, when Andy Murray suddenly interrupted with: ‘you all seem to get along now, why can’t you always be like this?’

    A good question that was met with an awkward silence and the three of us shuffling our feet. He was right, it’s true: we can get on. We’re never going to be mates, but I’ve got nothing against them personally – politically, yes, personally, no.

    That’s why the constant, breathless speculation about how different party leaders get on kind of misses the point. I’m endlessly asked who I feel more ‘comfortable’ with – David Cameron or Ed Miliband? Wouldn’t our party be more comfortable with Labour? Aren’t we more comfortable with our present coalition partners? But I don’t look at Ed Miliband and David Cameron and ask myself who I’d be most comfortable with, as if I was buying a new sofa.

    In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to work with either of them because I’d be Prime Minister on my own thank you very much – and I’d like to think I’d do a better job too. So the best thing would be to put all of the predictions and personalities to one side. Whether or not we have another coalition is determined by the British people – not me, not you, the people.

    And if that happens, only their votes can tell us what combination of parties carries the greatest legitimacy. Our job is plain and simple: to get more Lib Dem MPs elected.

    A liberal commitment to genuine pluralism – genuine democratic choice – starts and finishes with the wishes of the public, not the preferences of the political classes.

    That’s one of the reasons why I’ve never shared the view that the aim of our party should be to realign British politics by joining up with one of the other parties.

    Roy Jenkins – someone I admired very much – believed that if we aligned with a modernising Labour party we could heal the divisions of the centre left. But, for me, joining forces for good with another party simply reduces democratic choice. The Liberal Democrats are not just some subset of the Labour or Tory parties – we’re no one’s little brother. We have our own values, our own liberal beliefs.

    We’re not trying to get back into Government to fold into one of the other parties – we want to be there to anchor them to the liberal centre ground, right in the centre, bang in the middle. We’re not here to prop up the two party system: we’re here to bring it down.

    My upbringing was privileged: home counties; private school; Cambridge University. I had a lot of opportunities. But I also had two parents who were determined that my brothers, my sister and I knew how lucky we were. On both sides, their families had experienced huge upheavals.

    My Dutch mother had spent much of her childhood in a prisoner of war camp. My dad’s Russian mother had come to England after her family lost everything in the Russian Revolution. So our home was full of different languages, relatives with different backgrounds, people with different views, music and books from different places.

    And my mother and father always told us that people’s fortunes can turn quickly – that good fortune should never be assumed and misfortune can occur suddenly, without warning.

    I think because of the traumas their parents had been through, while they wanted to give us everything, it was so important to them that we didn’t take things for granted.

    My brothers and sister and I were always taught to treat everyone the same, not to judge people by their background. We were raised to believe that everyone deserves a chance because everyone’s fortunes can change, often through no fault of their own.

    And now, as a father with three children at school, I have come to understand even more clearly than before that if we want to live in a society where everyone has a fair chance to live the life they want – and to bounce back from misfortune too – then education is the key.

    The gifts we give our children – self-confidence, an enthusiasm to learn, an ability to empathise with others, a joy in forging new friendships – these are instilled at an extraordinarily young age.

    That’s why I made social mobility the social policy objective of this Government – and I will want it to be the same for any Government I’m in. It’s why so much of my efforts over the last three years, and so much of the money available to us, has been invested in those crucial formative years:

    The 2.5 billion pound Pupil Premium that I first wrote about 10 years ago. The 15 hours of free pre-school help for all three and four year olds, and now two year olds from the homes who need it most. Shared parental leave; new rights to flexible working; tax free childcare. These are the measures I’ve spent more time on than anything else in this Coalition.

    If you want to know what I really believe in you will find it in these policies. Using the muscle of the state to create a level playing field when it counts most – when boys and girls are still forming their views, their characters, their hopes and their fears.

    That’s why I’m delighted to tell you that we are now also going to provide free school meals for all children of infant school age.

    From next September we’ll give every child in Reception, and Years 1 and 2 a healthy lunch every day – saving families more than £400 per year, per child.

    And, for the Liberal Democrats, this is a first step: my ambition is to provide free school meals for all primary school children. Another reason we want to get into Government again next time round.

    The Conservatives, on the other hand, have made it clear that their priority is to help some families over others, with a tax break for married couples. A tax break for some, funded through the taxes of everybody else – that tells you everything you need to know about their values.

    We, however, will help all families in these tough times, not just the kind we like best, by helping their young children get the best possible start in life – and that tells you everything about our values. Providing this kind of help, Liberal Democrats, is now, the most important thing we can do.

    Aside from anything else, that is how we restore people’s faith in our politics: by delivering for them in ways that are relevant and real. By talking to people about the things they care about, not what the political classes are talking about.

    It’s so easy to lose sight of those things when you’re stuck in the Westminster bubble. And I want to be honest with you: keeping a balance between politics and normal life isn’t straightforward.

    Politics these days is a roller-coaster ride of 24 hour news, breathless headlines, lurid tweets, endless polls, constant gossip about who’s up and who’s down. And you have to be really disciplined with yourself about keeping one foot in the real world to keep things in balance.

    Miriam and I chose not to live behind the Government battlements in Whitehall, so we live in the same home we’ve been in for some years. We try very hard to keep our family life normal and private – we keep our children away from the cameras. We don’t pretend we’re a model family – we are who we are. We try to make sure that Westminster doesn’t take over our lives.

    I know I won’t be in politics forever. What I will be is a father, a husband, a son, an uncle to all those I love in my family for good – just like anyone else. So, the longer I spend in this job, the more and more I cherish the human, direct and unstuffy way we Liberal Democrats do politics.

    Our zeal for knocking on doors, making ourselves available, speaking like human beings – we must never lose that. And, as much as I’m always telling you all to embrace Government, I’m forever looking for ways to try and get out of Whitehall myself.

    Taking answers on the radio; fielding questions in village halls; trying to help my constituents out when they come to see me in my Sheffield surgery; going out on regional tours; or, when I can’t get away, answering your questions online.

    Doing things differently must always be part of our identity. I want us to stay in Government – but I also want us to show that it is possible to be a party of Government without behaving like an establishment party.

    There was this wonderful moment on the day of the last vote on Equal Marriage. Some of us put pink carnations in our button holes and Alistair Carmichael and I were invited to go outside to meet some of the campaigners. Little did we know that they had set up an impromptu wedding ceremony – cake and dancing ‘n’ all – outside the Palace of Westminster.

    And we found ourselves standing side by side – if not quite hand in hand – in front of the exuberant London Gay Men’s Chorus, singing Abba’s Dancing Queen for us at the top of their voices.

    Meanwhile, inside the House of Lords, dinosaur opponents of the Bill were having a final go at killing it – declaring that gay marriage would be the end of civilisation as we know it. And, awkward though I think Alistair and I must have appeared as we lamely clapped along to Abba, at that moment we were exactly where we belonged: on the outside, welcoming in reform.

    Liberal Democrats, three years ago I told you that we had an opportunity our predecessors would have given anything for. To govern. To turn our liberal principles into practice. Today I tell you that an even bigger opportunity awaits. The cycle of red, blue, blue, red has been interrupted.

    Our place in this Government has prevented the pendulum swinging back from left to right. We are now where we always should have been: in power; in the liberal centre; in tune with the British people. And every day we are showing that we can govern and govern well. That pluralism works. And if we can do this again – in Government again in 2015 – we are a step closer to breaking the two party mould for good.

    In the past, there were people who would only support us when the future of the country was not at stake. Now there are people who will support us precisely because the future of the country will be at stake.

    In the past the Liberal Democrats would eke out an existence on the margins of British politics. Now we hold the liberal centre while our opponents head left and right. I have spent my entire life watching the other two mess it up.

    We cannot stand idly by and let them do it all over again. We are the only party that can finish the job of economic recovery, but finish it fairly.

    The only party able to build a stronger economy and a fairer society too.

    Liberal Democrats take that message out to the country. Our mission is anchoring Britain to the centre ground. Our place is in Government again.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, at the party conference held in Glasgow on 14th September 2013.

    Welcome to Glasgow. This year’s conference sees us gather in a city that has always been important to the Liberal Democrats, a city once represented by Roy Jenkins, that gave us Ming Campbell and where nearby in 2005 Jo Swinson won a famous victory to take her seat from Labour and become an MP at just 25.

    Before anything I want to pay tribute to our team of Scottish MPs who lead the way in Parliament in arguing for a United Kingdom that is strong, secure and together. All under the direction of our fantastic Chief Whip and rally compere.

    Over the course of the next year, our party will continue making the case for Scotland in the UK. And we have the right team to get the job done. In Mike Moore, we have a Scottish Secretary who has delivered more powers for Holyrood, who brokered the deal for a legal, fair and decisive referendum, when so many people said that it could not be done, and who is working with ministers across government, day after day, to make the positive case for the United Kingdom. In Danny Alexander we have a Highlander right at the heart of the Treasury. And in Willie Rennie we have a constant thorn in Alex Salmond’s side, and an enormous asset to our party, making a persuasive case for a liberal Scotland in a liberal United Kingdom.

    Jobs

    Tonight we’re talking about jobs. The Coalition Government has created a million jobs, and I want us to create a million more: a million jobs for a stronger economy. At the beginning of the rally we saw that wonderful video telling us about the first jobs held by our MPs. And the job of us all now, as a party of government, is to help other people into work. And, bluntly, we are the only authentic party of jobs. The only party that can speak credibly about creating jobs and jobs that last.

    The Conservatives

    The Conservatives have a bizarre idea that to create more jobs you need to increase insecurity. They aren’t the Party of Jobs. They are the Party of Fire At Will. Remember that? A proposal for bosses to get rid of staff no questions asked. A policy dreamed up by a Conservative donor without a shred of evidence to back it up. So we said no. But let’s be in no doubt that without us taking a stand in government it would have happened. Without us job security would have been a thing of the past, with employers able to get rid of staff on a whim.

    Liberal Democrats know it’s important to help businesses. That’s why our Government has given a National Insurance cut to firms, encouraging them to employ more people. But we also know that workers deserve the right to be treated fairly. So we will never sacrifice proper working conditions for the sake of a few easy headlines about ‘red tape’.

    Some Conservatives also seem to think that a job in the private sector somehow has more merit than someone working as a nurse or a teacher. But we know that you shouldn’t divide public and private sector workers as if only jobs in the private sector matter. The truth is that in both the public and private sectors people have made sacrifices: longer hours, more flexibility, pay freezes, to protect jobs. So we should be praising all of this country’s workers, public and private sector, for the determination they have shown in tough economic times.

    Labour

    And what about Labour? They used to have a lot to say about jobs. They predicted soaring unemployment. Ed Miliband actually said we had a programme that would ‘lead to the disappearance of a million jobs’. Now that we have actually created a million he’s gone strangely quiet on that prediction. Have you noticed how miserable they look when unemployment goes down? In the same way they gambled on an endless boom when they were in government they prayed for an endless recession when they were in opposition.

    Now I know that some people in our party don’t like us being too nasty to Labour, so in the spirit of cross-party cooperation, I’m going to help them make a start. If the Eds are watching, here is the first thing they should do to win back the trust of people. Apologise.

    Apologise for being too busy schmoozing the bankers to worry about the risks they were taking with the economy. Apologise for not balancing the books in the good times. Apologise for abolishing the 10p tax rate.

    Of course they don’t want to acknowledge their mistakes. Here’s what Ed Balls said recently: “Do I think the last Labour government was profligate, spent too much, had too much national debt? No I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.”

    Well if he wants some evidence we can start with Exhibit A: a certain note left on David Laws’ desk by Liam Byrne. So Labour can’t talk about jobs – because they simply have nothing to say.

    Lib Dems

    But we can campaign as the party of jobs. We are the only party that believes in releasing the potential of everyone, creating a society where everybody gets a fair chance in life. And that means making sure they get the opportunity to find work. We know that unemployment isn’t just about statistics or a rising bill for benefits. It’s about ambitions thwarted, potential frustrated, and the spirit-crushing sense that you are not being allowed to take control of your own destiny. And youth unemployment, where people can find themselves left on the scrapheap without even having been given the chance to prove themselves, is a scourge we must tackle.

    But the Liberal Democrats have a proud story to tell on jobs and the economy.

    We can tell people how we took the right decisions in government to make sure interest rates were kept down and protected people from the economic crises we have seen elsewhere in Europe.

    And we can point to our record of action in government to show how we have worked tirelessly to create jobs even in the tough times.More people in work than ever before. A record number of women in work. Employment up by a million.

    And we can tell people how we want to do even more: more apprentices, more help for business, more bank lending. Building a stronger economy in a fairer society enabling every person to get on in life.

    As we saw this evening this party has campaigned on many things over the years. Hong Kong passports; rights for Gurkhas, Iraq. If we put the same zeal into this campaign as we did into those a million households could see their lives transformed. A million new opportunities will have been created. And we won’t be asking the government to do something. We will be doing it in government.

    Unity

    That’s the spirit of this whole conference – a party dealing with the realities and opportunities of government. Conference is a time when our party’s strong democratic beliefs are seen most clearly. I’m just the latest in a long line of party leaders to know that when it comes down to it I have one vote in the conference hall just like the rest of you.

    The Prime Minister would love to have a party that can debate the policies without tearing itself apart. And Ed Miliband? He’d just like some policies. Since our party was formed, every step of our journey has been taken together. We have decided the policies, fought the campaigns and taken on the vested interests. We decided, together, to go into government. People who don’t understand us like to call debate division. I think it is debate that give us our unity. Unity about what we want to see for our country. Fairer taxes. A rebalanced economy that benefits the whole country. And a green planet safe for our children. And thanks to us that green planet will have far fewer plastic bags in it.

    That’s why we can debate honestly and with respect. Let’s remember to be proud of what we’ve done – and proud of what we all want our party to do in the future.

    And let’s take a look at the other parties and what sets us apart. This is a great party and in a short space of time we have achieved great things. So I want you to enjoy your time in Glasgow and when the debates are over and the speeches have finished I want you to join me in getting back out there and telling everyone this: we are the party of fairness; we are the party of freedom; and, yes, we are the party of jobs.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Speech on Woolwich Murder

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, at a community event at the Peabody Centre in Islington on 24th May 2013.

    Can I thank you all very, very much for being here and can I thank, particularly, everybody at the Hugh Cubitt Centre, all the volunteers here, everyone from the Peabody operation. You’ve helped us to organise this at very, very short notice indeed.

    It was a suggestion made to me by friends of mine in the London Muslim community just yesterday, that we should get together at a time of obviously heightened anxiety, given the horrific events in Woolwich. And to be able to gather together like this, given how busy everybody is, is a real tribute to everybody at the centre, and indeed to all of you.

    We are represented here in all of the wonderful diversity that we know is modern London: different political parties, different faiths, different communities, representatives from the armed services, from the police. I really am very, very grateful to you all for being here. And I hope that – in fact I know that I speak on behalf of everybody here when I say that my heart goes out and my thoughts are with the family and the friends of Drummer Lee Rigby, who was so brutally and savagely killed in Woolwich.

    I think in many ways, the fact that we’ve come together is much more important than what anyone’s actually going to say at the event because the fact that we’re here together from so many different directions, from so many parts of the diversity that is London is a – sends out a message.

    It sends out a very, very simple message of hope over fear, of community over division and that is immensely important. I think that you’ve done all of that and that by coming together in that way, by sending out that clear signal, you really have provided a great service to all of the communities who are asking themselves searching questions in London and across the country today.

    Because let’s be clear. People who inflict such random, savage violence in the name of some entirely warped ideology or some entirely perverted concept of religion in the way that we have seen on our television screens – which has been made all the more unsettling I think, because the individuals concerned dressed, spoke, appeared to all intents and purposes like so many other young Londoners that we might come across every day of the week.

    Let’s be under no illusion. What they want, of course, is to sow that corrosive seed of fear and division. What they want is for governments and the authorities to overreact in their immediate reaction. What they want is for communities to turn inwards and away from each other. What they want, in short, is to spread fear.

    Fear is an extraordinarily powerful emotion and when fear takes root, all of us as individuals, we will avert our gaze from someone who we might be fearful of, who we weren’t before. We might cross the street away from an individual who we’re not so sure about. We might worry about our children and about our families in a way that we haven’t done before.

    It has a very, very corrosive effect on every part of our lives and we have a choice. We have a choice to either allow that powerful corrosive feeling of fear to seep into every second and minute and hour of our lives or we can make a choice that we’re not going to change our behaviour. We’re not going to disrupt normal life. We’re going to continue our life as before. We’re going to continue to reach out to each other. We’re going to continue to look people in the eye. We’re going to continue to be the diverse community that we are, and you have made that choice by coming to this event.

    London has made that choice by celebrating this kind of event and it has shown once again how unbeatable London is in the face of this attempt to sow fear, sow division and sow mutual suspicion in our community. So I want to pay genuine tribute, to each and every one of you for making that choice. It is a positive choice and is the most powerful dignified reply and rejection of what we saw and what we heard on Wednesday in Woolwich.

    Finally, before I ask the Deacon and others to speak for themselves, I want to pay special tribute to those amongst you who are leaders and spokespeople of our Muslim communities. The fact that all of you who’ve spoken out so very clearly and so very cogently and so very quickly to reject it utterly. As the Prime Minister quite rightly said, what we heard from these two individuals was a total unqualified betrayal of Islam, a religion of peace was being distorted, turned upside down and inside out, perverted in the cause of an abhorrent and violent set of intentions from those individuals.

    As I heard from someone in a discussion we just had earlier this morning, terrorism has no religion because there is no religious conviction that can justify the kind of arbitrary, savage, random violence that we saw on the streets of Woolwich. So thank you for speaking out as forcefully as you have done. Thank you for speaking out as clearly as you have done for a great salvation religion, for your faith, and for the communities in which you live and in which you lead.

    And in that spirit I would like to simply conclude by repeating a verse from the holy Quran, verse 32, chapter five. If anyone kills a human being, it shall be as though he killed all mankind, whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind.

    Thank you very much.