Tag: 2013

Baroness Verma – 2013 Speech on Empowering Women

Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Verma, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in Hyderabad, India on 6 September 2013.

Good Morning. I would like to thank the VC and faculty members of NALSAR for extending me a very warm welcome. I am, of course, delighted to be here. The UK government is committed to broadening, deepening and strengthening our partnerships on education. That means building stronger and deeper links between the best institutions in India, like this one, and the best institutions in the UK, and encouraging the brightest students to study in the UK. I was pleased to hear from your Vice Chancellor that NALSAR already has several collaborations with UK universities- I am certain that this will only deepen with the presence of the British Deputy High Commission here.

The UK India Education and Research Initiative has supported over 1,000 partnerships between UK and Indian institutions. Last year we saw over 150 institutions undertaking joint research and programme delivery, including research partnerships, study missions, staff and student exchanges, policy dialogues and networking events. I know that NALSAR has worked closely with UKIERI through the Higher Education Leadership Development Programme and I am certain that we can deepen that collaboration in the future.

Today I want to take this opportunity to address three key issues:

– The double challenge of climate change and population growth;

– The importance of resource efficiency to global competitiveness and economically resilience; and

– The need to involve women and all parts of society in decision making around economic development and future energy generation

On the first of these – climate change – this is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. Earlier this year, carbon dioxide briefly reached 400 parts per million in the atmosphere – 40% higher than before the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century and most likely higher than at any point in the last 3 million years.

Extreme weather events, such as the devastating floods in Uttarakhand earlier this year, are happening with increasing frequency. Global weather patterns, including the Indian monsoon, are changing in ways we cannot confidently predict.

The scientific evidence is solid and accepted by pretty much every government on earth. If we are to prevent the most devastating impacts of climate change, if we are to keep global temperature rises to below 2°C, we need to lower emissions of greenhouse gases on a global scale – effectively decarbonising the way our societies function.

And we need to do this at a time when we are living through an age of global growth and development. The UN estimates that by 2040, the world’s population is likely to be around nine billion people. India, currently home to 1.25 billion people, will soon have the largest population in the world. By 2040, India’s population could be approaching 1.6 billion.

The good news is that more and more people will enter the middle class. This means that more Indians than ever before will be able to afford air conditioners, televisions, computers, motorbikes and cars. This rise in prosperity is a colossal achievement;lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, improving the welfare and life opportunities of a whole generation,is a wonderful thing and should be celebrated.

At the same time, it also presents a challenge. How to provide the increased energy required by a growing and prospering India, without gambling with the lives and livelihoods of millions of people by increasing the risks of the most severe impacts of climate change.

There are those that say you can’t address both: that it is a myth. That it can’t be done. They say that reducing emissions means limiting economic growth. That caring for the environment means leaving millions in poverty. That resource-efficiency means having to limit the aspirations of hundreds of millions of young people. That a green economy is a brake on competitiveness for India as a whole.

That view is out of date.

Which brings me to my second issue – the importance of resource efficiency. In the twenty first century resource efficiency is not an optional extra for businesses, but an indispensable part of being globally competitive and economically resilient. Not only can genuinely sustainable development be affordable. If done right, it can actually compete – and win – against the old economy alternative.

In addition, by becoming more energy efficient, and using more indigenous renewable energy, countries which are net importers of energy, such as the UK and India, can potentially reduce their reliance on imports and volatile global energy markets.

To give just one example, in the UK we have ambitious plans to roll out smart meters to every household. These communicate electricity use by households to the supplier on a real time basis and will allow households to manage their electricity use more effectively, for example taking advantage of lower electricity prices at different times of day, or even sell power back to the grid. It will spur a whole new market for energy efficient appliances, technologies and business models to take advantage of the new, ‘smart’, grid.

The Indian government and Indian businesses also understand that efficient low-carbon development can be the foundation of a successful globally-competitive economy. Your government has developed and implemented a host of policies which tackle this challenge head on:

The National Action Plan on Climate Change, with its missions on solar power and energy efficiency;

State action plans on climate change, which mandate action at the state level,

And a host of other policies and initiatives around renewable energy, off-grid clean energy, smart grids and new technologies.
And Indian businesses have understood this for years. It is the essence of the Indian tradition of ‘frugal development’ which makes some Indian industries amongst the most resource efficient in the world.

In the UK we have made a commitment to cut carbon emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. And we have made this commitment legally binding through the 2008 Climate Change Act – the first comprehensive economy-wide climate legislation of its kind.

I want to take this opportunity, given I am standing in front of a room full of people who know a lot about the law, to encourage you to think about the importance of legislation in this whole equation. In the UK, we couldn’t have come so far without the political consensus embodied in the Climate Change Act. It changed the nature of the whole domestic debate: from should we tackle climate change to how and in what sequence we should tackle it. It has given industry and policy-makers the certainty to make medium and long term decisions.

GLOBE – the UK-based international NGO which works on climate change legislation – publishes a study every year, setting out different legislation across their member countries. This year it looks at 33 countries – India and the UK included. I will share a copy with Professor (Dr) Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor.

I know that the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly is also taking a real interest in this issue. The Deputy High Commission team is working closely with the Speaker of the Assembly and the Assembly’s environmental committee to share our own experience. So I would urge you here at state and national level to give real thought to how you can use such legislation to back up your own actions to tackle climate change.

Now, back to the UK’s own legislation.To achieve the 80% target we have committed to internationally, we have been taking action on three fronts: saving energy; reforming our electricity market; and encouraging new solutions.

We plan to cut our energy use by between a third and half by 2050 – much of which will be achieved through improved building efficiency. Later today I am visiting the Confederation of Indian Industry’s Green Business Centre, which is housed in a green building, which, in 2003 was first building outside the US and only the third in the world, to receive the prestigious Platinum Rating for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Quite possibly some of the design innovations and technologies I will see could be used to help improve energy efficiency in buildings in the UK.

The UK’s Energy Bill, which is currently going through parliament, will also provide a competitive energy market where low-carbon technologies participate on a level playing field.

And finally, we are investing in research and development both in the UK, and in research partnerships with countries like India. UK-India research collaboration has grown from £1 million in 2008 to over £100 million now. Much of this research is in the energy field, in sectors like sustainable bioenergy, solar and nuclear power and smart grids and energy storage. Because, quite simply, the UK won’t meet its low carbon targets with current technologies at current costs.

All well and good, but, to my third issue,what has the global challenge of climate change got to do with empowering women?

For a start, both are amongst the top priorities of the UK Government.

Indeed, British Prime Minister David Cameron not only committed to making his administration the “greenest government ever” but has also committed to building a fair and equal society.

The well-being of women and children has been placed at the centre of the UK Government’s international aid policy.

In 2010 we published the first ever UK Equality Strategy which gives a commitment to building a strong economy and a fairer society.We have established the Women’s Business Council to ensure that the government gets the best advice on how to ensure that women can fulfill their full potential and also achieve economic growth.

But more needs to be done, in the UK, and in India. Not only is it morally right to give women the same opportunities as men in order to fulfill their potential – but it is also economically smart. As Prime Minster David Cameron, has said, “where the potential and perspective of women are locked out of the decisions that shape a society, that society remains stunted and underachieving”.

Decisions about how our economies develop and how we generate the energy to support them are among the decisions that shape our society. And the fact is that all too often women are locked out of those decisions.

Worldwide the energy sector workforce is overwhelmingly male dominated. In the UK, the proportion of women in the energy sector workforce is approximately 23%, compared to 50% across the workforce as a whole. The gender divide is even more pronounced in the upstream oil and gas sector.

I spoke to a range of impressive senior women working in the energy and climate change space in Delhi on Thursday evening. They confirmed that they too face many of these issues here in India.

We have some shining examples of female leaders in the energy sector in the UK, such as Juliet Davenport the CEO of Good Energy, a renewable electricity supplier, Ann Robinson Director of USwitch, a consumer group, and Sarah Butler-Sloss, Founder Director of the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy, a charity encouraging increased local sustainable energy. But unfortunately they are still the exception.

Why does this matter?

It matters because if we are to successfully tackle the challenges I have outlined above, we need to ensure we use all tools at our disposal. Encouraging more women into the energy sector will bring fresh perspectives, talent, better decisions and broader experience.

But it’s not just about bringing more women into energy sector workplaces. It is also about how changes in the energy sector can actually help empower women.

3 billion people around the world have no access to modern cooking fuels. They depend mostly on direct burning of solid biomass such as wood and animal dung for cooking and heating. The smoke from these rudimentary stoves cause about 4 million deaths annually, destroy millions of tonnes of crops and also lead to global warming and large scale regional climate change.

Women and children, particularly girls, are disproportionately affected by the indoor air pollution caused by the stoves. They also bear the burden of drudgery collecting fuel, a task which can often take 4-5 hours a day – time which could otherwise be spent on educational, economic and other opportunities.

The Indian government is taking action. The National Biomass Cookstoves Initiative (NBCI) was launched by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy in December 2009 to provide improved cookstoves which directly address health concerns and welfare concerns of the weakest and most vulnerable sections of society.

The UK’s Department for International Development is working with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

The aim of the TERI project is to have improved cookstoves delivered and being used by 100,000 households, and to have created Technology Resource Centres serving an estimated 400,000 households adopting solar lighting systems in India. As a result, a total of 500,000 poor women will benefit from lower health risks from indoor air pollution and reduced drudgery, and 2.5 million people will benefit from new or sustained access to modern, clean energy either for cooking or lighting needs. In addition, TERI plans to contribute new research and evidence to national or state-level policies in the area of sustainable development.

As part of the project TERI works closely with women both in their capacity as direct beneficiaries and, by developing new, sustainable business models, as economic actors in the supply chain. TERI has incubated women’s organisations as Energy Enterprises which provide after sales services for the cookstoves. It is also helping women to start up sustainable businesses by providing support to them to open bank accounts and providing training in social marketing and technical servicing.

Similarly, women candidates are given priority for selection as village level entrepreneurs under TERI’s Lighting a Billion Lives programme – which supports the establishment of micro solar enterprises to provide high-quality and cost effective solar lamps in un-electrified or poorly electrified villages.

This is not about hand outs. It is about supporting the development of sustainable business models that empower women and provide clean energy and lighting.

And it works. In Uttar Pradesh, more than 175 solar charging stations are now being operated by women entrepreneurs. 100 are operated and maintained by women self-help groups, while 75 are operated by further marginalized sections of the society such as handicapped women, widows and dalits. In Bihar, TERI has created energy enterprises to extend after sales service to more than 1,000 women self-help groups.

Earlier this week I visited some of those villages in UP where TERI has been working. I was able to see some remarkable women entrepreneurs who have transformed their lives by developing successful and sustainable business models in the energy sector.

I was struck by the enormous the impact such simple yet innovative technologies and business models can have on the lives of the women using them, and their families. But there is still scope for even more innovation here – particularly around how to develop the financial products and legal frameworks to help women access very small scale financing needed to adopt these products.

So it’s not all just about the engineering. You lawyers have a role to play here too.

We know that when a woman generates her own income she re-invests 90% of it in her family and community. And we know that in India, the states with more women in work have seen faster economic growth and the largest reductions in poverty. So empowering women economically makes sense for both local communities and national economies.

It is also essential if we are going to tackle the challenge of powering the economies of the future in a sustainable way. We simply can’t afford to overlook half the population as we search for solutions. We need more women in the energy business. In order to achieve this we need to provide them with access to finance, technology, and quality education and training.

So, in conclusion, I have talked about the twin challenges of climate change and population growth. I have also discussed why resource efficiency is not only key to tackling these challenges, but is also central to global competitiveness and economically resilience.

Finally, I highlighted the need to involve women in the decision making process. Because if we fail to, not only will be perpetuating a system that is inherently unfair and wrong, we will also be missing out on the new ideas, fresh perspectives and entrepreneurial talents of half of society. By doing so, we would make tackling the climate change and energy challenge a lot harder.

I will conclude with one question to you- once you have left this room, what is the one thing that you will do to address these issues that I have outlined to you- what is the one thing that will do to make this world a better place for your future generations?

Thank you.

February 1, 2016
George Osborne – 2013 Keynote Speech on the Economy

Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 9 September 2013.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Today I want to talk to you about this government’s plan for economic recovery.

Now, you’re probably thinking that a construction site is a strange place to make a speech.

But I’ve invited you here for a reason.

This development – 1 Commercial Street – began in 2007.

The plan was to turn this building into 21 floors of office space, private apartments and affordable housing.

Construction began; and continued at a pace.

Until in 2008 the work simply stopped.

Investors pulled out.

Jobs were lost.

And the site lay silent for three years.

But last year, something exciting happened.

Construction began again.

Today, 230 people are working here at 1 Commercial Street to complete the development – and it will open its doors next year.

I’ve brought you here because this building is a physical reminder of what our economy has been through in the last six years.

The message from here to the British people is this.

The economic collapse was even worse than we thought.

Repairing it will take even longer than we hoped.

But we held our nerve when many told us to abandon our plan.

And as a result, thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of the British people, Britain is turning a corner.

Many risks remain. These are still the early stages of recovery.

But we mustn’t go back to square one.

We mustn’t lose what the British people have achieved.

This is a hard, difficult road we have been following.

But it is the only way to deliver a sustained, lasting improvement in the living standards of the families of this country.

For I’m going to make another argument today: you don’t solve the pressure on cost of living with simply a shopping list of interventions and government regulation.

Of course, there are important improvements we can make to the scale of energy and water bills, the cost of housing, the fees paid for everyday financial services, the expense of rail and road travel.

These are a burden on families – and we are doing everything we can do to reduce their cost – with more to come this autumn.

We know every penny counts for hardworking people.

But by themselves these changes don’t amount to an economic policy.

And to focus exclusively on these things alone, important as they are, is to miss the wood for the trees.

I know that times are tough and that family budgets are squeezed.

But fundamentally, Britain is poorer than it was not because government didn’t intervene enough, or rail regulation wasn’t tough enough, or rental policies weren’t fair enough.

Britain is poorer because of a massive failure of economic policy in the last decade.

Jobs were lost. Unaffordable public spending had to be reined back. A flawed model of growth had to be reformed. Unregulated banks had to be rescued. That is why living standards fell.

The best way to improve living standards is to tackle these deep economic problems head on and build an economy where those who aspire to work hard and do the right thing are rewarded.

More good jobs. Tax free childcare. Low mortgage rates. More of your income tax free.

Our plan for the economy is a plan for living standards.

The alternative plan still being presented is a return to higher borrowing, more debt, more instability, lost jobs, rising interest rates and higher taxes.

These will all add hugely to the cost of living.

And that we know from bitter experience will make our nation poorer not richer.

Today I want to look at the economic evidence behind all these arguments.

First, let’s look at what the latest data tells us about the scale of what happened to the British economy in 2008, and the macro-economic imbalances and underlying structural weaknesses that left Britain so vulnerable.

Second, the plan we have robustly pursued since 2010 is designed to address those imbalances and deeper problems in order to move from rescue to recovery. So let’s assess the growing body of evidence that shows it is working.

Third, I will show you how our economic plan will help avoid the mistakes of the past in this new recovery phase.

We must reject the old quick fixes that lie behind so many of our problems and hold to the course we have set.

That is the only sustainable path to prosperity, rising living standards and a recovery that works for all.

First, the past.

It is not for nothing that the new Governor of the Bank of England and many other economists now describe the period of economic contraction in 2008-9 as the Great Recession.

The same recent revisions to GDP data that showed there was in fact no ‘double dip’ also revealed that the impact of that Great Recession was greater even than we thought three years ago.

GDP fell by 7.2% from peak to trough.

That is almost twice as deep as the recession experienced by the United States; three times as deep as that experienced by Britain in the early 1990s.

The immediate impact of the crisis is now a familiar story: the banking system almost collapsed, unemployment rose; and the budget deficit soared.

The currency depreciated dramatically, leading to a sharp rise in the cost of imports and putting downwards pressure on household incomes that is still being felt today.

What happened in Britain was the product of a pattern of economic development that had been fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable for many years.

The bailout of RBS was the biggest in the world because British banks had been allowed to become among the most leveraged and unstable in the world.

The banks reflected an economy that had become, on some estimates, the most indebted in the world – with total private sector debt reaching 470% of GDP by the beginning of 2010.

And the soaring budget deficit had its roots in an unsustainable increase in public spending in the eight years before the crisis – the second most rapid increase in spending as a share of GDP of all OECD countries.

As a result the government ran rising deficits even at the peak of the boom and entered the crisis with a structural deficit that the IMF estimates was more than 5% of GDP, the highest in the G7.

At the time most economists took a narrow view of sustainable growth: if inflation was low, and unemployment was close to its so-called ‘natural’ rate, then that was deemed to be enough.

Clearly that was a huge mistake.

We now know that truly sustainable growth also depends on sound public finances, well capitalized banks, healthy balance sheets, and a system of financial regulation that is alert to broader risks to the economy like asset bubbles and excessive debt.

The pre-crisis British economy was also unbalanced in other important ways.

Deep-rooted and long standing structural problems in our economy that had been masked by the great tide of debt were harshly exposed when the tide receded.

Growth had been too concentrated in one corner of the country while many other parts of Britain fell behind and became increasingly dependent on unsustainable levels of public spending.

Too many people remained trapped in dependency by an unreformed welfare and education system.

There is a focus today on the issue of household income growth.

What is less recognized is that household income growth had started to slow sharply from the early 2000s.

Annual growth in household disposable income more than halved from 3.6% on average over the five years before 2003, to an average of 1.7% in the five years after that.

The proceeds of unprecedented global prosperity and rising trade were not finding their ways into the pockets of British families.

Government borrowing to fund ever rising welfare transfers like tax credits – accompanied by the increase in household indebtedness – obscured this simple fact: Britain was not earning its way in the world.

As Raghuram Rajan – now the new Governor of the Reserve Bank of India – has compellingly written, stagnant incomes and declining productivity growth helped to fuel the bubble, as both households and the government used ever increasing levels of debt to maintain even more unsustainable levels of spending.

So these underlying structural weaknesses and our huge macroeconomic imbalances were intimately linked.

That is why the solution to the economic crisis the new British government faced in 2010 needed to confront both.

That brings me to my second argument: our economic plan is the right response to Britain’s macroeconomic imbalances and the evidence shows that it is working.

As I have argued for more than five years now, the correct macroeconomic response to the perilous economic situation in which the UK found itself in 2010 is a combination of fiscal responsibility and monetary activism.

Fiscal responsibility to deal with a record budget deficit over a period of several years; monetary activism to manage the process of deleveraging and support demand.

Some still question whether the government’s macroeconomic response was correct – whether we were right to hold to our economic plan.

The headline facts are not in dispute.

We know that recoveries after a financial crisis have historically been slower than other recoveries. But growth has been weaker than originally forecast.

Since the end of the recession the UK has grown by 4.3%, less than the US but more than the eurozone.

At the same time the labour market has performed much better than expected.

Employment has grown extremely strongly – more so than even the most optimistic forecasts, with over 1.3 million net new jobs created in the last three years.

Indeed, employment is now above its pre-recession peak in the UK.

That is not the case in the United States.

The difference is not simply down to growth in the labour force: our employment rate is above the US and has grown more quickly.

Particularly striking in comparing the UK and US experience is the different trends in working age inactivity – historically an Achilles Heel for the UK after previous recessions.

Since the crisis the working age inactivity rate in the UK has actually fallen by almost a percentage point to 23.5%, while in the US it has risen by over two percentage points to 27%.

Our unemployment rate would now be almost half what it is today if participation in the labour force had shrunk to the same degree as in America.

These are the facts.

The controversy has been why GDP growth has been weaker than originally forecast.

Broadly there have been two competing analyses.

The first is a simple – some would say simplistic – story that lays the blame mainly or sometimes entirely on fiscal consolidation.

Let’s call this the ‘fiscalist’ story of the last three years – and it was advanced by advocates of a so-called Plan B.

This argument claims that with interest rates at their lower bound, the fiscal multipliers – the impact of spending cuts and tax rises on output – have been much higher than anticipated, and the resulting impact of the consolidation on GDP growth far greater than forecast.

The second analysis is put forward by many independent economists, including those who support our economic plan, the so-called Plan A.

This analysis is that fiscal consolidation has not had any greater impact than originally allowed for in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s June 2010 forecasts.

Instead, the composition and timing of the slowdown in GDP growth relative to forecast is better explained by external inflation shocks, the eurozone crisis and the ongoing impact of the financial crisis on financial conditions.

This analysis – let’s call it the ‘financial conditions’ story of the last three years – has been set out in its most detailed form by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility in their Forecast Evaluation Reports.

As they put it, they are “still not persuaded” that the multipliers in the UK have been bigger than their original estimates.

In my view the last few months have decisively ended this controversy in favour of this ‘financial conditions/ story of the last three years.

Those in favour of a Plan B have lost the argument.

The reason is simple: proponents of the ‘fiscalist’ story cannot explain why the UK recovery has strengthened rapidly over the last six months.

The pace of fiscal consolidation has not changed, government spending cuts have continued as planned, and yet growth has accelerated and many of the leading economic indicators show activity rising faster than at any time since the 1990s.

If the fiscal multipliers were much higher than the OBR estimates, as the fiscalist story requires, this should not be possible.

Indeed, proponents of the fiscalist analysis predicted that stronger growth would only return if the government changed course and reduced the structural pace of consolidation.

In contrast, an analysis of the last three years that attributes weaker growth to the inflation shocks, the eurozone crisis and the resulting impact on financial conditions finds the latest better economic data straightforward to explain.

The initial impact of the commodity price shock at the end of 2010 has worked its way through the economy.

The eurozone crisis that began in 2010 and intensified in the summer of 2011 has finally abated following the ECB’s decisive intervention last summer.

That has removed the enormous tail risks that have been holding back investment and dampening consumption.

And the government’s continued fiscal credibility has allowed the UK authorities to pursue a strategy of monetary activism with schemes such as Funding for Lending that have supported a dramatic improvement in financial conditions.

Should we be surprised that the evidence does not support a story of the last few years based on higher fiscal multipliers in the UK?

No – economic theory and academic evidence both suggest that multipliers are likely to be relatively low in an open economy with a floating exchange rate and independent monetary policy like the UK.

Recent empirical studies – including several by IMF economists – that allow for multipliers to vary across countries have overwhelming found exactly this result.

The truth is that the UK’s pace of fiscal consolidation, at around 1% of GDP per annum, is line with the G7 and G20 average and the IMF’s guidance for developed economies.

What does set the UK apart from many countries is that we set out a clear plan early on.

It was a detailed, multi-year plan. We legislated for it and we’ve stuck to it.

The bulk of the consolidation has come from permanent reductions in spending on items like welfare entitlements.

And the whole credibility of the plan has been buttressed by the creation of an independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

The resolution of this debate is not simply an intellectual battle over recent history – it matters hugely for the future of the UK economy.

At times over the last three years the political pressure to change course has been intense – despite solid support from the business world and many in the economics profession.

Plan B would have risked higher interest rates as the UK became sucked into the eurozone sovereign debt crisis on our doorstep – and would have left us much more vulnerable had the euro crisis got even worse.

It would have undermined our ability to pursue an activist monetary policy.

Our recovery from the Great Recession would have been undermined, not strengthened.

The impact on living standards would have been much harsher.

So the evidence increasingly suggests that our macroeconomic plan was the right one and is working.

Amazingly, even with the evidence we now have, there are still those calling for the government to abandon its economic plan in order to spend and borrow more.

But to do so would be disastrous.

The risks from unsustainable debt in our world may have abated, but they have not disappeared.

For the UK now to set out to deliberately increase it’s budget deficit would be a signal to investors that we had abandoned discipline, at the very moment when we are turning a corner.

We would be back to square one.

I say this again because it is the biggest threat today to the British economy.

Those still calling for more borrowing and more debt in spite of all the evidence want to put low mortgage rates and jobs at risk.

The impact on living standards would be severe.

Just as our economy recovers and the British people’s efforts start to pay off – now is not the time to put all that at risk.

And I will not do that to this country.

This building illustrates the story of our economy.

The structure is built. The walls have gone up.

So too with our economic plan. We have laid the foundations. We have built on top of them. But we cannot stop now.

We have got to finish the job.

And we will.

For my third argument today is this: our economic plan will help avoid the mistakes of the past in this new recovery phase, and it will build a stronger economy for the future.

The only sustainable path to prosperity is to reject the old quick fixes and stick to the course we have set.

The main external risks we face today are these: the slowdown in emerging markets; the possibility of further turbulence in the Eurozone; and the risk that instability in the Middle East will push up oil prices.

We remain vigilant on all fronts, and our economic plan gives us the resilience and stability we would need if any of these risks were to materialise.

But we must be just as vigilant for any home-grown risks that could undermine a sustainable recovery.

For macroeconomic policy this means three things: avoiding an unintentional and premature tightening of financial conditions; using the Financial Policy Committee and our new system of financial regulation to avoid the mistakes of the past; and staying the course with our deficit reduction plan.

For microeconomic policy, not repeating the mistakes of the past means following through with our far-reaching economic reforms in order to raise living standards in a sustainable way.

Let me briefly cover each in turn.

I said at the Mansion House speech in June that “a steady rise in bond yields across the largest developed countries will be a sign of confidence returning” and so it has been.

But I also warned of the dangers of market instability and said that forward guidance under our new MPC remit could be a useful tool to manage expectations as the economy recovered.

Some have interpreted more recent increases in gilt yields as a sign that forward guidance has somehow failed, but that is, I believe, a misunderstanding.

I’d argue that market movements since the August Inflation Report vindicate the need for forward guidance: the counterfactual would have been even bigger increases in yields in response to positive economic data.

And the evidence suggests that forward guidance is succeeding in changing expectations in the real economy: the Bank of England’s Inflation Attitudes Survey shows a marked fall in the proportion of people expecting interest rates to rise over the next year.

Of course, just as an inadvertent and early tightening of monetary policy would be a mistake, so would leaving it too late to take away the punchbowl further down the track.

Our new regulatory system is designed to avoid precisely that age old error.

We’ve put the Bank of England back in charge of bank supervision, and created a new Financial Policy Committee to spot economy-wide risks to financial stability and act before they crystallise. Much current debate is focused on whether the UK is returning to the bad old ways of debt fuelled, consumption-led growth.

Many of those who previously claimed growth would not return have switched their argument in the face of the inconvenient economic data.

They now argue that we are seeing the “wrong sort of growth.”

But a close look at the data doesn’t support this argument.

Consider the facts.

Business surveys suggest growth is balanced across all sectors of the economy, including manufacturing as well as services and construction.

Consumer spending accounted for less than half the rise in GDP over the first half of this year.

Net exports contributed more than twice as much as that. And investment is picking up.

The government’s economic plan supports this through a combination of aggressive export promotion and a highly competitive business tax regime.

We will go on supporting both through this next phase.

Nor are we seeing a return to unsustainable levels of indebtedness and household borrowing, as some claim.

Total private sector debt has fallen by almost 40% of GDP since its peak in the first quarter of 2010.

The ratio of household debt to incomes has fallen too, unwinding all of the increase seen during the credit boom of 2004 to 2008.

And as Mark Carney said at the August Inflation Report, forecast consumption growth is “broadly in line with income growth”, not driven by rising debt.

Some have questioned whether new risks are emerging in the housing market.

This debate would benefit from a little less assertion and a little more examination of the evidence.

House prices are down a quarter from their peak in real terms, and relative to earnings they are back at 2003 levels.

Mortgage approvals are running at only a little more than half, and transactions a little more than two-thirds, of pre-crisis levels.

That is why the government’s Help to Buy scheme is a sensible, time-limited and necessary financial intervention to fix a specific financial problem: the dramatic reduction in the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages.

The median LTV for first time buyers has fallen from a long term average of 90% to just 80% now.

This change is not something we should welcome, it is both a market failure and a social problem – imagine if you’d had to find twice as big a deposit for your first home.

90% and 95% LTV mortgages are not exotic weapons of financial mass destruction – they are a regular part of a healthy mortgage market and an aspirational society.

And, importantly, Help to Buy mortgages will all be repayment mortgages, not interest only mortgages, so borrowers will rapidly build up a larger equity buffer within just a few years even in the absence of any house price growth.

Some claim that Help to Buy will boost demand but not supply, but again the evidence suggests otherwise.

Not only are the government’s planning reforms already increasing the flow of new planning permissions, but the lack of mortgage availability at higher loan to value ratios has itself been one of the biggest factors holding back the supply of new housing.

That’s why a report last week by former MPC member Charles Goodhart, now at Morgan Stanley, estimated that Help to Buy could increase housing starts by more than 30% between 2012 and 2015.

So the evidence suggests tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery, but we cannot take this for granted.

The Financial Policy Committee and the Bank of England have made clear that they have the will and the means to act if necessary, with new macro-prudential tools that can target specific areas of the economy where imbalances are emerging.

If that happens they will need resolve and determination to take the right decisions, and it is only when those tools are required that will we see quite what an important innovation this new framework is.

For the government’s part, the same resolve and determination will apply to our deficit reduction plan.

With the successful conclusion of the Spending Round we have now set out detailed plans that started in 2010 and extend to April 2016.

Even if the improving economic news eventually leads to an improvement in the fiscal outlook, the job will not be done.

More tough choices will be required after the next election to find many billions of further savings and anyone who thinks those decisions can be ducked is not fit for government.

So whether it’s avoiding an inadvertent tightening of monetary policy, not repeating the debt-fuelled mistakes of the past, or sticking to the necessary fiscal consolidation, our macroeconomic plan will support the emerging recovery.

For microeconomic policy, the priority must be following through with our far-reaching economic reforms in order to raise living standards in a sustainable way.

As the evidence builds in favour of the government’s economic plan, many of our opponents are now shifting the focus of their criticism to the ongoing pressure on the cost of living.

Families have had a difficult time making ends meet thanks to what happened to our economy.

But this is not some separate issue – it is inextricably linked to the core arguments about the economy and the governments economic plan.

Our economic plan is the only sustainable way to raise living standards.

For a start, the most powerful tools that we have to protect living standards as our economy recovers are low mortgage rates and low taxes, and we’re delivering both.

The falls in mortgage rates that our plan has delivered are worth £2,000 a year to a family taking out a standard fixed-rate mortgage of £100,000.

Our record increases in the personal allowance have already saved a basic rate taxpayer £600 a year, rising to £700 a year by next year.

We’ve used billions of pounds to help with fuel costs by freezing fuel duty for over two years.

Low mortgage rates. A £10,000 Personal Allowance. Fuel duty frozen. And soon tax free childcare.

These make huge, positive impacts on the cost of living.

And none of this would be possible if we had abandoned our tough spending plans.

But as I said right at the start, in the long term, the only sustainable way to raise living standards is to raise productivity by tackling the underlying structural weaknesses in our economy that were exposed by the crisis.

Our economic plan constitutes the most ambitious programme of structural reform for a generation.

Our school reforms are raising standards and introducing more choice and diversity into our school system.

Our welfare reforms are helping more people into work, with the lowest number of workless households since 1996 and the lowest level of inequality since 1986.

Our universities are flourishing as their finances have been secured through tuition fees, while choice and flexibility drive up standards.

Our skills system is being transformed with a record number of apprenticeships, new University Technical Colleges and a greater role for employers.

The re-launch of TSB onto our high street today is another sign of progress in the biggest ever overhaul of our banking system.

We are delivering the biggest programme of investment in our railways since Victorian times, the biggest programme of road building since the 1970s, and -according to a recent global survey – our regulatory reforms have made the UK the best place in the world to invest in infrastructure.

And HS2 will transform the economic geography of our country and help spread rising prosperity to the Midlands and the North of England, which is why I am passionately in favour of it.

Our corporate tax system is now amongst the most competitive in the world, with companies that left the UK now bringing investment back home.

A new industrial strategy is finally providing the long term stability and leadership that is needed in so many sectors such as aerospace, automotive, agri-tech and bio-science.

And British science is scaling new heights with its budget protected for the future and rising capital investment in new facilities.

We have already achieved a lot, but there is still more than we can do in all these areas.

One thing is very clear.

Tinkering around the edges while ignoring the tough decisions required will not rise to the scale of the challenge.

We will not make that mistake.

We will learn the lessons of the last decade so that we are not tempted by the quick fixes that lie behind so many of our problems.

We will constantly examine what is happening in the present so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

And we will keep our sights firmly fixed on the future so that we do not shrink from the changes required to build lasting prosperity.

Our economic plan does all these things.

Just like this building, with office space, private flats and affordable housing, the job is not finished, but everyone will benefit.

This is how we will build an economy that works for everyone.

January 31, 2016
Theresa Villiers – 2013 Speech on Peace and Prosperity in Northern Ireland

Theresa Villiers

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the Senate Chamber in Stormont, Northern Ireland on 9 September 2013.

Mr Chairman, it’s a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to move the motion before the Grand Committee.

I am delighted that the Committee is meeting in this historic Senate Chamber in Parliament Buildings.

The Grand Committee is an important forum for MPs from across the House to discuss Northern Ireland affairs and specific reference is made to its scrutiny role in the Belfast Agreement. It serves as a reminder that while many matters are now rightly devolved to the Assembly, Parliament continues to take very seriously its responsibilities for Northern Ireland.

One of the criticisms levelled at successive governments during the years of the old Stormont Parliament was that they turned their backs on Northern Ireland. That is not a precedent that should ever be followed and the meeting of the Grand Committee here today (9 September) provides an opportunity to reaffirm the importance the House of Commons places on Northern Ireland matters.

The motion before the Committee deals with peace and progress in Northern Ireland and the next steps in building a prosperous and united community. It is right that we reflect on the progress that’s been made under successive governments since the early 1990s.

As a result of the political settlement, Northern Ireland has levels of peace and stability not seen here for nearly half a century. For the overwhelming majority of people, life has changed for the better. The ending of the main paramilitary campaigns mean that we no longer live in the daily shadow of terrorism and the large scale security apparatus that was necessary to counter it.

The Assembly itself is now approaching in the middle of its second term since devolution was restored in 2007, something that hasn’t happened with devolved institutions since the 1960s. Decisions over all the key public services are now taken by locally elected and accountable politicians rather than direct rule ministers. And for most people in Northern Ireland the debate has now moved on, away from how we deliver devolution to how devolution itself delivers on the issues that really matter to them.

For our part, the government remains firmly committed to supporting the political settlement and the institutions that have been established under it. And we’re determined to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in order to build on the foundations provided by relative peace and stability, to achieve a more prosperous and united community.

In doing this we need to make substantial progress in two key areas – the economy and creating a more cohesive, shared society – and I shall take each of these in turn.

Economy

The government inherited the worst deficit in the United Kingdom’s peacetime history and the largest of any country in the G20. There was no alternative to the course the government set out in 2010 and as a result of the difficult decisions we have taken, the economy is now beginning to mend. The deficit is now down by a third. The UK economy is growing. And we have more people in work than ever before.

Here in Northern Ireland there are at last some tentative signs that the economy is recovering. Unemployment is falling and is now back below the UK average. Across a number of sectors, business activity has returned to growth for the first time since 2007. And house prices are up, with an increase in property sales of 10% over the year.

But I’m the first to acknowledge that there’s a long way to go.Times are still very tough for many families. That’s why the government has delivered a £700 tax cut for over 615,000 people in Northern Ireland, taken 30,000 of the lowest paid out of tax altogether and halved the income tax bills of those on the minimum wage

It’s why we’re determined to create the conditions that will enable businesses to grow, by:

– cutting corporation tax to 20p by the end of this Parliament

– taking £2,000 off the employer national insurance bill of every company and charity in the country

– tackling the deficit to keep interest rates at record lows.

At the same time we recognise Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances and are continuing to provide high levels of financial support to the Executive by:

– delivering an additional £900 million since the 2010 spending review

– keeping on track with the commitment to deliver £18billion for capital investment in the period up to 2017

– maintaining public spending in Northern Ireland at 20 per cent per head higher than the UK average.

Northern Ireland has some truly world class businesses. It’s a great place to do business. And the Executive does excellent work to encourage inward investment. Yet the fact remains that the recovery is still slower in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. The property crash has left businesses with a heavy burden of debt. And the economy remains far too dependent on public spending.

So the government has been working with the Executive to look at additional ways to boost the private sector and rebalance the economy. And in June the Prime Minister and I, along with the First and deputy First Ministers, launched our economic package.

We don’t have as many resources at our disposal as might have been available in the past, so we’ve had to look at more imaginative ways of helping other than just spending ever more public money. But despite the budgetary constraints we are under, we’ve managed to secure an additional £42 million in UK funding for PEACE IV and a £154 million top-up for EU structural funds. We’ve also managed to retain Northern Ireland’s assisted area status, which is such an important weapon in the Executive’s armoury for attracting jobs.

There’s £100 million in additional borrowing powers for the Executive, and measures to boost lending to business.

There’s new work on enterprise zones and as well as a joint £20 million investment plan for R&D projects, with a particular focus on aerospace.

Our highly successful start-up loans scheme is now open for business in Northern Ireland – one of the first elements of the package to be up and running.

We are working on a visa waiver pilot to encourage visitors to the Republic of Ireland to extend their holidays and come north of the border.

And we have an agreement on a mechanism to take forward the devolution of corporation tax before the next election, if the government decides to devolve these powers.

As acknowledged in the Assembly, this represents a substantial package and it has been widely welcomed across the political spectrum and by the main business organisations. It will see the government and the Executive working more closely than ever before on our shared goal of equipping Northern Ireland to compete in the global race for investment and jobs.

And we hope to be in a position to make further announcements shortly on the G8 themed investment conference in October, which the Prime Minister is attending.

Shared Future

The other area where we need to make substantial progress is in building a more united community. Regrettably, this year we have seen clear evidence of the deep divisions that remain in some parts of society.

Let me be clear, there can be no justification for the violence we saw during the flag protests and on the streets of Belfast in July. Rioting and attacking the police is serious criminal behaviour. So we give our full support to the PSNI in their efforts to bring the perpetrators before the courts. And where people are convicted they can expect to serve time behind bars.

We also deplore attempts to commemorate and legitimise acts of terrorism. Everyone in Northern Ireland has a clear responsibility to examine the impact their actions could have on all parts of the community. At the same time it is right that the government and the Executive seek to address the issues that help to feed and sustain divisions in society.

While most of the relevant policy responsibilities fall to the Executive, the need to make progress has been a consistent theme of the Prime Minister, my predecessor and me since this government took office.

Put simply, unless these divisions are addressed, Northern Ireland is never going to reach its full economic potential. So in May, the Executive published its strategy, ‘Together: Building a United Community’. It contains some ambitious goals and the real test will come with efforts to see its proposals actually delivered.

But publication in itself represents progress and I welcome the efforts of the First and deputy First Minister to bring it about. The government will continue to support them in taking the difficult decisions which may be needed to move things forward.

We very much welcome the establishment of the All-Party Working Group under the chairmanship of Richard Haass to look at flags, emblems, parading and elements of the past. The government isn’t formally part of the Haass process but we are fully engaged with it and support its important work. And we do have a clear and direct interest in the outcome.

The most obvious reason for our close interest in the outcome of the Haass work is because a successful resolution of these contentious matters would improve life for people across Northern Ireland, assist our efforts to strengthen the economy and reduce the tensions that can help feed support for terrorism.

But it’s also the case that parading and elements of the rules on flags are currently matters for which Westminster has responsibility. So any changes proposed by the Haass group would need the support of Parliament if they are to be implemented. Nobody should underestimate how difficult the task is that Dr Haass and the All-Party Group have ahead of them.

The ability of the Northern Ireland’s political leaders to work together across political boundaries will be crucial here, as it has been in delivering the major break-throughs in the past. I very much hope we’ll see the same determination and willingness to compromise that delivered the series of historic agreements that have done so much to change life in Northern Ireland for the better over the past two decades.

But important as the Haass process undoubtedly is there is a range of other important work that needs to be done to ensure Northern Ireland continues to make progress. This must not be put on hold awaiting the outcome of the Haass Group’s deliberations. In particular, there should be no let up on delivering the proposals in the economic package and shared future programme published by the First and deputy First Minister.

Security

Before concluding I would like to say a few words about security. As we all know, despite the very great progress that’s been made in Northern Ireland there remains a small number of people who still seek to pursue their ambitions by violence.

So far this year there have been 12 national security attacks by so-called dissident republicans and the overall threat level remains Severe. These terrorist groups continue to carry out attack planning and targeting and they have lethal intent. Many of devices they deploy are relatively crude and simplistic but even a simple pipe bomb can have horrific and fatal consequences. I also condemn the shocking threats to catholic primary schools in north Belfast.

Once again I pay the highest tribute to the men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Security Service who do so much to protect the whole community from these terrorists.

And I would also like to put on record my sincere thanks to An Garda Síochána for the vital role that they play in combating the dissidents. Relations between the British and Irish Governments have probably never been better. The same can be said of the relationship between the PSNI, the Garda and the Department of Justice.

Cross border police co-operation has undoubtedly saved lives. In recognition of the severity of the continuing threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland, the June spending round confirmed £31 million of funding to help tackle the ongoing terrorist threat. This money is in addition to the PSNI’s core funding provided by the Executive.

It extends the £200 million of support that we provided in 2011.

We will consider carefully the assessment recently carried out by the PSNI on resilience and I am happy to cooperate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Policing Board on how we respond to the issues raised.

Conclusion

Mr Chairman, this debate takes place against the backdrop of some difficult weeks, when Northern Ireland was back in the headlines for the wrong reasons. Yet this year has also seen an outstandingly successful G8 Summit in Co Fermanagh, something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

The World Police and Fire Games enabled competitors and spectators from all over the world to enjoy Northern Ireland’s legendary hospitality. And we’ve seen some dazzling events in Derry-Londonderry as the first ever UK City of Culture. All of these have shown the best of Northern Ireland.

Great progress has been made, yet we acknowledge that there is still much to do if we are to build on the peace and stability and achieve a more prosperous and united community. That is why the Government has rolled up its sleeves to to get on with the job and I commend the motion to the Committee.

January 31, 2016
David Cameron – 2013 Speech on the G20 Summit

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, London on 9 September 2013.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G20 Summit in St Petersburg.

The meeting focused on 2 vital issues:

– the crisis in Syria

– the core business of the G20, which is the future of the global economy

Let me take Syria first.

Syria

The G20 was never going to reach unanimity on what action is needed on Syria.

But the case made by those countries who believe in a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons was I believe extremely powerful.

Britain supported a statement, sponsored by the US and signed by 12 members of the G20:

– which condemns the horrific chemical weapons attack

– points to the clear evidence of the Assad regime’s responsibility for that attack

– and calls for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules

This statement from St Petersburg was reinforced on Saturday when the 28 EU Foreign Ministers unanimously condemned the chemical weapons war crime and called for strong response that demonstrates there will be no impunity for such crimes.

I am clear that it was right to advocate a strong response to the indiscriminate gassing of men, women and children in Syria, and to make that case in this Chamber.

At the same time I understand and respect what this House has said.

So Britain will not be part of any military action.

We will continue to press for the strongest possible response, including at the UN.

We will continue to shape more urgent, effective and large-scale humanitarian efforts.

And we will work for the peaceful, political settlement that is the only solution to the Syrian conflict.

Let me just say a word about each of these 3.

Chemical weapons

On chemical weapons, we will continue to gather evidence of what happened and make it available so that those responsible can be brought to account.

Along with 11 other G20 countries, we have called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible.

We support efforts by the United States and others to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

And we will continue to challenge the UN Security Council to overcome the paralysis of the last 2 and a half years and fulfil its responsibilities to lead the international response.

Humanitarian aid

In terms of the humanitarian response, Britain is leading the world.

This is the refugee crisis of our time.

A Syrian becomes a refugee every 15 seconds – that’s 240 fleeing during the hour of this Statement alone.

Inside Syria, 6.8 million are in need of humanitarian assistance.

At the same time aid convoys simply can’t get through to areas under siege because of the fighting and most major routes between large populations are too insecure to use.

So in St Petersburg, I organised a special meeting with the UN Secretary General, the EU, Japan, Turkey, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, Saudi Arabia and America.

We agreed to work together through the UN to secure unfettered humanitarian access inside Syria.

We agreed to increase the focus of that humanitarian assistance on dealing with the dreadful impact of chemical weapons – including medicines and decontamination tents.

And we challenged the world to make up the financial shortfall for humanitarian aid by the time the United Nations General Assembly meets later this month.

Britain, Canada, Italy and Qatar have made a start with contributions totalling £164 million.

Working for a peaceful, political settlement

Syria still needs a political solution – and that requires the Syrian opposition to stand up for the millions who want democracy, pluralism and freedom from terror and oppression.

So we will continue to assist the moderate Syrian opposition with political support, non-lethal equipment and technical advice and training.

The Foreign Secretary convened a meeting with Syrian opposition leaders in London last week to continue this work – and he has discussed all of these issues with the US Secretary of State today.

As I discussed with several G20 leaders – including President Putin – Britain will also lead efforts to get both sides to the table to shape a political transition, building on last year’s agreement in Geneva.

Because a political settlement is the only way to a stable, inclusive and democratic Syria.

Global economy

Mr Speaker, let me turn to the global economy.

When I went to my first G20 Summit in Canada 3 years ago:

– Britain had the most indebted economy

– the most indebted households

– and the most damaged banking system of any country around the table

We’d also fallen out of the top 10 places in the world for the ease of starting a business.

I vowed then that this government would take the tough action necessary to deal with our debts, repair our broken banking system and most importantly to deliver a private sector led recovery.

3 years on that is exactly what we have done.

We’ve cut the deficit by a third and cut the structural deficit by more than any other G7 country.

We’ve reformed our banks so that they serve the economy not the other way round.

And we’ve delivered that private sector led recovery with the OECD forecasting that Britain will be the fastest growing G7 economy in the fourth quarter of this year, and the IMF predicting we will have the strongest growth of any major European economy in 2014.

Mr Speaker, this G20 Summit recognised our progress and explicitly singled out Britain’s return to growth in the Communiqué.

More importantly, the whole G20 has endorsed our priorities for economic recovery.

All 20 have signed up to the St Petersburg Action Plan which contains all the features of the plan we have been following in Britain since the coalition government came into office.

In particular, it emphasises the importance of dealing with our debts the role of monetary policy to support the recovery and the need for long-term reforms to boost growth and trade and cut the red tape that too often holds back business investment and job creation.

Mr Speaker, the Summit also took forward the agenda that I set at the G8 in Lough Erne – on what I call the “3 Ts” of tax, transparency and trade.

On tax, the whole G20 adopted the Lough Erne vision of automatic sharing of tax information – with a single global standard to be finalised by February next year.

On transparency, the whole G20 is now taking forwards international standards on company ownership.

This means companies will know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers will be able to obtain this information easily so people can’t avoid taxes by using complicated and fake structures.

Britain has led this initiative and let me welcome, Mr Speaker, the progress made by our crown dependencies and overseas territories – each of which now has now published an action plan.

On the third of the 3 Ts – trade – we also made significant progress not just maintaining the commitment to resist protectionist measures, but extending it by a further 2 years, to the end of 2016.

This is a vital and hard-fought achievement which opens the way to more British exports, more orders for British companies and ultimately more British jobs.

Finally, strong global growth also depends on helping the poorest countries to lift themselves out of poverty.

And the G20 welcomed the vision for eliminating world poverty set out in the report from the UN High Level Panel that I co-chaired together with the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia.

Mr Speaker, from humanitarian aid in Syria to the plans for growth right across the G20 from tax, transparency and trade to the fight against global poverty Britain – now an economy turning the corner – made a leading contribution to this Summit.

We may be a small island, but we are a great nation.

And I commend this statement to the House.

January 31, 2016
Danny Alexander – 2013 Speech to Lloyds Business Summit

Below is the text of the speech made by Danny Alexander, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the Lloyds Business Summit on 11 November 2013.

Recovery

Good morning.

I’m very glad to be with you today…

At a time when our economy does appear to be on the mend.

Not fully recovered…

But showing encouraging signs.

Last month, the IMF revised UK growth up by more than any other G7 economy.

Two weeks ago the latest GDP figures bought further welcome news…

But no one should think that because we’re starting to see the signs of recovery…

That we’ll forget the difficulties we’ve left behind, or abandon the path that has brought us to this point. There is a long way to go to get back to the sort of growth we need.

Over the last three and half years…

The government has worked hard …

Not just to take tough decisions…

But to take the right decisions.

And one of our main priorities, has had to be to create the right conditions for more sustainable and balanced growth.

The 2008 catastrophe and its fall out have been so profound, we know that we have to protect against another catastrophe on this scale.

There’s a realisation that we have to re-embed two ancient disciplines back into our our public life.

First, we have to live within our means.

Second, that further prosperity depends on our ability to build more sustainable, balanced economic growth.

Of course, while we can create those conditions…

It’s the private sector that makes growth happen…

And the recovery we’re starting to see is a result of the determination…

And the innovation…

And the sheer hard work of UK based businesses.

Thank you.

Right kind of recovery

For me, the most encouraging feature of the recovery we’re witnessing…

Is that it has the hallmarks of being a balanced recovery.

For too long we seemed to only look towards one city – and one industry – for economic growth.

But growth is happening now across sectors.

For the first time in 15 years, all four output sectors…

Industrial production, services, construction and agriculture…

Have grown in successive quarters.

And growth is happening across the country.

We need to work hard to continue this trend.

So, that should one sector – or one region – experience a sudden decline or shock…

As happened in the financial crisis…

Our economy will be in a much stronger position to absorb it.

Pace of recovery

Inevitably though, some commentators have criticised the pace of the recovery.

But they miss the point – previous recessions have simply not been as deep as the one from which we are recovering.

The severity of the recession also explains why we haven’t seen earnings growth pick up as quickly.

But let’s look at job creation.

Our critics said that we would never compensate for the shedding of jobs in the public sector.

They were wrong.

You, in the private sector, have created jobs on a significant scale – a remarkable 1.4 million since the election.

Not only have you compensated for the loss of public sector jobs – you’ve achieved a spectacular job creation ratio of 3:1.

There is another reality to face – a recovery without fairness would be hardly a recovery at all.

Not having a job in these times would be the harshest unfairness of all.

Unemployment is still too high, and there’s clearly a lot more to do to continue the downward trend in unemployment, particularly for youth unemployment.

Our work on creating over a million modern apprentices is key.

But I am proud that we are navigating our way back to economic normality without soaring unemployment levels and the social damage that such a situation would wreak.

Of course, by keeping unemployment much lower than in previous recessions

We have seen the UK’s output per worker – which is a key measure of our country’s productivity – fall to a fairly low level too.

I’m of the belief that low productivity is an acceptable outcome – for a temporary period – if it is in part, the result of high employment.

But in the long run, an increase in our productivity has to drive growth.

Strong economic growth with rising productivity is the only sustainable way to permanently increase the living standards of our population.

Short-term populist ideas that damage long-term investment make it harder to increase living standards.

Instead, we have been building a more stable, competitive environment in which businesses can invest, grow, and create jobs, and share the fruits of that growth fairly.

And so for our economy to become more productive, we need your help.

We need you to invest.

Business investment

To get the recovery fully entrenched,

To get it into top gear,

There’s one thing needed now above all else.

Investment.

As a government, we’re playing our part.

As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, investment is my brief.

We’re building roads, power stations, flood defences, data networks.

Only a few months ago, I announced the largest and most comprehensive plan of infrastructure investment for decades – a £100 billion plan to upgrade our roads, railways, broadband by the end of the decade.

Your country needs you to invest too.

I know that the deep uncertainty of the last few years has held back business investment.

In fact, we know that companies are continuing to strengthen their balance sheets out of the credit crisis…

Total cash deposits held by non-financial private companies has risen by £104 billion since pre crisis levels…

And now sit at over £500 billion.

But if businesses start to invest that money, it would make a huge difference to our economy.

Just to illustrate that, had business investment risen by an additional 10% last year…

Then the level of GDP would be £12bn higher.

That’s almost a whole percentage point on GDP growth.

I know that uncertainty is the enemy of investment.

I know that companies have felt the need to consolidate balance sheets.

The fog of uncertainty is clearing.

The economic outlook and forecasts are improving.

In government, we doing all we can to increase certainty.

We have a strong clear fiscal strategy.

We have a Bank of England with a clear policy expressed through ‘forward guidance’ and we have introduced a set of measures to make that investment easier.

We are:

– providing generous NIC allowances

– reducing corporation tax

– reforming rules on Controlled Foreign Companies

To rebuild Britain, we need you to join this recovery by investing now.

There has never been a better time to invest in Britain.

With your help, we can entrench a sustainable recovery and increase the living standards of our people.

Conclusions

What we won’t do is put short term political gain…

Ahead of the long term future of this country.

And we know that – if we want to continue to move our economy from rescue into recovery…

Then increasing productivity is absolutely essential.

To raise living standards…

To raise long term growth potential…

And the people in this room today have the power to help this country to move into the next phase of our economic recovery.

We will stick to our plan.

Making Britain a country that pays it way again.

Making Britain a great place to do business again.

Investing in our nation’s infrastructure and the skills of our young people.

Working together, that is the only way we will build a stronger economy in a fairer society in which everyone can get on in life.

January 31, 2016
Michael Moore – 2013 Speech at Fife Chambers of Commerce

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State of Scotland, Michael Moore, at the Fife Chambers of Commerce on 31st July 2013.

The Chambers of Commerce network right across the United Kingdom plays a vital role in growing British businesses.

I know that the network here in Fife is central to ensuring that the area attracts and supports its local businesses.

It’s a great opportunity for me to be able to talk with you about the measures we are taking to support our economy, and the future that we want to see for you and your businesses in the years ahead.

Economy

There is no doubt that the last few years have been a real challenge for us all: for individuals, for families and for businesses.

We have experienced an unprecedented global financial crisis; the UK’s largest ever peacetime deficit; and a series of external shocks, both in the euro area and to commodity prices, that have continued to make our recovery a challenge.

Returning the whole of the UK to sustainable and balanced growth was the unifying objective for the two parties who came together in the national interest to form our Coalition Government.

We remain fully focussed on delivering that.

By reducing the deficit, restoring stability and rebalancing the economy we want to equip the UK to compete in the global race.

Recent news has shown that the economy is on the mend and moving from the rescue phase to recovery.

Last week’s UK GDP figures showing 0.6% growth in the three months to June were encouraging – above forecast and double the rate of the first quarter.

We have made substantial progress in our plan to cut the deficit, reduced by a third as a percentage of GDP since we came to power.

And we have seen significant progress over the past year in job creation and reducing unemployment.

To continue to make progress, the UK Government is ensuring the right business environment is in place for you, and for the families and communities who depend on you for their livelihoods.

We are supporting the recovery, reducing taxes remains an important priority – in particular by cutting the main rate of corporation tax to 20%.

This is helping to deliver on our objective of making the UK’s tax system the most competitive in the G20.

But tax reform is only part of the story.

It sits alongside the Bank of England’s monetary activism of recent years and our programme of financial sector reform, particularly of the banks, as key components of fixing the economy.

And we are determined to invest in our future, too.

I’ve already mentioned the UK Government’s support for the Queensferry Crossing, a less prosaic name than the previous working title of ‘the Forth Replacement Crossing’.

And the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, too. These are important parts of our investment programme.

But we have also provided over 1.7 billion pounds of additional capital spending power to the Scottish Government since the Spending Review of 2010.

It is for the Scottish Government to invest that money as it sees fit – including in the ‘shovel ready’ projects it has been so keen to promote.

Where responsibility sits with the UK Government, we are working hard to improve Scotland’s infrastructure links with the rest of the UK and to get the construction sector moving again.

In the housing sector, we are introducing the Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee Scheme, which will offer up to 12 billion of Government guarantees to lenders who provide mortgages to people with a deposit value of between 5 and 20 per cent.

Helping to make more high loan-to-value mortgages available to potential home-owners who can’t save for the large deposits needed following the financial crisis.

And we have set out a clear industrial strategy to ensure that Government is working with the experts in our key industries: such as construction, renewable, oil and gas and life sciences.

We know that you – and businesses like you, right across the United Kingdom – have been working hard to do your bit too. We need to keep working together to ensure that the economic recovery gathers strength and is sustained – we are not complacent about the challenges that remain.

The Future of Scotland

In this environment I know that right now all of you remain focussed on addressing the challenges we face day to day.

But aside from that, I know that the next issue on everyone’s minds is ‘what future will Scotland choose in the referendum next year?’

It’s just over 400 days until those of us living here in Scotland will make our biggest ever collective decision.

It will be a big, bold moment.

Offering us the choice between staying within the most successful partnership of nations the world has seen, or an irreversible decision to leave the United Kingdom and go our own, separate way.

To my mind it will come down to one simple question: which of the alternatives is better for me, my family, and my country?

For me the answer to that is absolutely clear.

As a proud Scot I believe that we can enjoy a better future as a nation if we remain within the United Kingdom family.

With a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong voice in the UK Parliament giving us the best of both worlds

It is clear to me that, as Scots, being part of the United Kingdom gives us greater opportunities; greater security and an unrivalled platform on the world stage.

And I believe all that is worth keeping.

If you focus in on the economy, which I am sure will dominate your thinking, the argument for staying in the UK is a powerful one.

As part of the world’s sixth largest economy, Scotland has strength in numbers – our 5 million people have unfettered access to a highly integrated single market across the UK.

More than 300,000 Scottish businesses can sell goods and services in a domestic market of more than 60 million people.

And enjoy support from an unparalleled network of embassies and consulates boosting their trade around the world and creating thousands of jobs at home.

We have seen for ourselves the ability of the UK economy to absorb huge financial shocks like the banking crisis which devastated our two largest Scottish banks.

And, as has been debated at length – as part of the UK we have certainty about our shared currency.

Over the last decade and a half we have created a devolution settlement which maintains these inherent advantages of the UK, while developing our decision making here at home at the Scottish Parliament.

Since the landmark creation of the Parliament at Holyrood we have seen it anchored in Scottish public life and seen its powers enhanced – significantly by the Scotland Act of last year which brings major tax and borrowing powers north of the border, in the biggest transfer of financial powers from London to Edinburgh since the Act of Union sent them the other way. But it’s not just by milestone Acts of Parliament that powers have been transferred.

We have seen flexible, responsive arrangements evolve that have allowed economically important powers like the management of our railways come north, while ensuring that when it makes sense to legislate on a pan-UK basis, as we have done in relation to tackling organised crime, we can still do it in Westminster with the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

This ‘best of both worlds’ approach is a real strength for us. And I believe the settlement will develop further.

For me as a Liberal Democrat, seeing the commitment to further devolution coming from all three parties who support Scotland staying within our United Kingdom is a real milestone in our country’s development.

But before we can take decisions on changes to our devolution settlement we need to take the most fundamental decision: are we in, or are we out?

Scotland Analysis Programme

As the UK Government, our proposition is clear: Scotland should remain the integral part of the United Kingdom that it is, and has been for over the last 300 years.

That is why over the last six months we have set out in great detail on fundamental economic questions what Scotland has as part of the UK and what all of us need to weigh up as we consider our vote.

I recognise that before many people can make their choice they want information, and they want to hear the case for each option.

So far we’ve published four papers in our Scotland Analysis Programme, amounting to over 460 pages of argument and data.

I’ll admit the title isn’t all that catchy – but it reflects a really important point about the way we are approaching this debate.

Analysis. We are doing the homework,

We are examining the evidence

And we are setting out the facts.

Our first paper sets out the legal position of Scotland within the United Kingdom – and the legal realities of becoming a separate independent state.

Because it’s important for us all to be clear that independence means Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

And leaving the United Kingdom, means leaving the state that we have built together, with our fellow citizens who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It means there are no guarantees that an independent Scotland would be a member of international organisations like the EU, NATO, G8 and G20.

A separate Scottish state would need to apply to join these organisations.

For the UN that could be a relatively simple process, but it’s a process that a newly independent state would have to go through none the less.

For other organisations there are detailed negotiations that would be required before an independent Scotland could be a member.

For the EU that would mean a newly independent Scotland negotiating with 28 existing Member States.

Simultaneously asking for fast-tracked membership, but also apparently expecting favourable terms:

An exemption from the euro;

An opt-out from the Schengen Agreement for the free movement of people; and

An agreement on Scotland’s contribution to the EU budget having left the UK’s rebate behind.

But it is not just the international implications of leaving the United Kingdom that need to be considered.

Our second paper in the Scotland analysis series examined in detail the currency arrangement we have, right now, as part of the United Kingdom, and the options that would be open to an independent Scottish state.

All of the options:

Seeking a formal currency union with the continuing UK state;

Using sterling outside of the UK, like the Isle of Man;

Adopting the Euro;

Or a separate Scottish currency altogether.

None of these options is the same as the shared currency we have now.

All are sub-optimal – for Scots and Scottish businesses and for the rest of the UK – to the current system we have of a shared pound sterling and a shared Bank of England.

And as the Chancellor made clear when he launched our currency paper, it is ‘unlikely’ that the continuing UK would choose to have a formal currency union with a separate Scottish state.

We’ve published a paper on our Financial Services sector

Setting out the importance of the sector to Scotland, where financial services contribute more than 8 per cent of Scottish GDP and support around 7 per cent of Scottish employment.

And the enormous benefit that this strong Scottish industry gets from being part of the UK financial sector, not least the support that the size and strength of the UK can provide in times of trouble.

We recently produced a fourth paper that examines the benefit of our shared single domestic market.

For whilst the border between England and Scotland means a great deal historically, it means nothing for our businesses large and small that operate across that border on a daily basis: Whether that be the 300,000 people that travel into or out of Scotland from the rest of the UK each day to work;

Or the lorries that transport goods to and from Scotland providing free unfettered access to a marketplace of 60 million rather than five;

Or the shared infrastructure we have like our broadband networks and energy markets.

Through our work to date, I believe we have established the key facts in the debate.

Independence would mean the end of devolution and Scotland leaving the UK, its institutions and its place in the world;

Independence would mean a fundamental change on currency;

A big change in regulation and the bodies we interact with every day

A big change for our position in Europe;

And – as we’ve seen reported extensively in recent days – some big challenges for our pensions.

Over the autumn period we will develop these and other arguments further.

The other side’s arguments

But we’ve not just been setting out our own case over the past six months.

We’ve been looking carefully at the arguments from the other side too.

We’ve looked carefully at the Scottish Government’s approach.

And you have to give them credit for some creative thinking about what independence means.

I have always taken it to mean a separate country making its way in the world, choosing new and different policy paths, which the proponents of independence have argued are necessary.

It’s that thirst for change, and recognition of the likely divergences, that lay behind the Chancellor’s thinking when he said that a currency union between the rest of the UK and Scotland was ‘unlikely’.

‘Unlikely’ because the simple truth is that, if we break up the United Kingdom, we will have turned our backs on our shared interests, so that we can instead develop separate interests.

And as everyone in business knows – you can get along very well;

You can be the best of neighbours;

But where you have separate interests you get divergence.

Doing things differently and creating differences is at the heart of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK.

It is the inherent logic of creating a separate Scottish state.

There is no hiding the upheaval independence would bring

Even if the advocates of independence spend rather a lot of time trying to assure us that all the good things we have as part of the United Kingdom can be maintained under independence – that there will be no change to speak of.

As I say, that’s a creative approach, but it doesn’t really add up, does it?

Those who advocate independence are surely not saying to people in Scotland – vote for independence to keep everything the same as it is now?

Indeed – even people in the yes camp are starting to question this vision of independence as a pale imitation of what they dream of.

And more to the point, it is something that the Scottish Government cannot faithfully promise or deliver. Common sense tells us that.

Looking at the detail of their work throws up more anomalies and contradictions.

We’ve looked at the work of the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission.

The Scottish Government like to highlight the Commission’s finding that keeping the pound would be the best starting point for an independent Scotland – but they refuse to set out their plan B or even what the long-term currency plan is.

Instead the Scottish Government say that they will unilaterally use sterling regardless – so called ‘sterlingisation’.

But if we then go back to their own Fiscal Commission report, those same economists pointed out the downsides of sterlingisation: no central bank or lender of last resort, no influence over monetary policy – in short this would be, in the Commission’s own words, ‘no long-term solution’.

Another group set up by the Scottish Government to review welfare made clear that it was given no guidance about the principles they should work from – so no plan for what the welfare system should look like in a separate Scottish state. And far from recommending radical change it proposed that an independent Scotland should keep the same system as we already have in the UK.

That’s the system that the Scottish Government like to say is flawed, but their own experts say should carry on under independence.

If we turn to look at one of the most fractious areas of debate, over the oil numbers, this is another area where the Scottish Government lauds the role of independent experts.

But when the independent experts in the Office for Budget Responsibility came up with figures, the Scottish Government didn’t like they cherry-picked the highest, most favourable figures to base their public arguments on.

Something their own Fiscal Commission warned against doing.

But of course we know from the leaked Scottish Government Cabinet paper that in private they are rather closer to our position on oil numbers and future spending than they care to admit in public.

In private they say that, quote, ‘there is a high degree of uncertainty around future North Sea revenues’… and

‘that Scotland would have a larger net fiscal deficit than the UK’

They also acknowledge, and I quote again, that ‘at present HMT and DWP absorb the risk…in future we will assume responsibility for managing such pressure. This will imply more volatility in overall spending than at present.’

I think that is a fair assessment by Scottish Government ministers – it’s just a shame they won’t face up to it in public.

Concluding remarks

I gave a speech at the start of 2013 saying that I wanted this to be the year we moved from process to substance in the independence debate.

That 2013 had to be the year of evidence and not assertion.

And that is exactly what we, as the UK Government, have done and will continue to do.

We are setting out the benefits we continue to enjoy and the contribution we have made working together for the last 300 years.

And we are setting out the opportunities and prospects that lie ahead if we choose to remain part of the United Kingdom family.

Our Scotland analysis papers are setting out the analysis and facts.

Together they make the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

We strongly and passionately believe that Scotland is better, safer and stronger within our United Kingdom.

That’s our case.

We don’t shy away from that – we don’t pretend to be arguing for anything else: we are making the case that we believe in, and we are making it clearly.

And that’s what I am going to be doing throughout the Summer – to groups like yours – right across Scotland.

Making the case that I am proud of.

The case that I believe in.

Thank you for the opportunity to set it out to you here in Dunfermline today.

December 9, 2015
Michael Moore – 2013 Speech on Scotland’s Future

Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, in Edinburgh on 18th January 2013.

2013 is the year that the debate about Scotland’s future moves from process to substance. Many people – including some of you, I’m sure – feel that the process discussions have gone on for too long.

I share that frustration: I certainly want to get on to the real issues as soon as possible.

But it’s important that we recognise the centrality of getting the process right. On 15th October the Prime Minister and I signed what’s become known as “The Edinburgh Agreement”, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That Agreement saw both Governments commit to ensuring that there is a legal, fair and decisive referendum on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

In December the Scottish Parliament backed this Agreement. And this week, both Houses in the UK Parliament gave their unanimous approval. There can now be a legal referendum. In recognition of the Scottish National Party’s election pledge to hold a referendum on independence, it will be the Scottish Parliament that sets out the detailed rules for that referendum. This will make sure that the “Made in Scotland” principle which lies at the heart of devolution also lies at the heart of this referendum.

The Referendum Bill is promised in March and will set out the question, the date, the franchise and the rules about how money is raised and spent during the campaign, in light of recommendations from the Electoral Commission. This is the body that has unparalleled expertise and unquestionable neutrality in these issues and whose recommendations aim to ensure an unbiased and impartial referendum process.

I am pleased that the Edinburgh Agreement commits the Scottish Government to hold the referendum according to the highest international standards. And I pleased that the crucial role of the Electoral Commission is now recognised by all. The referendum must be regarded as fair and reasonable: not only by those on the different sides of this passionate debate, but also by each and every person living in Scotland whose choice will determine our nation’s future.

This referendum is too important to get wrong. Too important to see either side accused of using the rules to gain political advantage.

When all the votes are counted, this must be a referendum result that is decisive and that is accepted by all. A referendum result that allows Scotland to move on.

The eyes of the world will now be on the Scottish Government as they bring forward their proposals and the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for scrutinising, challenging and approving the final legislation. That is a serious job. But I am confident that it will be fulfilled. All of us here will look to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to act on behalf of all of us, irrespective of our views on Scotland’s future.

Some argue that the SNP’s dominance of the Parliament means they will simply railroad through a one-sided referendum process. But in the referenda established by the Westminster Parliament in recent years the governments concerned, of different political complexions, have always had majorities and could have abused their position to suit their preferred outcome. But they did not. And so UK referenda have been recognised internationally for their exemplary processes.

Central to that reputation has been the role of the Electoral Commission and the respect shown to its advice by successive UK governments. These governments, including ours, could have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice. But to do so would have called into question the fairness of these referenda. Time after time the wording of the question has been altered to respect the thoroughness and impartiality of the Electoral Commission.

They offered advice. No more than that.

But it would have been a foolhardy government that ignored that advice and used their majorities in Westminster to bulldoze through a biased referendum. The Scottish Government and Parliament are now placed in exactly the same roles as the UK Government and UK Parliament have been. The same expectations are placed on the Scottish Government and our Parliament here as on the UK Government and our Parliament at Westminster.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So, the Electoral Commission advises and the Scottish Parliament determines. But in delivering the question, the rules and the campaign financing agreements, we are entitled to expect that our Parliament sets aside party or campaign advantage and acts for all Scots, whatever their views. Following the Electoral Commission’s advice will give everyone confidence in the process and allow nobody to cry foul.

So 2013 starts by resolving the process that took centre-stage in 2012.

And we sorely need to move on from process alone. We need a loud, clear and robust debate about the impact that independence would have on Scots’ lives. Those who support independence must bring forward a detailed proposal of what they would hope to achieve through negotiations.

Over the last few days, we’ve had the First Minister speculating about the new written constitution of a separate Scotland. And the Deputy First Minister blogged on Tuesday that “All parts of the Scottish Government will be working on a transition plan considering what needs to be done to give effect to the decision of the Scottish people when they vote yes”.

Nicola wants talks about talks. Not talk of what an independent Scotland would be.

I really don’t think that this is where the debate should be. We cannot have the Scottish Government fast forwarding through all the difficult bits to their longed for ending where they clinch a referendum victory. People want to know what independence would mean for them, their families, and their communities. It is on that basis that they will decide how to vote.

Planning the summits and designing the constitutional apparatus is like framing and hanging a picture that is yet to be painted. No matter how gilded and fancy the frame, the missing image is the essential part. I know that it is also the most difficult part for the SNP.

But, to be blunt, that is their problem. They must treat all of us with respect and start painting the independence picture. 2013 must be the year of evidence, not assertion.

So today I want to set out what the UK Government is going to do to help inform this debate.

Last summer, I announced that the UK Government was embarking on a programme of analysis to consider how Scotland contributes to and benefits from being part of our United Kingdom. Our work will be comprehensive, open and robust. We are engaging with experts in order to flush out the issues and establish the facts. We want you to examine our work and we want you to scrutinise it.

Over the next few weeks and months we will publish a series of papers that look at Scotland’s position in the UK today and make clear the choices that would face all of us as Scots if the UK family were to break up. The first paper will be published in February. I believe that this work will show not only that every part of the UK makes a valuable contribution to the whole, but that, together, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Together our economy is stronger and more secure. Scotland’s five million citizens are part of the UK’s economy of 60 million people with no boundaries, borders or customs, but with a common financial system, rules and currency. Together we have shown that we can withstand global economic challenges, pool our resources in the good times and manage our risks together in the bad. By working together we have a stronger place in the world. We have a great and wide consular network with over 14,000 people in nearly 270 diplomatic offices, projecting our values around the globe and looking after Scots abroad. And as an integral part of the UK Scotland benefits from significant levels of influence in the EU, UN, G8 and other international institutions.

But it’s not just on the international level that you can see the integration and benefits that being part of our shared United Kingdom brings. We also have close social, cultural and family ties across the UK. More than 800,000 Scots live and work in other parts of the UK. Each year, around 50,000 people move to Scotland from the rest of the UK. One common passport, one national insurance system and one shared tax system that allows the free movement of people, goods and investment. Together providing a level of prosperity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

There is no-one in this debate who says Scotland couldn’t go it alone.

What we – and those who share our view – are saying is it is better for Scotland and the rest of the UK to stay together in our United Kingdom. Devolution ensures power is practised as close as possible to the people it affects whilst keeping the strength and security of the United Kingdom. Important decisions on health, education and justice are made here in Scotland, but Scotland enjoys the economic strength and security of being part of our United Kingdom, working in our interests, for us all.

We enjoy the best of both worlds.

Our papers over the course of 2013 will set out the evidence about how devolution works in 21st century Britain, the facts about the way in which it benefits us as citizens and the analysis of what would be lost by leaving the UK family. In this debate, I want all of you to be active participants. Many of you are already involved in the UK Government’s work. But for those of you who aren’t, I say: please get involved. We want you to read our papers; ask us questions in the same way that you will ask the Scottish Government questions about their proposals.

The next period of this discussion must not just involve politicians and business people. I want charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises to be at the heart of this great debate as well. You have a crucial role to play. But most of all, you must help each and every voter in Scotland to seek out the evidence and find the information that will allow them to reach an informed decision in the referendum.

Over the course of the next year, you, Scots, all citizens in our United Kingdom, have a right to expect both of Scotland’s governments to deliver in our national interest.

Over the course of the next year you have a right to expect your UK government to demonstrate its commitment to Scotland and prove its value and relevance to Scotland’s future.

And over the course of the next year you have a right to expect those who doubt that value and question that relevance to set out how things would be better if Scotland goes it alone.

In tough times, and in the heat of constitutional battle, these are big challenges.

I relish meeting them.

I hope others do too and I look forward to the debate.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2013 Speech on the Cost of Living

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, in Battersea, London, on 5th November 2013.

Introduction

It is great to be here in Battersea with you today.

Last Friday, I was in my constituency, at the local Citizens Advice Bureau.

And I talked to some people who had been preyed upon by payday lenders.

There was a woman there in floods of tears.

She was in work.

But she took out a payday loan for her deposit so she could rent somewhere to live.

And then disaster followed.

A payday loan of a few hundred pounds became a debt of thousands of pounds.

She still faces bullying, harassment and threats from multiple payday lenders.

Like the young mum I met who described sitting at home with her daughter and seeing an advert on the TV for a payday lender.

She said she was down to the last nappy for her baby.

She took out the payday loan.

And one led to many more, with her ending up spending most of the money she had each week on repayments and charges.

She was so frightened by the harassment she faced that she had given her mobile phone to her mum.

Her mum showed me the phone and told me that she’d had fifteen calls that day.

The woman who worked at the CAB said the problem had got far, far worse in the last couple of years.

She said: “payday lenders are running riot through people’s lives in this community.”

Yesterday Wonga released a film all about themselves.

And last night the boss of Wonga said he was speaking for the ‘silent majority’, who are happy with their service.

But the truth is he wants us to stay silent about a company where in one year alone their bad debts reached £120 million.

An industry in which seven out of ten customers said they regretted taking out a loan.

With half saying they couldn’t pay it back.

Payday lenders don’t speak for the silent majority.

They are responsible for a quiet crisis of thousands of families trapped in unpayable debt.

The Wonga economy is one of the worst symbols of this cost of living crisis.

And as I listened to these stories, my overwhelming thought was: how is this being allowed to happen in Britain, 2013?

Because these stories of payday lenders are just one part of the cost of living crisis facing families across our country.

Low skilled jobs.

Wages that are stagnating.

Predatory behaviour by some companies.

This isn’t just an issue for the lowest paid, it affects the squeezed middle just as much.

A country where a few at the top do well, but everybody else struggles.

This is not just an issue facing Britain.

It is the issue facing Britain.

It is about who our country is run for.

How it is run.

And whether we believe we can do better than this.

I do.

The Nature of the Problem

Now, David Cameron said recently that I wanted to “talk about the cost of living” because I didn’t want to talk about “economic policy.”

So we have a Prime Minister who thinks we can detach our national economic success from the success of Britain’s families and businesses.

He doesn’t seem to realise that there is no such thing as a successful economy which doesn’t carry Britain’s families with it.

And he obviously doesn’t get that the old link between growth and living standards is just broken.

Growth without national prosperity is not economic success.

The first and last test of economic policy is whether living standards for ordinary families are rising.

And the scale of the problem is familiar to millions of people in our country.

The official figures say that on average working people are £1,500 a year worse off than they were at the election.

And it has happened because prices are rising faster than wages.

In 39 out of the 40 months that David Cameron has been Prime Minister.

But the average doesn’t tell you the whole story.

We don’t just need average wages to creep higher than prices.

For people to be genuinely better off, we have to do much better than that.

Ordinary families are hit harder than average by higher prices.

They rely more on expensive basic necessities, like electricity and gas.

And ordinary families do worse than the average when it comes to wage increases.

Because those increases are scooped by a few at the top.

Chief executive pay went up by 7 per cent last year.

When everyone else’s wages were falling.

We can’t just make do and mend.

We need to do much better than we are.

Can Anything Be Done?

And that means we can’t just carry on as we are.

We have to permanently restore the link between growth and living standards for all of Britain’s working people.

This Government can’t do it.

And the reason is because they are wedded to Britain competing in a race to the bottom.

Listen to their silence on our plans for a living wage.

Nothing to say.

On the falling value of the minimum wage.

Nothing to say.

On zero-hours contracts.

Nothing to say.

On the exploitation of low-skill migrant labour which undercuts wages.

Nothing to say.

They’re silent because of what they believe in.

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, George Osborne described my argument that they believed in a race to the bottom as something straight out of “Karl Marx” and “Das Kapital.”

No.

He’s wrong.

It is about what is happening in this capital city.

Right here.

And towns and cities across the country.

Right now.

Now, they think that this low wage economy is the best we can do.

Because they believe doing anything about it means intervening in markets in ways that we shouldn’t.

I disagree.

A dynamic market economy, with profitable private sector companies is essential for creating the wealth we need.

But markets always have rules.

The question is: what do those rules allow?

And what do they encourage?

Do they encourage companies to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, as part of a race to the top?

And provide the support they need to do so?

Or do they encourage a race to the bottom of low wages and low skills?

Do the rules mend broken markets?

Or allow some firms to take advantage of broken markets at the expense of everybody else?

All governments set rules for what they want to see.

This Government does intervene in markets but in the wrong way.

They make it easier to fire people.

Water down rights for agency workers.

Turn a blind eye to the failure to pay the minimum wage.

Pushing companies to compete on low wages, low skills and worse terms and conditions.

They introduce tax cuts for the richest.

Defend bonuses for the bankers.

Stand up for a powerful few.

Supporting their belief that wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everybody else.

Don’t believe it when they say they are stepping away, they are stepping in all the time, stepping in to stand up for the wrong people.

High hopes for those at the top.

Low expectations for everyone else.

A race to the bottom.

When what we need is a race to the top.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Jobs

To win that race to the top, we are going to earn and grow our way out of this cost of living crisis.

Not by spending money we don’t have.

Because we have to bring the deficit down.

But by building a different kind of economy.

One that really works for working people.

That starts with the jobs our country creates.

David Cameron is still on his lap of honour.

To celebrate how brilliantly he has done.

In the slowest recovery for a hundred years.

We still face a massive challenge of creating jobs in this country.

There are still nearly two and half million people unemployed in Britain and nearly a million young people are still looking for work.

And when we look at the jobs in our economy, too many are low paid, part-time and temporary.

Half of new jobs have been in low paid sectors of the economy.

We have 1.4 million people working part-time when they want full-time work.

More than ever before.

And we’ve got more people in a temporary job because they can’t find a permanent one.

The Tories don’t think we can do anything about it.

They think it is the way we compete with China and India.

But they are wrong.

A Labour government will put all our country’s effort into winning a race to the top.

And that means taking action on both the quantity and quality of jobs that we are creating.

We can only win a race to the top if we transform our vocational education system and apprenticeships in this country, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we radically transform the way we support business in every part of our country, with a proper regional banking system learning the lessons of Germany, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we support the small businesses that will create the jobs of the future, by cutting business rates, which is what we will do.

We can only win a race to the top if we help parents get back to work and start earning to support their families by extending childcare for working parents to 25 hour a week, which is what we will do.

And we can only win a race to the top with a proper industrial policy, including for environmental jobs, which is what we will do.

All this is about re-engineering the British economy so that we make a difference to the kinds of jobs we create.

You can’t do it if you believe in a race to the bottom.

You can only do it if you believe in a race to the top.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Wages

So dealing with the cost of living crisis starts with jobs.

But it is also about wages.

Wages for millions of people have been in decline for far too long.

I am talking about people battling to do the right thing and struggling and struggling.

Hard, honest work, in supermarkets, on building sites, in call centres.

Working harder, for longer, for less.

We have a low pay emergency in this country.

Five million people now paid less than the living wage.

Working for their poverty.

Up at least 1.4 million in just the last four years.

To one in five of all employed workers.

More of Britain’s poor children today are being brought up in working families than in jobless families.

And low wages aren’t just bad for working people.

They cost money in benefits too.

As the country has to subsidise more and more low paid jobs with higher and higher tax credits and benefits.

The government now pays more out on tax credits and benefits to those in work than it does for who are unemployed.

So to those who say we can’t afford to do anything about wages in our country today:

I say we can’t afford not to.

And many businesses now recognise that a low pay economy is bad for them too.

I was in Bristol last Thursday night talking to cleaners who are paid the living wage.

They told how proud to work for a firm like that.

Better pay means lower turnover of staff.

Higher productivity.

So we have to end the scandal of poverty pay in this country.

We would strengthen the minimum wage, which has lost 5 per cent of its value under this government.

We are looking at the case for higher minimum wages in particular sectors of the economy, like financial services, where they can afford to pay more.

And we will go further than that too.

That is why the next Labour government from its first day in office, will offer “make work pay” contracts to employers all over Britain.

It is a simple deal.

For the first year of a Labour government, we will say to every firm:

You start to make work pay, through a living wage.

And we will give you a 12 month tax rebate of 32p for every extra pound they spend.

Make work pay contracts will raise wages, keep the benefit bill down and tackle the cost of living crisis.

It is a good deal for workers, business and the taxpayer too.

And by tackling low pay we won’t just strengthen our economy, we will strengthen our society as well.

It is not good for our country for people to be working 60 or 70 hours a week, doing 2 or 3 jobs, not having time to see their kids.

We will change it.

Under a One Nation Labour government: work will pay.

Dealing with the Cost of Living Crisis: Broken Markets

And tackling the cost of living crisis is also about ensuring markets work for working people.

And that means fixing markets when they are broken.

This power station was built in the 1920s after a Conservative government intervened to fix a broken energy market.

That government, of Stanley Baldwin, knew that if government didn’t fix broken markets, nobody else was going to.

Stanley Baldwin knew it.

John Major seems to understand it.

But David Cameron doesn’t.

His response to Labour’s energy price freeze shows how out of the mainstream he is.

He took issue with the whole idea of government intervention in a broken market.

Ever since, on energy he seems to have had a different policy every day of the week.

But what we know is that we can never expect him to stand up to the energy companies, because they are a large and powerful interest.

It is not who David Cameron is.

It is not what he does.

He stands up to the weak, never to the strong.

For the next eighteen months, people will hear scare stories from the unholy alliance of the energy companies and David Cameron.

The Big Seven.

It will just reinforce in people’s minds who he stands up for.

The six large energy companies.

Not the 60 million people of Britain.

Today, new figures confirm that most of the recent price rises weren’t caused by government levies or by a rise in wholesale prices.

But are the direct result of a broken market.

For the average increase in the price for electricity and gas since 2011, over half went straight to the costs and profits of the companies themselves.

This shows exactly why we need a price freeze now.

Because only a price freeze will protect customers while we re-set the market.

A price freeze until 2017 will happen if Labour wins the election.

A freeze that will benefit 27 million families and 2.4 million businesses.

It is workable and it will happen.

And tomorrow, Parliament will vote on that price freeze.

So Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs could vote for it now.

And if they line up against it, the British people will know the truth:

This Government is on the side of the big energy companies not hard-pressed families.

And our price freeze until 2017 will pave the way for us to radically improve the energy market for the long term.

We will publish an Energy Green Paper for:

A regulator that can cut unjustified price rises.

A ring fence between the generation and supply businesses of the energy companies, so there is proper transparency.

Forcing energy companies to trade the energy they produce in the open market.

And a new simple tariff structure that people can understand.

So we will change the way the energy market works.

In a way that will provide long-term confidence for investors and a better deal for consumers.

And we will mend other markets that aren’t working in the public interest.

Opening up competition in banking.

A cap on the cost of credit in payday lending.

Proper regulation of our train companies.

Ending unjustified charges and fees in the private rented sector.

And new social tariffs in the water industry.

The Conservative Party defends broken markets and the few people that profit from them.

I am proud that the Labour Party stands up for markets that work for working people.

Conclusion

The next general election will offer a big choice.

A choice about whether we tackle the cost of living crisis or shrug our shoulders.

A choice about whether we run a race to the top or a race to the bottom.

A choice about whether we reform broken markets or defend them.

A choice about how we succeed as a country.

Above all, the choice will be about who our country is run for.

There is a Tory vision for Britain that has low expectations for what most people should be able to expect.

Payday lenders can prey on the vulnerable.

Millions of families see stagnating living standards.

Energy companies can just carry on as they are, ripping off consumers.

My vision is different.

We can run Britain in a different way.

Different from the past.

Building a different future for our country.

Where ordinary people feel the country is run for them.

In their interests.

And for their future.

Earning our way to a better standard of living.

Sharing rewards fairly.

And making markets work for people, not the other way round.

Britain can do better than this.

And that’s what One Nation Labour will do.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2013 Labour Party Conference Speech

Below is the text of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, to the 2013 Labour Party Conference held in Brighton in September 2013.

It’s great to be in Brighton. And I want to start by thanking somebody from the bottom of my heart for the kindest of words. Not Justine …oh, I would like to thank her, a round of applause for Justine please, ladies and gentlemen. Not my mum … but a woman called Ella Philips. It was local election day, Ella rode past me on her bike, she fell off …it’s not funny! I helped her up and afterwards she called me something I had never been called before: she said I was an “action hero”. Why are you laughing? She said I was an action hero “who mysteriously appeared out of nowhere”. And she said, “What added to all the confusion was that Ed was actually attractive and not geeky at all”. I promise you, she did say that. She said, “Even the way he appeared was suave”. I don’t know why you find this so funny, friends. “He was dressed casually, but he had style”. Sounds quite me, doesn’t it? Now I was pretty pleased with this, as you can tell, until something dawned on me: Ella was concussed. She was badly concussed. In fact, she herself said, “I was seeing things because I was still in quite a daze”. Well, Ella, you are not kidding. But let me say, Ella, if you are watching today, thank you, you have made my year.

I want to start today with the simplest of thoughts. An idea that has inspired change for generations. The belief that helped drive us out of the Second World War and into that great reforming government of 1945. An ambition that is more important now than it has been for decades. An emotion that is felt across our country at kitchen tables every night. A feeling that is so threatening to those who want to keep things as they are. Words that are so basic and yet so powerful, so modest and yet so hard to believe. Six simple words that say: Britain can do better than this. Britain can do better than this; we are Britain, we are better than this. Are you satisfied with a country where people are working for longer for less, year after year? Are you satisfied with a country divided losing touch with the things we value the most? Are you satisfied with a country that shuts out the voices of millions of ordinary people and listens only to the powerful? Are you satisfied with a country standing apart as two nations? Well I am not satisfied. We are Britain, we are better than this. And we have to rebuild anew One Nation. An economy built on your success, a society based on your values, a politics that hears your voice – rich and poor alike – accepting their responsibilities top each other. One Nation, we are going to make it happen, and today I am going to tell you how.

I want to start with leadership. Leadership is about risks and difficult decisions. It is about those lonely moments when you have to peer deep into your soul. I ran for the leadership of this party, it was really hard for my family, but I believed that Labour needed to turn the page and I was the best person to do it. I when I became leader I faced a decision about whether we should stand up to Rupert Murdoch. It wasn’t the way things had been done in the past, but it was the right thing to do so I did it. And together we faced them down. And then the other week I faced an even bigger decision about whether the country should go to war. The biggest decision any leader faces, the biggest decision any Parliament faces, the biggest decision any party faces. All of us were horrified by the appalling chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but when I stood on the stage three years ago, when I became your leader, I said we would learn the lessons of Iraq. It would have been a rush to war, it wasn’t the right thing for our country. So I said no. It was the right thing to do.

You see, the real test of leadership is not whether you stand up to the weak, that’s easy; it’s whether you stand up to the strong and know who to fight for. And you know I am reminded of a story back when I was starting out, standing to be an MP in Doncaster, with a woman called Molly Roberts. Molly was in her seventies, and there I was candidly trying to get her vote, sitting in her front from sipping a mug of tea. And she said to me, “How can you, who weren’t brought up in this area, possibly understand the lives of people here, their hopes and their struggles?” It was the right question, and here is the answer. For me it lies in the values I was brought up with. You see in my house it was my mum that taught me these values. About the importance of reaching out a listening to people, of understanding their hopes and their struggles. She is the most patient, generous person I have met in my whole life. And she taught me never to be contemptuous of others, never to be dismissive of their struggle. Now she was teaching me a lesson of life. And some people will say, ah yeah but you have to leave decency behind when it comes to politics. Well I say they are wrong, because only if you reach out and listen can you do the most important thing a leader can do, the most important qualification in my view for being Prime Minister. Only then will you have the ability to walk in the shoes of others and know who to fight for, whoever your opponent, however powerful they are, guided by the only thing that matters: your sense of what is right. This is what I believe, this is where I stand, this is the leadership Britain needs.

And when I think about who we need to fight for I think about all the people I have met over the last year. I think of the people Britain and their enormous and extraordinary spirit. I think of our troops, serving so bravely all around the world. Let us pay tribute to them today. You know I have seen in Afghanistan those young men and women, young men and women who are young enough to be my son or daughter serving our country, and it is a truly humbling experience. And the events of the last few days in Kenya remind us of the importance of being ever-vigilant against terrorism at home and around the world. I think of the brave men and women of our police force, who serve with so little credit each and every day for our country. Let us thank them for what they do.

And then I think of all the people I have met over the last year. During the local election campaign I did something unusual. I went to town centres, market squares and high streets and I stood on a pallet – not a soapbox, but a pallet. And I talked to people about their lives. I remember this town meeting I had in Cleverly. It was just coming to the end of the meeting and this bloke wandered up. He was incredibly angry. It’s a family show so I won’t exactly repeat what he said. He was so angry he wouldn’t give me his name, but he did tell me his story about how he spent the last ten years looking after his disabled wife, and then another four years looking for a job and not finding one. He was angry about immigration and some people in the crowd booed him. But actually he wasn’t prejudiced, he just felt the economy didn’t work for him. And then I think about the two market traders I met in Chesterfield, standing by their stalls, out in all weathers, working all hours, and they said look this country just doesn’t seem to be rewarding our hard work and effort. There seem to be some people getting something for nothing. This society is losing touch with our values. And then I think about this beautiful sunny spring day I spent in Lincoln. And the face in the crowd, this young woman who said she was an ambulance controller. So proud to be working for our National Health Service. And so proud too of her young son. Because she was a single parent, nineteen years old, and what she said to me was, “Why does everybody portray me as a burden on the system? I am not a burden on the system, I am going out, I am doing the right thing for the country, why doesn’t anyone listen to my voice?” And then I think about this scaffolder I met just around the corner from where I live. I was just coming back from a local café I’d been at. He stopped in me the street, he said to me, “Where’s your bodyguard?” I said I don’t have one, but that’s another story. He told me his story. And what he said to me was “look, I go out, I do the work, I go all around the country, again out in all weathers, I earn a decent wage, but I still can’t make ends meet”. A nd he said to me, “Is anyone ever going to do anything about those gas and electric bills that just go up and up, faster than I can earn a living?” He wanted someone to fight for him. Now if you listen to these stories – four of millions of the stories of our country – and you have your own, and your friends and family, what do you learn? All of these people love Britain, they embody its great spirit, but they all believe that Britain can do better than this. Today I say to them and millions of others you’re right, Britain can do better than this, Britain must do better than this, Britain will do better than this with a government that fights for you.

But for Britain to do better than this we’ve got to understand why we got here, why things are so tough at the moment even while they tell you there is a recovery and why unless we put things right it will only be a recovery for the few. Now what I’m about to tell you is the most important thing I’m going to say today about what needs to change about our country. For generations in Britain when the economy grew the majority got better off. And then somewhere along the way that vital link between the growing wealth of the country and your family finances was broken. This is, this goes beyond one party or one government. It is more important to you than which party is in power, even more important than that. You see, when I was growing up in the 1980s, I saw the benefits of growing prosperity, people able to buy a house, a car, even a second car, go on a foreign holiday their grandparents would never have dreamed of. Not spend all their hours at work, able to spend time with kids, not working all the hours that God sends, have a secure pension in retirement and also believe that their kids would have a better life than them. That feels a long way away from where Britain is today doesn’t it and that is because it is. You see, somewhere along the way that link got broken. They used to say a rising tide lifts all boats, now the rising tide just seems to lift the yachts. Now I say this to the people of Britain. If I were you I wouldn’t even take a second look at a political party unless they make this their central defining purpose because your future depends on it. Your children’s future depends on it. Britain’s future depends on it. I say we are Britain we can do better than this.

Now I have got a question for you ladies and gentlemen, do the Tories get it?

Oh come on, I didn’t hear you, do the Tories get it?

OK that is better. They don’t get it do they. I want to say this. I understand why three and a half years ago some people might have thought that David Cameron did get it and that is why people voted for him at the last general election. But they voted for change and I don’t believe they got the change that they were voting for. Let me just explain it this way: next week we are going to see David Cameron resuming his lap of honour for how brilliantly he’s done as Prime Minister. Claiming credit for his enormous achievements, how he has saved the economy as they put it. No doubt he’ll even be taking off his shirt and flinging it into the crowd expecting adoration from the British people like he did recently on holiday and maybe I should make this promise while I’m about it, if I become Prime Minister I won’t take my shirt off in public, I mean it is just not necessary is it. I’ll try and keep the promise. Anyway, back to David Cameron, so he is going on this lap of honour, everything is brilliant, he’s saved the economy, George Osborne, he deserves the garlands as well, you know, aren’t they brilliant. Come on. The slowest recovery in one hundred years. One million young people looking for work. More people on record working part-time who want full time work. More people than for a generation out of work for longer. The longest fall in living standards since 1870. That is not worthy of a lap of honour. That is worthy of a lap of shame and that is the record of this government.

He does have one record though but I don’t think it credits a lap of honour. He has been Prime Minister for 39 months and in 38 of those months wages have risen more slowly than prices. That means your living standards falling year, after year, after year. So in 2015 you’ll be asking am I better off now than I was five years ago? And we already know the answer for millions of families will be no. You’ve made the sacrifices, but you haven’t got the rewards. You were the first into the recession but you are the last one out. Now of course it would have taken time to recover from the global financial crisis whoever was in power. But when these Tories tell you that the pain will be worth the gain, don’t believe them. They can’t solve the cost of living crisis and here is why. The cost of living crisis isn’t an accident of David Cameron’s economic policy it is in his economic policy. Let me explain why. You see he believes in this thing called the global race, but what he doesn’t tell you is that he thinks for Britain to win the global race you have to lose, lower wages, worse terms and conditions, fewer rights at work. But Britain can’t win a race for the lowest wages against countries where wages rates are pennies an hour and the more we try the worse things will get for you. Britain can’t win a race for the fewest rights at work against the sweat shops of the world and the more we try the worse things will get for you. And Britain can’t win a race for the lowest skilled jobs against countries where kids leave school at the age of 11. And the more we try the worse things will get for you. It is a race to the bottom. Britain cannot and should not win that race.

You see it is not the low achievements of these Tories that really gets me. That is bad enough. It is their low aspirations; it is their low aspirations for you. It is their low aspirations for Britain but their high hopes for those at the top. The City bonuses are back. Up 82% in April alone thanks to the millionaire’s tax cut. So when they tell you the economy is healing, that everything is fixed, just remember, they are not talking about your life, they are talking about their friends at the top. That is who they are talking about; it is high hopes for them. And every so often you know the mask slips doesn’t it. The other day a man they call Lord Howell, he was I think their advisor on fracking at one point… There is nothing funny about that. He said it was wrong to frack in some areas but it was ok in others, it was ok in the North East of England because he said, and I quote ‘it was full of desolate and uninhabited areas.’ In one casual aside dismissing one whole region of the country. Let’s tell these Tories about the North East of England and every other part of Britain. People go out to work. They love their kids. They bring up their families. They care for their neighbours. They look out for each other. They are proud of their communities. They are proud of their communities. They hope for the future. The Tories call them inhabitants of desolate areas. We call them our friends, our neighbours, the heroes of our country. They are fed up of a government that doesn’t understand their lives and a Prime Minister who cannot walk in their shoes. We are Britain, we are better than this.

Now, to make Britain better we have got to win a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. A race to the top which means that other countries will buy our goods the companies will come and invest here and that will create the wealth and jobs we need for the future but we are not going to be able to do it easily. It is going to be tough and let me just say this friends. You think opposition is tough, you should try government. It is going to be tough; it is not going to be easy. And I’m not going to stand here today and pretend to you it is. We are going to have to stick to strict spending limits to get the deficit down. We are not going to be able to spend money we don’t have and frankly if I told you we were going to you wouldn’t believe me, the country wouldn’t believe me and they would be right not to believe me. But we can make a difference. We can win the race to the top and let me tell you how. It is about the jobs we create, it is about the businesses we support, it is about the talents we nurture, it is about the wages we earn and it is about the vested interests that we take on. Let me start with the jobs of the future.

The environment is a passion of mine because when I think about my two kids who are 2 and 4 at the moment and not talking that much about the environment, more interested in The Octonauts. There’s a plug. In 20 years’ time they’ll say to me ‘were you the last generation not to get climate change or the first generation to get it?’ That is the question they’ll be asking. But it is not just about environmental care. It is also about the jobs we create in the future. You see some people say, including George Osborne, that we can’t afford to have environmental at a time like this. He is dead wrong. We can’t afford not to have an environmental commitment at a time like this. That is why Labour will have a world leading commitment in government to take all of the carbon out of our energy by 2030. A route map to one million new green jobs in our country. That is how we win the race to the top. And to win that race to the top we have also got to do something else, we’ve got to support the businesses of the future. Now many of the new jobs in the future will come from a large number of small businesses not a small number of large businesses. And this is really important. If you think 15 years ahead, the rate of change and dynamism is so great that most of the new jobs that will be being done will be by companies that don’t yet exist. Now that changes the priorities for government.

When this government came to office, since they came to office they cut taxes for large business by £6 billion but raised taxes on small businesses. Now I don’t think that is the right priority. Yes we need a competitive tax regime for large businesses but frankly they’ve short-changed small business and I’m going to put it right. If Labour wins power in 2015 we will use the money that this government would use to cut taxes for 80,000 large businesses to cut business rates for 1.5 million businesses across our country. That is the way we win the race to the top. One Nation Labour. The party of small business. Cutting small business rates when we come to office in 2015 and freezing them the next year benefitting businesses by at least £450 a year. That is how we win the race for the top friends, and to win that race to the top we’ve also got to nurture the talents of the next generation. The skills of people. There are so many brilliant businesses in our country who provide amazing training for the workforce, but look, we have got to face facts, leading businesses say this to me too which is there aren’t enough of them and we have got to work to change that so we will say if you want a major government contract you must provide apprenticeships for the next generation. And we’ll also say to companies doing the right thing, training their workforce that they will have the power to call time on free-riding by competitors who refuse to do the same. That’s how we win the race to the top friends.

It’s not just business that has to accept responsibility though, it’s young people. We have a tragedy in this country. Hundreds of thousands of young people who leave school and end up on the dole. We’ve got this word for it haven’t we? NEET: Not in education, employment or training. Behind that short word is a tragedy of hundreds of thousands of wasted lives. If the school system fails our young people they shouldn’t be ending up on benefits. They should be ending up in education or training so they can get back on the road to a proper career. That requires them to accept responsibility but it requires government too to accept our responsibilities for the next generation in Britain, and that’s what we’ll do.

But to win the race to the top we’ve also got to take advantage of the talents of Britain’s 12 million parents. Justine and I had one of the great privileges in any parent’s life this year, which was taking our son Daniel to his first day at school. He was nervous at first, but actually pretty soon he started having fun; it’s a bit like being leader of the Labour Party really. Well it’s not exactly like being leader of the Labour Party. But look, for so many parents in this country the demands of the daily school run, combined with their job are like their very own daily assault course and we’ve got to understand that. Because we can’t win the race to the top with stressed out parents and family life under strain – we’ve got to change that.

In the last century, schools stayed open till mid-afternoon and that was okay back then because one parent usually stayed at home. But it’s not okay now: that’s why we want every primary school in Britain to have the breakfast clubs and after school care that parents need and that’s what the next Labour government will do.

To win the race to the top we’ve also got to deal with the issue of low pay. The National Minimum Wage, one of the last Labour government’s proudest achievements, friends. But we have to face facts: there are millions of people in this country going out to work, coming home at night, unable to afford to bring up their families. I just think that’s wrong in one of the richest countries in the world. The next Labour government must write the next chapter in dealing with the scourge of low pay in this country. And to do that though, we’ve got to learn lessons from the way the minimum wage came in, because it was about business and working people, business and unions working together in the right way so we set the minimum wage at the right level and we’ve got to do the same again. The minimum wage has been falling in value and we’ve got to do something about it.

There are some sectors, and I don’t often say anything nice about the banks but I will today, there are some sectors which actually can afford to pay higher wages, and some of them are – a living wage in some of the banks. So we’ve got to look at whether there are some sectors where we can afford a higher minimum but we’ve got to do it on the right basis – business and working people working together. That’s what we will do: the next Labour government will strengthen the minimum wage to make work pay for millions in our country. That’s how we win the race to the top.

And to win that race to the top we’ve got to call a halt to the race to the bottom, between workers already here and workers coming here. I’m the son of two immigrant parents. I’m proud of the welcome Britain gave me and my family, and we’ve always welcomed people who work, contribute and are part of our community. Let me say this, if people want a party that will cut itself off from the rest of the world, then let me say squarely: Labour is not your party. But if people want a party that will set the right rules for working people then Labour is your party, the only party that will do it. Employers not paying the minimum wage and government turning a blind eye – it’s a race to the bottom; not under my government. Recruitment agencies hiring only from overseas – it’s a race to the bottom; not under my government. Shady gang masters exploiting people in industries from constructing to food processing – it’s a race to the bottom; not under my government. Rogue landlords, putting 15 people in tied housing – it’s a race to the bottom; not under my government. And our country, sending out a message to the world that if you need to engage in shady employment practices, then Britain is open for businesses? It’s a race to the bottom; not under my government. And in case anyone asks whether this is pandering to prejudice, let’s tell them, it isn’t. It’s where Labour has always stood – countering exploitation, whoever it affects, wherever they come from. We’ve never believed in a race to the bottom, we’ve always believed in a race to the top, that is our party.

And to win the race to the top we’ve also got to take on the vested interests that hold our economy back. In the 1990s we committed to a dynamic market economy. Think of those words: ‘dynamic, ‘market’, ‘economy’. And then think about this, what happens when competition fails? What happens when it just fails again and again and again? Then government has to act. Train companies that put the daily commute out of reach. Payday lenders who force people into unpayable debt. Gas and electric companies that put prices up and up and up. It’s not good for an economy. It’s not a dynamic market economy when one section of society does so well at the expense of others. It’s bad for families, it’s bad for business and it’s bad for Britain too.

Now some people will just blame the companies but actually I don’t think that’s where the blame lies. I think it lies with government. I think it lies with government for not having had the strength to take this on. Not having stood up to the powerful interests. Not having the strength to stand up to the strong.

Take the gas and electricity companies. We need successful energy companies, in Britain. We need them to invest for the future. But you need to get a fair deal and frankly, there will never be public consent for that investment unless you do get a fair deal. And the system is broken and we are going to fix it.

If we win the election 2015 the next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017. Your bills will not rise. It will benefit millions of families and millions of businesses. That’s what I mean by a government that fights for you. That’s what I mean when I say Britain can do better than this.

Now the companies aren’t going to like this because it will cost them more but they have been overcharging people for too long because of a market that doesn’t work. It’s time to reset the market. So we will pass legislation in our first year in office to do that, and have a regulator that will genuinely be on the customers’ side but also enable the investment we need. That’s how Britain will do better than this.

So, making Britain better than this starts with our economy – your economic success as a foundation for Britain’s economic success. But it doesn’t just stop there it goes to our society as well. I told you earlier on about those market traders in Chesterfield and how they felt that society had lost touch with their values. I think what they were really saying was this: that they put in huge hard work and effort, they bring up their kids in the right way and they just feel that their kids are going to have a worse life than them. And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to renting or buying a home.

There are 9 million people in this country renting a home, many of whom who would want to buy. 9 million people – we don’t just have a cost of living crisis, we have a housing crisis too. In 2010 when we left office there was a problem. There were one million too few homes in Britain. If we carry on as we are, by 2020 there will be two million too few homes in Britain. That is the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham. We’ve got to do something about it and the next Labour government will. So we’ll say to private developers, you can’t just sit on land and refuse to build. We will give them a very clear message – either use the land or lose the land, that is what the next Labour government will do.

We’ll say to local authorities that they have a right to grow, and neighbouring authorities can’t just stop them. We’ll identify new towns and garden cities and we’ll have a clear aim that by the end of the parliament Britain will be building 200,000 homes a year, more than at any time in a generation. That’s how we make Britain better than this.

And nowhere do we need to put the values of the British people back at the heart of our country more than in our National Health Service, the greatest institution of our country. You know I had a letter a couple of months back from a 17 year old girl. She was suffering from depression and anxiety and she told me a heart-breaking story about how she had ended up in hospital for 10 weeks. Mental health is a truly one nation problem. It covers rich and poor, North and South, young and old alike and let’s be frank friends, in the privacy of this room; we’ve swept it under the carpet for too long. It’s a bit of a British thing isn’t it; we don’t like to talk about it. If you’ve got a bad back or if you’re suffering from cancer you can talk abbot it but if you’ve got depression or anxiety you don’t want to talk about it because somehow it doesn’t seem right – we’ve got to change that. It’s an afterthought in our National Health Service.

And here’s a really interesting thing – so you might say, it’s going to be really tough times Ed, you told us that before. You said there would be really difficult decisions in government, and that’s true, so how are you going to make it work? Well here’s the thing, the 17-year-old said in that letter, look if someone had actually identified the problem when it started three years earlier I wouldn’t have ended up in hospital. I wouldn’t have ended up costing the state thousands of pounds and the anguish that I had. So it’s about that early identification and talking about this issue.

And if it’s true of mental health, it’s true in an even bigger way about care for the elderly. There’s so much more our country could be doing for our grandmas and granddads, mum and dads, nuclease and aunts. And it’s the same story. Just putting a £50 grab rail in the home stops somebody falling over, prevents them ending up in hospital with the needless agony, and all of the money that it costs. The 1945 Labour government, in really tough times, raised its sights and created the National Health Service. I want the next Labour government to do the same, even in tough times, to raise our sights about what the health service can achieve, bringing together physical health, mental health, and the care needs of the elderly: a true integrated National Health Service. That’s the business of the future.

But we don’t just need to improve the health service, friends; we’ve got to rescue it from these Tories.

And the Liberals too. Now look, before the election, I remember the speeches by David Cameron. I remember one where he said the three most important letters to him were NHS. Well he has got a funny way of showing it, hasn’t he? And when they came to office, they were still saying how brilliant was in the health service, how the health service was doing great things and the doctors and nurses and so on. Now have you noticed they have changed their tune recently? Suddenly they are saying how bad everything is in the NHS. Now the vast majority of doctors and nurses do a fantastic job. Sometimes things go wrong. And when they do, we should be the first people to say so. But hear me on this. The reason David Cameron is running down the NHS is not because the doctors and nurses aren’t doing as good a job as they were before. It is because they have come to a realisation that the health service is getting worse on their watch and they are desperately thrashing around trying to find someone else to blame. Blame the doctors, blame the nurses, blame the last Labour government. That is what they are doing. Well let me tell you about the record of the last Labour government. When we came to office there were waiting time targets of 18 months that were not being met, when we left office there were waiting time targets of 18 weeks that were being met. When we came to office there was an annual winter A&E crisis, when we left office the people had A&E services they could rely on. When we came to office there were fewer doctors and nurses, we when left office more doctors and nurses than ever before. And when we came to office people said well the health service, it was a good idea in previous generations but I don’t really believe it will be there in the next, and we left office with the highest public satisfaction in the history of the health services. Yes friends, we did rescue the National Health Service. So when you hear David Cameron casting around for someone to blame for what is happening in the NHS just remember it is not complicated, it’s simple, it’s as simple as ABC: when it comes to blame, it is ‘Anyone But Cameron’. We know who is responsible, the top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for and nobody wanted, the abolition of NHS Direct, the cuts to social care, the fragmentation of services. We know who is responsible for thousands of fewer nurses, we know who is responsible not just for an annual A&E crisis, but an A&E crisis for all seasons. It is this Prime Minister who is responsible. So friends it is the same old story, we rescue the NHS, they wreck the NHS and we have to rescue it all over again. And that is what the next Labour government will do.

Right, I have explained to you how we can make Britain better by changing our economy and changing our society, and now I want to talk about how we change our politics. And here is the bit you have all been looking forward to: party reform. Now look let me say to you, change is difficult, change is uncomfortable. And I understand why people are uncomfortable about some of the changes, but I just want to explain to you why I think it is so important. With all of the forces ranged against us, we can’t just be a party of 200,000 people. We have got to be a party of 500,000, 600,000, or many more. And I am optimistic enough – some might say idealistic enough – to believe that is possible. And the reason it is possible in our party is the unique link we have with the trade unions. The unique link. I don’t want to end that link, I want to mend that link. And I want to hear the voices of individual working people in our party, louder than before. Because you see, think about our history. It is many of you who have been telling us that actually we haven’t been rooted enough in the workplaces of our country. And that is what I want to change. And that is the point of my reforms. See my reforms are about hearing the voices of people from call centre workers to construction workers, from people with small businesses to people working in supermarkets at the heart of our party. Because you see it is about my view of politics. Leaders matter, of course they do, leadership matters, but in the end political change happens because people make it happen. And you can’t be a party that properly fights for working people unless you have working people at the core of your party, up and down this country. That is the point of my reforms. And I want to work with you to make them happen so that we can make ourselves a mass-membership party. Friends, let’s make ourselves truly the people’s party once again.

But to change our politics we have got to a lot more than that. We have got to hear the voices of people that haven’t been heard for a long time. I think about our young people, their talent, their energy, their voices. The voices of young people demanding a job, the voices of young people who demand that we shoulder and don’t shirk our responsibilities to the environment. The voices of gay and lesbian young people who led the fight and won the battle for equal marriage in Britain. And the voices of young people, particularly young women, who say in 2013 the battle for equality is not won. You see they are not satisfied that 33% of Labour MPs are women, they want it to be 50% and they are right. They are not satisfied that 40 years after the Equal Pay Act, we still do not have equal pay for work of equal value in this country. They are not satisfied and they are right. And they are not satisfied that in Britain in 2013, women are still subject to violence, harassment, and everyday sexism. They are not satisfied and they are right. Friends, let’s give a voice to these young people in our party. And let’s give a voice to these young people in our democracy, let’s give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds and make them part of our democracy.

But you know we have got to win the battle for perhaps the most important institution of all, our United Kingdom. Friends, devolution works. Carwyn Jones, our brilliant First Minister of Wales, he is showing devolution works. And let’s praise the leadership of our Scottish Joanne Lamont for the brilliant job she is doing against Alex Salmond. Now that referendum on September the 18th 2014, it is going to be conducted on the basis of fact and figures and arguments and counterarguments, but I have a story I want to tell you which I think says even more. It’s the story of Cathy Murphy. Cathy Murphy lives in Glasgow, she worked in the local supermarket. In 2010, Cathy was diagnosed with a serious heart problem, but she came to Labour conference nonetheless in 2011 as a delegate. She fell seriously ill. Her family were called down from Glasgow. The doctors said to her that to save her life they’d have to give her a very long and very risky operation. She had that operation a few weeks later at the world-leading Liverpool Broadgreen hospital. Cathy pulled through. She went back to Glasgow some weeks later. She comes back down to Liverpool every six months for her check-up. Now she said to me the nurses and doctors don’t ask whether she is English or Scottish, the hospital doesn’t care where she lives. They care about her because she is Scottish and British, a citizen of our United Kingdom. Friends, Cathy is with us today, back as a delegate. Where is she? Cathy’s here. Friends, I don’t want Cathy to become a foreigner. Let’s win the battle for the United Kingdom.

So I have talked to you today about policy and what a Labour government would do, how it would make Britain better and win a race to the top in our economy, put our society back in touch with people’s values and change our politics so it lets new voices in. But the next election isn’t just going to be about policy. It is going to be about how we lead and the character we show. I have got a message for the Tories today: if they want to have a debate about leadership and character, be my guest. And if you want to know the difference between me and David Cameron, here’s an easy way to remember it. When it was Murdoch versus the McCanns, he took the side of Murdoch. When it was the tobacco lobby versus the cancer charities, he took the side of the tobacco lobby. When it was the millionaires who wanted a tax cut versus people paying the bedroom tax, he took the side of the millionaires. Come to think of it, here is an even easier way to remember it: David Cameron was the Prime Minister who introduced the bedroom tax, I’ll be the Prime Minister who repeals the bedroom tax.

You see here is the thing about David Cameron. He may be strong at standing up to the weak, but he is always weak when it comes to standing up against the strong. That is the difference between me and David Cameron, so let’s have that debate about leadership and character, and I relish that debate. And we know what we are going to see from these Tories between now and the general election, it is the lowest form of politics, it is divide and rule. People on benefits versus those in work. People in unions against those outside union. People in the private sector versus those in the public sector. People in the north against those in the south. It is the worst form of politics. Like sending vans into areas of Britain where people’s mums and granddads have lived for years, generations, and telling people to go home. I say we are Britain, we are better than this. Telling anyone who’s looking for a job that they are a scrounger. However hard they are looking, even if the work is not available. I say we are Britain we are better than this. So come on. So David Cameron I have got a message for you. You can tell your Lynton Crosby, it might work elsewhere, it won’t work here. We’re Britain, we’re better than this.

Friends, the easy path for politics is to divide, that’s the easy part. You need to know this about me, I believe in seeing the best in people, not the worst. That’s what I am about. That’s how we create One Nation. That’s how we make Britain better than this. That’s how we have a government that fights for you.

Now, it is going to be a big fight between now and the general election. Prepare yourself for that fight. But when you think about that fight, don’t think about our party, think about our country. I don’t want to win this fight for Labour; I want to win it for Britain. And just remember this, throughout our history, when the voices of hope have been ranged against the voices of fear, the voices of hope have won through. Those who said at the dawn of the industrial revolution that working people needed the vote and they wouldn’t wait – they knew Britain could be better than this, and we were. Those that said, at the birth of a new century, those who said at the birth of a new century that working people needed a party to fight for them and the old order wouldn’t do – they knew Britain could be better than this, and we were. Those who said at our darkest hour in the Second World War that Britain needed to rebuild after the war and said ‘never again’, they knew Bri tain could be better than this, and we did. Those who said, as the 20th Century grew old, that the battle for equality was still young; they knew Britain could do better than this, and we did.

And so now it falls to us, to build One Nation, a country for all, a Britain we rebuild together. Britain’s best days lie ahead. Britain can do better than this. We’re Britain, we’re better than this. I’ll lead a government that fights for you.

December 9, 2015
Ed Miliband – 2013 Speech to the TUC

Below is the text of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, to the TUC Conference in Bournemouth on 10th September 2013.

Frances, thank you so much for that introduction.

And let me pay tribute to you, as the first female General Secretary of the TUC, for the fantastic job that you do.

But I am sure you would agree that it would be wrong not to also remember those who did so much before you.

And I want to pick out one particular individual.

In a speech I remember reading, he argued that the problem of British politics had been that the “voices of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, all the other important centres of … industry have been unheard.”

He went further.

He praised that trade union march through the centre of London.

He talked evocatively of its “immense organisation, with marshals and sub-marshals, scarves, banners and an exhibition of almost perfect military discipline.”

Yes, I am talking, believe it or not, about:

The Conservative Prime Minister of 1867.

The Fourteenth Earl of Derby.

The longest ever serving leader of the Conservative Party.

The man who first legislated to allow trade unions in this country.

His real name: Edward Stanley.

Or as he would be called today:

Red Ed.

I tell this story to make a serious point.

The Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli who succeeded him were One Nation Conservatives.

They knew the Conservative Party had to represent the whole country.

They couldn’t write off whole swathes of people if they were to be worthy of governing Britain.

It seems extraordinary to have to even talk about this historical lesson.

But I do.

We have a Prime Minister who writes you and your members off.

Who doesn’t just write you off, but oozes contempt for you from every pore.

What does he say about you?

He says the trade union movement is a “threat to our economy”.

Back to the enemy within.

Six and a half million people in Britain.

Who teach our children.

Who look after the sick.

Who care for the elderly.

Who build our homes.

Who keep our shops open morning, noon and night.

They’re not the enemy within.

They’re the people who make Britain what it is.

How dare he?

How dare he insult people – members of trade unions – as he does?

How dare he write off whole sections of our society?

The Earl of Derby, Benjamin Disraeli, and other One Nation Conservatives, would be turning in their graves if they could hear the nasty, divisive, small-minded rhetoric of the leader of their once great party.

But friends, just remember this.

We know from recent experience what happens to political leaders who write off whole sections of a country.

That’s what Mitt Romney did when he talked about the 47 per cent of people who would never vote for him.

And look what happened to him.

They didn’t.

Friends, my job is to make sure that’s what happens to David Cameron as well.

A One Nation Party.

Unlike Mr Cameron, I am a One Nation politician.

And One Nation is about governing for the whole country.

To do this we are going have to build a new kind of Labour Party.

A new relationship with individual trade union members.

Some people ask: what’s wrong with the current system?

Let me tell them: we have three million working men and women affiliated to our party.

But the vast majority play no role in our party.

They are affiliated in name only.

That wasn’t the vision of the founders of our party.

I don’t think it’s your vision either.

And it’s certainly not my vision.

That’s why I want to make each and every affiliated trade union member a real part of their local party.

Making a real choice to be a part of our party.

So they can have a real voice in it.

And why is that such an exciting idea?

Because it means we could become a Labour party not of 200,000 people, but 500,000 or many more.

A party rooted every kind of workplace in the country.

A party rooted in every community in the country.

A genuine living, breathing movement.

Of course, it is a massive challenge.

It will be a massive challenge for the Labour Party to reach out to your members in a way that we have not done for many years and persuade them to be part of what we do.

And like anything that is hard it is a risk.

But the bigger risk is just saying let’s do it as we have always done it.

It is you who have been telling me year after year about a politics that is detached from the lives of working people.

That’s why we have to have the courage to change.

I respect those who worry about change.

I understand.

But I disagree.

It is the right thing to do.

We can change.

We must change.

And I am absolutely determined this change will happen.

It is the only way we can build a One Nation party.

So we can build a One Nation country.

And most importantly a One Nation economy, one that works for all working people, not just a few at the top.

Now at the moment you hear the Tories congratulating themselves on the recovery.

George Osborne was at it again yesterday.

And it is welcome that the economy is growing.

But we have to ask: “whose recovery is it anyway”?

The million young people looking for work.

It is not their recovery.

The long-term unemployed, higher than at any time for a generation.

It is not their recovery.

The 1.4 million people, more than ever before, desperate for full-time work but only able to get part-time work.

It is not their recovery.

And all the millions of people who are seeing their living standards falling year on year under this government.

It is not their recovery either.

Living standards have been falling for longer than at any time since 1870.

About the time our old friend, the Earl of Derby, left office.

We know whose recovery it is.

A recovery for the privileged few in our society.

The City bonuses are back.

Up by 82 per cent in April of this year alone.

Helped along by David Cameron’s millionaire’s tax cut.

It is a recovery for a few.

It is an unfair recovery.

An unequal recovery.

And an unequal recovery won’t be a stable recovery.

It won’t be built to last.

The only way we can have a durable recovery is with an economy that works for all working people.

Because what makes an economy succeed is not just a few people at the top, but the forgotten wealth creators.

The people who put in the hours, do the work, do two jobs.

Who get up before George Osborne’s curtains are open in the morning and come back at night well after they have closed.

They’re the people who make our economy strong.

They’re the people we have to support to make a recovery that lasts.

We know life won’t be easy under a Labour government.

We’ll have to stick to strict spending limits.

I know that means you ask:

What do we have to say to our members about what would be different under a Labour government than a Tory government?

The answer is we’d make different choices in pursuit of a fundamentally different vision of our economy.

One that works for all working people, not just a few.

These different choices start with young people.

On day one as Prime Minister, I would be mobilising all of Britain’s businesses behind the idea of getting our young people back to work.

If we were in government now, we would be saying to every young person out of work for more than a year, we will offer a compulsory jobs guarantee, funded by a tax on the bankers’ bonuses, for a job with proper training, paying at least the minimum wage.

A Labour government would get our young people working again.

And we need to get the best out of all of our young people.

It is time to end the snobbery in our country that says that university is always best and apprenticeships second best.

That’s why the next Labour government will get proper careers and qualifications for that forgotten 50 per cent who don’t go to university.

And we’ll say to any business: if you want a major government contract, you must provide apprenticeships to the next generation.

And to get a recovery that works for working people, we need proper investment in the future too.

Britain is currently 159th in the international league table of investment.

We’re not going to succeed in the future with a record like that.

Turning it round means changing our banking system.

We’ve still got businesses that serve our banks rather than banks that serve our businesses.

So we would have a new British Investment Bank to get finance to small businesses.

And regional banks too.

Banks that are legally obliged to invest in their region of the country and their region alone.

Not chasing a quick profit in the City of London.

But investment in the future doesn’t just come from our banks.

It needs to come from the government too.

I believe the way we get the best companies to come here is not on the basis of low skills and low wages.

But high skills and a decent infrastructure.

So we’d be doing something that hasn’t been done for decades.

Investing properly in housing in this country.

So, building a recovery that can last, one that works for working people and not just a few at the top, needs different choices on young people, on jobs, on skills, on investment and on infrastructure.

But it means something else too.

The Tories really do believe we get success through a few at the top.

So they say to get more out of the very wealthiest, you give them a tax cut.

But you get more out of working people, if you make them feel more insecure.

I disagree.

We can never build a recovery works for all, unless working people feel confident and secure at work.

That’s what other countries know.

And I think that’s what the British people know too.

Now I recognise, as do you, that both workers and businesses need flexibility.

It is how you unions and employers worked together to keep people working even during the most difficult moments of the recession.

Putting jobs above pay rises.

Working fewer hours in order to protect employment.

Flexibility yes.

Exploitation no.

And nowhere is that more true than when it comes to zero hours contracts.

Of course, there are some kinds of these contracts which are useful.

For locum doctors.

Or supply teachers at schools.

Or sometimes, young people working in bars.

But you and I know that zero hours contracts have been terribly misused.

I had the privilege last week of speaking to some people working on zero hours contracts.

One in particular in the care sector who said “You can’t build your life on what you get from a zero hours contract”.

Another told me of her experience: 23 years on a proper, regular contract and now had the nightmare of 2 years on a zero hours contract.

As she said, just imagine if you didn’t know from one week to the next whether your wages were going to halve.

That is the reality for so many people on zero hours contracts.

They don’t know how many hours they’re going to do from one week to the next.

They don’t know how much they’re going to be paid.

They have no security.

All of the risks in the economy which we used to believe should be fairly shared between employers and working people.

Now placed on the individual worker alone.

That’s why the worst of these practices owe more to the Victorian era than they do to the kind of workplace we should have in the 21st century.

It’s wrong.

And the next Labour government will put things right.

We’ll ban zero hours contracts which require workers to work exclusively for one business.

We’ll stop zero hours contracts which require workers to be on call all day without any guarantee of work.

And we’ll end zero hours contracts where workers are working regular hours but are denied a regular contract.

Because I am determined to build an economy that works for working people.

And that means security, not insecurity at work.

Because that is how our country will succeed.

Let me end by saying this.

The next election is a high stakes election.

High stakes for your members.

High stakes for working people.

High stakes for our country.

We’re in the fourth year of this government.

We know who they stand for.

A privileged few at the top.

We know that they will never create an economy that works for working people.

It is not what they believe.

We know how they’ll try to divide our country.

For political advantage.

I stand for a different and better way forward for our country.

A vision that draws on the best of our traditions.

I think about the 1945 government.

We didn’t lower our sights in the face of difficulty.

We raised them.

That government was a One Nation government.

It listened to the voices of all.

Used the talents of all.

Built a country fit for all.

My vision: a One Nation Britain.

Let’s rebuild that country together.

December 9, 2015