UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2015

  • Michael Fallon – 2015 Speech on Stronger Defence

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Atlantic Council in Washington on 11 December 2015.

    I’m delighted to be back in the United States, a place where I always feel at home.

    That familiarity reminds me of something President Reagan once said:

    “Great Britain and the United States are kindred nations of like minded people and must face their tests together.

    “We are bound by common language and linked in history. We share laws and literature, blood, and moral fiber. The responsibility for freedom is ours to share.”

    Values under threat

    Our freedom was threatened by Nazi evil, and our nations united to defeat it, seventy years ago.

    Today it’s threatened by a new evil, Islamist fascism.

    This year we’ve seen its followers slaying innocent American people in a San Bernadino day care centre, French people socialising in Paris, and British tourists on a Tunisian beach.

    To defeat this evil we require unity of purpose and a total cross government response.

    That doesn’t just mean shutting down their online presence, stopping their financial support, preventing fighters crossing borders, and building up capacity of fragile states.

    It means calling out their extremist narrative.

    Those susceptible to radicalisation must understand that the way of ISIL/Daesh is a metaphorical and literal dead end.

    The only item on its agenda is the destruction of our nations and establishment of its own barbaric realm.

    Yet no one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.

    There’s a process of radicalisation.

    So we need to expose that Islamist ideology for the perversion it is.

    And we can’t deny this process has anything to do with Islam.

    These extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.

    As President Obama said in his Oval office address:

    “This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse”.

    But we mustn’t hand a propaganda coup to ISIL/Daesh.

    Their mouthpieces and apologists paint their war as a clash between Islam and the west…in order to sow division.

    Yet the facts are:

    …ISIL/Daesh kills more Muslims than any other group

    …and our anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition is made of many Muslim countries

    …who recognise

    …that what’s at stake

    …is a conflict between those who love life

    …and those who love death and chaos.

    Our challenge is to support reforming voices within the Muslim community, preventing the fusing of religion and politics and stopping the slide into extremism.

    At the same time, taking pride in what our 2 nations offer all our people whatever their colour, class or creed: not discrimination or sectarianism, but freedom of religion, tolerance and opportunity for all.

    Again quoting President Reagan…speaking here at the Atlantic Council: “Our consensus is built not only on what we’re against but on what we’re for. And we are against totalitarianism. We’re for freedom and democracy, for them without hesitation or apology.”

    We won’t discredit their poisonous ideology, if we are not true to those values.

    Use of force

    The use of force must be part of this total government response.

    There can be no compromise, no deal with Islamo-fascists.

    Those who murder innocents at a Christmas party with their co-workers, who behead aid workers and push gay people off buildings must be stopped.

    That was the message from UN Security Resolution 2249 which called on states to take “all necessary measures” to expunge the extremists.

    The US and the UK have always stood side-by-side against terror.

    Against Hitler; against Al-Qaeda; and as part of the anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition.

    From the very start the UK’s been flying missions in Iraq.

    We’re providing some 60 per cent of the Coalition’s tactical reconnaissance.

    And last month the UK Parliament voted decisively to answer our allies’ call and lift the shadow of the 2013 Syria vote.

    We are stepping up

    …alongside our US, French and Coalition allies

    …bringing the full force of the RAF to bear

    …destroying their infrastructure

    …cutting off their oil supplies

    …and locking onto their leaders.

    Multiple dangers

    But our recent National Security Strategy makes clear ISIL is not the only danger we face.

    We’re threatened by multiple, concurrent risks.

    …a resurgence of state based threats

    …an expansionist Russia

    …and a growing cyber threat.

    Collectively they challenge the rules-based international order on which our security and prosperity depend.

    We are a powerful partner today with capabilities and reach few, if any, US allies can provide.

    Tomorrow, we’re going to be an even more powerful partner.

    1. Bigger stronger, defence

    First, we’re investing in stronger defence in a more dangerous world.

    This government was elected to deliver national as well as economic security.

    That’s what we’re doing.

    We’re increasing defence spending.

    We’re the only major country choosing to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence and meeting the OECD’s goal of at least 0.7 per cent on development.

    This helps us stabilise and support broken and fragile states and prevent crises turning into chaos.

    Over the next decade we plan to spend more than $265 billion on new equipment.

    That money underpins the centrepiece of our Strategic Defence and Security Review, Joint Force 2025.

    To respond to increasing demands in future we’ll have

    …a potent expeditionary force of up to 50,000

    …made up of an Army Division, Maritime Task Group and Air Group.

    Some retired generals were concerned about the size of the British Army.

    Let me reassure them, Britain will remain one of the few countries able to deploy such a highly capable division in the field.

    And now we’ll be able to deploy…two self-sustaining strike brigades.

    At sea, we’ll have a maritime taskforce of new frigates and destroyers alongside, in the 2020s, the world’s second most capable carrier force.

    And in the air, we’ll have more F35s more quickly

    …delivering our carrier strike capability

    …and nine new Maritime Patrol Aircraft

    …protecting our nuclear deterrent.

    All of this and we’re enhancing our global strike capability with more investment in our special forces.

    Our new Joint Force lets us do more independently, but also more in tandem with you.

    That’s why we’ve made a point of investing in shared platforms

    …like P8, like Rivet Joint, like Reaper

    And with the United States locating their European F35 base in the UK

    …I look forward not just to welcoming you on board our carriers

    … as I was welcomed on USS Theodore Roosevelt

    …but seeing your F35s flying from our decks

    …and ours flying from yours.

    Two-way street

    So we have the will and the means to respond.

    As we become a stronger partner I want our relationship to become more of a 2-way street.

    We’re investing more in you and we’re expecting more from you.

    I want to see more contracts in the supply chain flowing from the majors on these programmes to British companies.

    We have so much common.

    Look at our areas of shared interest such as our nuclear enterprise.

    We’re spending almost $47 billion on 4 new Successor submarines.

    And the US is also looking to replace the Ohio… that uses the same common missile compartment.

    Look at our expertise in a huge range of areas.

    We’re building 15 per cent of each F35 produced, from tail parts to wing tips.

    We have unique Dual-Mode Brimstone missiles, bringing a high precision capability to the fight again Daesh not even the US have.

    Many of the companies we use have footprints in both the US and the UK.

    Illustrating a level of industrial integration that is unique.

    It surely makes sense for both of us to benefit from the industrial expertise that exists in our countries.

    2. Strengthening our influence

    Second, the UK is doing more to project our influence around the world and strengthen the international rules based order.

    This year UK forces were involved in more than 20 operations around the globe.

    We’re one of your few global partners.

    In Europe, we’re your closest ally.

    And we’ve been urging our European colleagues to up their game.

    The threats Europe faces on its eastern and southern flanks highlights the value of a joined up response, using our membership of NATO, the UN and the EU to protect our security.

    Britain has pressed the EU to play an important role as part of a comprehensive approach, mobilising its economic might to enforce sanctions on Russia and co-operate on security in the wake of Paris.

    None of this means giving up on our sovereignty.

    What it does mean we can have the best of both worlds: free to act on our own accord with the swiftness and strength that comes from being an independent nation; but working with a bloc of 27 other countries to advance our shared interests.

    But NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence.

    And at Wales last year our PM and your President, urged NATO nations to do more.

    Since then 7 countries have pledged to increase their spending.

    We’re also stepping up our leadership role

    …leading NATO’s high readiness Spearhead force in 2017

    …bringing six northern EU nations together as a new expeditionary force

    …and having a persistent presence in the Baltic states and Poland

    We’re also looking beyond Europe’s borders, doubling peace keeping efforts in Africa and strengthening our hand in the Asia Pacific.

    We’re elevating our defence relationship with India with more joint military exercises and co-operation on technology and manufacturing.

    We’re enhancing our relationship with Japan. In January, we held our first combined Foreign and Defence Ministers’ meeting in London. Next January, we hold the second in Tokyo.

    When it comes to China we’re clear.

    We want to work more closely with them and bind them into the rules based international order.

    But provocative behaviour in the South China Sea destabilises the region and increases the risk of miscalculation.

    We want to see maritime and other disputes settled peacefully in accordance with international law.

    We’re also investing more than $750 milion over the next decade…expanding our presence with British Defence Staffs in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa.

    3. Innovation

    Finally, the UK will have stronger defence because we’re investing in innovation.

    The US’s 3rd Offset strategy addresses the erosion of the west’s technological edge.

    Our SDSR also recognises the need to keep ahead of our adversaries: in cyber, robotics, autonomous systems, and space.

    We’re putting $1.5 billion into an innovation fund to secure operational advantage in future.

    You’ve set up the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) to access innovation in Silicon Valley.

    We will be launching our Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell.

    …to identify game changing technologies.

    We’re also setting up a new centre to pool the intelligence of the best British brains in business, academia and the public sector.

    And, next year, we introduce a new defence innovation initiative adopting a different approach to risk and doing more to test new ideas.

    But we know when we work together we’re more than the sum of our parts.

    2015 marks 75 years since British scientist Henry Tizard set off for the US on orders from Churchill, armed only with a top secret briefcase.

    That precious cargo, containing blueprints for radar, the jet engine and nuclear fission, helped win a war.

    We’re building on those firm foundations.

    Today we’re collaborating on everything from F35

    …to insect-like Black Hornet UAVs

    …and quantum clocks.

    Yet as Defence Secretary Carter and I announced in London…we’re tightening those ties

    … working on emerging technology demonstrators

    …better use of joint war gaming to test out new ideas

    …and adapting new operating concepts fit for a new environment.

    Prosperity

    The opportunity that comes from innovation has wider applications.

    Defence technologies are often spun off in the commercial sector.

    Together we’ve given the world GPS, the world wide web, and splash proof technology.

    Recently British company Reaction Engines and BAE systems signed a deal to develop the SABRE (Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine).

    Its aircraft will operate at over five times the speed of sound and can transition to a rocket mode, allowing spaceflight at speeds up to orbital velocity.

    Once this was science fiction.

    Today our scientists are making it science fact.

    We need to do more to take advantage of this dual-use technology.

    Conclusion

    So, at a time of growing threats the UK is stepping up with bigger, stronger defence.

    We’re increasing our defence budget and the size and power of our forces so we can do more to protect our security.

    By doing so we are becoming an even stronger partner with our most steadfast ally, the United States.

    Open societies, successful countries like Britain and the United States, attract enemies as well as envy. The more open we are, the harder we must work to ensure that all our people enjoy the security that comes with greater freedoms.

    As we look ahead, we recall the words of Karl Popper who said: “We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure.”

    So together we will plan for security, for freedom and for prosperity.

    Together we will overcome the evil we face, preserve our cherished values, and open up opportunity for our people to make their mark

    Together, in a darker, more dangerous world we will continue to be a light among the nations.

     

  • Nigel Farage – 2015 Speech at the State of the Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 9 September 2015.

    Mr President, Mr Juncker has simply got this wrong. As I warned in April, the European Common Asylum Policy sets its terms so widely as to say that anyone setting foot on EU soil can stay: I said it would lead to a flow of biblical proportions, and indeed that is what we are beginning to see. This has been compounded by Germany saying last week that basically anyone can come. It is a bit too late now to draw up a list, by countries of origin, of who can stay and who cannot stay. All they have to do, as they are doing, is throw their passports into the Mediterranean and say they are coming from Syria.

    As we know, the majority of people who are coming – and the Slovakian Prime Minister has been honest enough to say so – are economic migrants. In addition, we see, as I warned earlier, evidence that ISIS is now using this route to put their jihadists on European soil. We must be mad to take this risk with the cohesion of our societies. If we want to help genuine refugees, if we want to protect our societies, if we want to stop the criminal trafficking gangs from benefiting as they are doing, we must stop the boats coming – as the Australians did – and then we can assess who qualifies for refugee status.

    I noted your comments, Mr Juncker, because there is a referendum coming in the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing you in the UK. I know you intend to spend tens of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money telling us what we should think. I have a feeling that the British people will warm to you on a personal level, but, as to suggesting that getting rid of a few EU regulations is going to change our minds, sorry – unless you give Mr Cameron back control and discretion over our borders, the Brits, in the course of the next year, will vote to leave.

  • Louise Bours – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Louise Bours to the UKIP conference held on 25 September 2015.

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    12 months ago, in this very hall I delivered my first national conference speech as your spokesman for health.

    After my speech some media commentators moaned because they found me a bit… shouty.

    Well, 12 months ago, the NHS was under threat from the Westminster bubble, but now the NHS is facing an even bigger threat from the European Union, and whilst that remains the case let me assure you… I will not stop being shouty!

    And I say to the media and anyone else that doesn’t like it – deal with it. This is about the NHS, it is about the people of this country for whom the NHS is a lifeline, and I’m not going to be quiet about it!

    There are many areas of the NHS that are affected by our full membership of the EU.

    There are reams of rules, regulations and directives that defy logic and leave clinicians and managers in a head-spin and the pending TTIP trade deal threatens the very fabric and principles that the NHS is built upon.

    There are also many unplanned, unintended consequences of wider EU policies that add pressure and confusion to the health service.

    The most fundamental of these is uncontrolled immigration. We hear how there are not enough nurses and doctors in the NHS. It takes years to train for these professions, but how can the government know how many doctors the NHS will need in 7 years’ time, when they don’t know how many people will be living in the country in 7 weeks’ time?

    It’s no surprise we need so many nurses from overseas at short notice when we can’t predict how many patients there may be in 3 months’ time, let alone in the 3 years it takes to train a nurse.
    We can’t plan for the amount of beds, ambulances, medical equipment, drugs or midwives we might need because from one day to the next we cannot tell how many people will arrive here to live.

    No establishment can plan properly under these circumstances, and what is particularly worrying about the NHS not being able to plan properly is that the results can literally be the difference between life and death.

    There are of course, many specific regulations and initiatives that threaten the structure and efficacy of our NHS, I have nowhere near enough time to go through them all, that’s a whole conference in itself, but I will just mention a couple before going on to talk about the TTIP Agreement.

    The Working Time Directive is a health and safety initiative that on the surface may appear reasonable and helpful, but in practice is restrictive and unwelcomed by many in the NHS.

    Ipsos Mori and the General Medical Council have reported negative effects on medical training and on health services throughout Europe.

    But it is not just the future quality of training that is being effected by the EU, it is also the future quality of treatment.

    From next year medical researchers will be blocked from using historical patient data records for research purposes. Cancer Research UK have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the new regulations claiming that many lives will be lost as a result.
    It is vital for those looking for new cures and treatments to be able to track the medical history and developments in people, and this regulation will stop that.

    Last year I spoke about the desperate case of Ashya King, the little boy that couldn’t get NHS treatment for his brain tumour. Today I have to tell you about the EU’s ‘Medicine for Children’ regulation.
    It prohibits medical trials being carried out on children. The Institute of cancer research and other major cancer charities oppose the regulation and health experts say it has resulted in many unnecessary child deaths throughout Europe because half of all new cancer drugs developed between 2007-14 have not been tested on children and therefore cannot be licenced for use on children.

    How can the EU in all conscience say to the family of a dying child that they cannot have a new drug? One that may cure them or help them die without pain or fear? Giving terminally ill children access to new treatments and drugs is vital in the fight against childhood cancer.  It is barbaric to deny them an opportunity to extend their lives, or maybe even the possibility to cure them, simply because of a European Union regulation.

    It must be stopped and if we leave the EU just so we can ditch that regulation alone – it’s worth it.

    Now before I go on to the biggest threat to our NHS I want to dispel a myth about the EU.

    Many Europhiles say that without the freedom of movement that we have in the EU, our NHS would grind to a halt.

    But despite the propaganda, controlling immigration will not damage the NHS.

    Whilst we have a system where new nurses have to have a university degree we will never be able to provide the numbers of nurses the NHS needs.

    Why do those that leave school without A-levels have to do an access course to learn how to write essays, before they get anywhere near to a patient who may need a glass of water, or help being fed a meal, or someone who needs comfort and reassurance?

    We are not training enough, and it is not that there are too few people wanting to become nurses, it’s because we refuse to accept that not all those entering the nursing profession need a university degree.

    Commenting on the need for more UK training, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, Dr Peter Carter, points out that last year there were 57,000 applicants for 20,000 nurse training posts.
    He said it was a matter of huge regret that thousands of people in the four countries of the UK who want to train as nurses are being turned away, while we’re going off and raiding the often impoverished workforce of other countries.

    Let us have a system where those that excel academically can achieve the degree they aspire too, that should be applauded, but let us also encourage and enthuse those who see nursing as a vocation – let us see the return of the State Enrolled Nurse.

    All of the above are about specific issues within the health service, how it delivers what we want it to deliver.

    But the biggest threat the EU poses to the NHS is TTIP, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that Brussels want to sign with the USA.

    It would not only change how services are delivered, but go further, it would change why services are delivered.

    It would take us from a health service motivated by delivering the best for patients, to a system motivated by delivering the best private profit.

    We have the most established healthcare system in the world, nearly 70 years-old, America doesn’t have one at all, and the confusing ObamaCare is barely 70 days-old.

    We should not be giving other EU nations the power to influence our health services, let alone allow investors from a country where some people have to sell their homes in order to get life-saving treatment.

    The Tories say there is no need to exempt the NHS from TTIP because it is not at risk.

    Labour MPs say they want exemptions, yet their own MEP’s are helping to push the agreement through the committee stages in the European Parliament.

    TTIP will allow multi-national companies to sue national governments if they introduce policies that harm their investments. Does that not seem a bit topsy-turvy? Shouldn’t it be the other way round, aren’t corporations supposed to serve us, rather than us serve them? Surely a private company should be fitting into our rules, not us fitting into theirs.

    If Labour are serious about protecting the NHS they should stop their MEPs helping the agreement go through.

    And I say to David Cameron: If you are sure TTIP won’t involve the NHS, why not introduce legislation to stop it. The legislation may not be needed as far as you are concerned, but it is needed as far as the public are concerned, because Mr Cameron, we don’t trust you.

    Why don’t we trust him?

    Let me share with you a little known line from the EU, I found it in the EU document library, it’s from June of this year, in a document specifically about TTIP, it says:

    The EU reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the provision of all education, health or social services which receive public funding or state support in any form.
    What do you say now Cameron? Get out of that.

    Last year I produced a letter from Jeremy Corbyn’s boss, Len Mclusky. In it he asked us to support UNITE in their fight against TTIP.  I responded, I said we would stand side by side with them in this fight.  Come on Len, I am still waiting for your response!!
    Presiding over so much infighting, bitterness and backstabbing, before long the Labour party will become less the Jeremy Corbyn show and more the Jeremy Kyle show.

    If you want people to believe your party cares about the British people and the NHS, you must advocate leaving the EU.
    The UK needs to be able to run its own NHS, full stop.

    I am livid that they are systematically ruining our country’s proudest achievement, and now want to sell it off to the highest bidder.

    I am angry for the elderly who have paid-in all their lives only to see the EU decimate the care available to them, angry for the seriously ill that will suffer longer because of EU restrictions on research, angry and upset for the children whose lives will be blighted by the EU rules against medicine trials, angry for every bit of interference from the EU into our beloved and vital NHS.

    So let me make this pledge to you, between now and the referendum, I will fight tooth and nail to make sure the public know the hugely damaging effect the EU is having on our NHS and therefore our health, and the massive dangers it faces if we stay in the EU.

    I will do everything I can to ensure the public know we have to leave the EU if we believe in the NHS.

    And don’t forget… I can be shouty, so in case you haven’t heard, we believe in Britain, we believe in the NHS.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Reckless – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Reckless, the party’s economic spokesman, to the UKIP Conference held on 25 September 2015.

    It has been an eventful year.

    One change for me from last year is that this time you have been kind enough to advertise me in the programme.

    As our new Economy Spokesman, I would first like to thank Patrick O’Flynn for the solid base of work he has left me, as well as for his hard work on the general election campaign.

    Second I would like to thank Nigel for all the support he has given me both before and since the general election. I could not have asked for more, from him or from you.

    Would Britain be better off outside the European Union?

    Trade deals

    For the first time in forty years we would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, rejoin the World Trade Organisation, and sit on the global bodies which set product regulations.

    We could press for trade deals which would open up new markets for the business and financial services at which this country excels. In return we could offer the free trade in food and agriculture which the EU sets itself against.

    We could reach deals with the big emerging economies, like India and China, with which eight million Swiss have a free trade agreement. Yet the EU blocks us from trading freely with China, so every British woman pays an EU tax every time she buys a bra.

    UKIP wants to end those EU tariffs to cut costs for consumers.

    We also want trade deals with the United States and Canada. But we would seek free trade deals, based on eliminating tariffs and mutual recognition of standards.

    That could not be more different from Cameron and Corbyn’s TTIP. Their Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will in reality be a corporatist’s charter constructed behind closed doors to shield incumbent companies from competition.

    Now that Jeremy Corbyn has gone back on his word and handed David Cameron a blank cheque on Europe, it is UKIP and UKIP alone that can fight TTIP.

    Paying our way in world

    Ever since we joined we have run a large trade deficit with the European Union. In good years we have paid for it with a surplus on our trade outside the European Union.

    Despite having no authority over trade, where the EU is in charge, David Cameron promised to double UK exports under what George Osborne termed a “march of the makers”.

    The reality within the EU has been anything but. We now have, along with Turkey, the largest overseas deficit of any advanced country globally, between 5 and 6% of GDP.

    The problem is three fold and all relate in significant degree to the EU.

    First, the UK trade balance in goods and services has been running about 2% of GDP in deficit. More than all of this is with the EU.
    Second, we now run a similar deficit on investment income, largely due to a deteriorating balance with the EU and Osbrown more than doubling our national debt.

    Third, and most easily dealt with, if only we were to restore our independence, we transfer a net 1-2% of everything we earn overseas every year. In other words we give it away.

    It is one thing to give money away in overseas transfers if, like say Germany, you run an enormous trade surplus with which to pay for it. It is quite another when, like the UK, you run a 2% of GDP trade deficit and another near 2% deficit on investment income.

    Yet on top of that 4% deficit David Cameron’s Conservatives transfer overseas a further 1-2% of GDP leaving us with a current account deficit of 5-6% of GDP, or £100 billion per year.

    What that means is that every year we have to borrow from or sell to foreigners the equivalent value of British assets.

    So when people complain to me, including some people in the hall today, about all that fancy London property being sold to foreigners, and not our own young people, I say don’t blame them, or think you can somehow solve our problems by restricting those purchases.

    The emptying out of prime central London property to overseas owners is a symptom, not a cause of our problems. If foreigners didn’t buy our most expensive property, we would have to sell them something else, or pay them more to lend to us, adding yet more to our deficit.

    We must instead tackle the problem at source. That means improving our trade balance. We must shift the focus of our trade from the EU, where we run a massive deficit, to outside the EU, where we run a surplus.

    The need to cut overseas transfers

    We must also stop giving away money we do not have. That means cutting the enormous overseas transfers we are making.
    Fifty years ago it was Britain’s huge overseas defence burden which drained resources from the UK. So the call went out to end commitments East of Suez, because our chronic balance of payments couldn’t support them.

    Today our massive overseas transfers do not reflect defence spending, but EU membership, overseas aid, and likely now migrant transfers.

    If you don’t want to have to borrow an extra £55 million a day from overseas, that you will later have to pay back with interest, then don’t give the EU the £55 million a day you then need to borrow.

    If you don’t want to sell £13 billion more London property to absentee overseas investors, then don’t run an overseas aid programme that requires the UK to finance £13 billion of overseas spending.

    You can’t spend money overseas unless you borrow or sell something overseas to pay for it.

    And just as we should never blame overseas investors for buying something we need to sell, we should never blame people who come here from overseas for trying to do the best for themselves and their families.

    That will often mean sending wages which they earn here back to their family who are still overseas. So we need to increase UK exports to pay for those overseas remittances. If we don’t, and they continue, then we will add to our already record current account deficit.

    The Brexit dividend

    Cutting overseas aid and ending our EU contributions will cut our current account deficit. It will also give us more money to spend at home.

    Patrick and Suzanne set out how we might spend our Brexit dividend in a superb manifesto fully costed and independently verified. Leaving the EU would yield enough to finance widespread tax cuts as well as billions more for the NHS.

    That exceptionally well received manifesto will remain the baseline for policy development which I now undertake, and there is just one change I will announce today.

    Our manifesto was so good that we have already seen the government adopt a number of our ideas. One area where we can now come close to declaring victory is inheritance tax.

    It is now eight years since George Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to a million pounds, and until this summer it was eight long years of inaction.

    There are three aspects of the changes he now proposes where I would like us to be able to go further, and which we may seek to address in our next general election manifesto.

    First, I would prefer a threshold of a million pounds per person, as George Osborne first promised, and not a million pounds per couple. Second I would not further distort the market by restricting the new allowance to housing for descendants. Third, I would not add yet more complexity to the system by clawing back the extra allowance from larger estates.

    However, making those changes is not the priority for our Breixt dividend. That lies somewhere else.

    Public sector pay

    As an MP in the last Parliament I voted for severe restraint in public sector pay.

    I thought there was no choice if we were to cut the record deficit. I also thought it was fair after several years of relatively more generous public pay settlements and then a sharp fall in real private pay in the recession.

    Public and private pay are now in better kilter.

    Despite that, the Conservatives now propose to continue their assault on public sector pay for another five years, while private sector pay accelerates.

    The government said in the Summer Budget that it would only fund 1% pay increases on average across the public sector.

    Last Monday Greg Hands, the Treasury minister and Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham, went further and stated on the parliamentary record that their policy was one “of a one per cent cap on public sector pay increases”.

    And what have we heard from Labour? On Budget day their Acting Leader declared they supported the Conservative policy. And under Corbyn, nothing. A Treasury minister just hardened a 1% pay norm to a 1% pay cap and the Labour front bench didn’t even notice.

    If public sector pay rises at that 1% a year, or barely 5% over the Parliament, then the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast implies that private sector pay will increase by 25% over the same period.

    5% v 25%. How can that be fair? How could we recruit and retain the quality staff we need for our public services? Why do the Conservatives so dislike people who work in the public sector? And who will defend those public servants when Labour is riven by extremism and division?

    UKIP will. It is not just people in the private sector who deserve a pay rise but public servants too.

    And unlike the other parties, UKIP can find the money to pay for fairer treatment of public sector workers, from the £55 million a day we give the EU.

    So I have an announcement.

    Instead of using £5 billion of the Brexit dividend to abolish remaining inheritance tax, UKIP would use that £5 billion to give public sector workers a pay rise.

    We would end the government’s 1% pay cap in the public sector, except for those at the top end who already earn more than £50,000. The extra £5 billion could fund 2% rises every year, or one 5% pay rise above the government’s policy.

    We give the EU up to £55 million a day. If Britain votes for Brexit next year then that money will be available for the NHS, it will be available for tax cuts, and it will be available to give people in the public sector a long overdue pay rise.

    When we vote to leave the EU we will not only be more than a star on someone else’s flag. We will be prosperous, democratic and free.

  • Roger Helmer – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    rogerhelmer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Helmer to the UKIP Conference held on 26 September 2015.

    Good Morning Conference!

    I’d like to share with you something I’ve learned in my years in Brussels and Strasbourg, and it’s this: the EU’s apparatchiks harbour a huge contempt for public opinion.  Isolated in their ivory towers, they can mostly afford to ignore the voters.  They think that people like you and me are just too stupid and ignorant to understand the huge benefits of EU membership.

    But once in a while, reality strikes back and bites their ankles – for example, in 2005 when the French and Dutch voted down the European Constitution.  So did the bureaucrats see the error of their ways, and change course? The hell they did!  No.  They stood wringing their hands, and saying “Perhaps we haven’t explained it well enough”.

    My response is, that I have spent the last sixteen years explaining the European Union to the voters, and the more I explain it, the angrier they get.

    But now at last, with the up-coming Referendum, we’re facing the opportunity of a lifetime.  So I’m going to change the habit of a lifetime.  I’ve spent the last sixteen years telling the British people what’s wrong with the EU.  But now it’s time for a change.   It’s time to talk benefits.  It’s time to talk positively about the massive opportunities offered to this country, to all of us, not by the EU, but by freedom and independence.

    And nowhere are those benefits clearer than in the field of energy.  For three years now, as UKIP’s Energy Spokesman, I’ve been setting out a plan to deliver secure and affordable energy.

    And while we in UKIP have a consistent and workable energy policy, other Parties do not.

    Alex Salmond of the Scots Nats wants to finance an independent Scotland on the back of North Sea Oil and Gas.   But he also says he wants 100% Green Electricity by 2025.

    Jeremy Corbyn talks about re-opening the coal mines, and coal currently produces a third of the UK’s electricity.  But don’t believe Mr. Corbyn – because he also says he wants carbon-free electricity by 2030.

    In any case, we in UKIP can’t implement our plan while we’re in the EU, because we’re hog-tied by EU climate policy and emissions rules.

    So the positive message is simply this: after Brexit, we’ll be free to implement a rational energy policy that can deliver the secure and affordable energy we so desperately need.

    But of course Brexit doesn’t deliver that policy by itself.  We still have to fight what Owen Paterson calls the Green Blob, in Westminster.

    But fighting the green blob is not as hopeless as it sounds.  In this area, as in so many others, UKIP policies are starting to gain traction.  We’re already seeing signs of the alarmist consensus breaking down.  There’s been no global warming for eighteen years.  The costs of renewables are increasingly unaffordable.

    We have a Prime Minister who’s given up hugging huskies, and who reportedly wants to “Get rid of the Green Crap”.  We’ve seen wind farm subsidies cut, and wind farm plans knocked back, including most recently the enormous Navitus Bay offshore project that would have despoiled the Jurassic Coast in Dorset.

    Amber Rudd, described as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, came into office last year with ambitious plans to cover the nation’s roofs with solar panels.  Someone – maybe it was George Osborne — must have talked her through the costs of solar power, because she’s just announced a dramatic cut in domestic solar subsidies.

    As I recently tweeted: “Not so Green?  Amber Rudd gets the Red Light on Solar Subsidies”.

    More generally, there’s a recognition that many of the assumptions behind the rise of renewables were just plain wrong.  We were warned of the threat of “Peak Oil”, which was predicted to be happening by now.  But instead we see a world awash with new oil and gas fields.

    Of course fossil fuels are finite and will one day be exhausted, but that event is so far off that it has no bearing on today’s policy debates.  We need to be worrying about pensioners with hypothermia today.

    An underlying assumption of the dash for renewables was that as fossil fuels became scarcer, they would get more expensive.  In fact the reverse has happened.  We’ve all seen what’s happened to oil prices recently.  And in the USA, gas prices have dropped by two thirds, thanks to the shale gas revolution.

    With Brexit, we can sweep away the threat to our security of supply issues, we can exploit indigenous coal and gas resources, and we can eliminate our over-dependence on intermittent renewables.  But stuck with EU rules, as we are today, serious industry commentators are warning of blackouts in the winter of 2016.

    Under the terms of the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, we’ve seen a series of coal plant closures – with consequent job losses and threats to generating capacity.  Kingsnorth in Kent; Longannet in Scotland, and Eggborough in Yorkshire, with Ferrybridge not far behind.

    These closures will make not a scrap of difference to the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, nor to the climate.  There are reportedly 1200 new coal-fired power stations in the global pipeline.  Perhaps surprisingly, even über-green Germany is building or refurbishing a couple of dozen – and importing dirty brown coal from Poland into the bargain.

    Our closures will make no measurable difference in the overall picture.  The IEA predicts that coal use will rise for decades.

    We’re currently seeing a haemorrhage of production and jobs and investment out of the UK – and out of the EU – as a direct result of energy prices.  I’ve often quoted former Energy Commissioner Antonio Tajani, who famously said “We are creating an industrial massacre in Europe”.

    We in UKIP don’t want to be a part of that European massacre.

    You’ve heard me talk before about energy-intensive businesses.  Recently we’ve been losing steel companies.  Tata Steel cut 500 jobs in North­umberland.  It’s mothballing its plant at Llanwern in Wales. This affects Bill Etheridge as well – there are knock-on job losses at Tata’s plant at Wednesbury in the Black Country.

    Since I started drafting this speech, we’ve had an even bigger blow to the steel industry.  In the North-East, Redcar, the second largest blast furnace in Europe, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.  Its Thai owners have failed to meet scheduled repayments, and 2000 jobs are at risk.  My message for those 2000 steel-workers: you’re being sacrificed to climate hysteria, and to Brussels bureaucrats.

    We’ve lost several aluminium smelters, like Anglesey Aluminium in Wales, and Alcan Lynemouth in Northumberland.

    It’s the same with petroleum refineries.  Petroplus closed Teesside in 2009, and Coryton in 2012.  Murco closed Milford Haven in 2014.  Research commissioned and published by the British government shows that overseas refineries typically emit 35% more CO2 per unit than UK refineries.

    According to Jim Ratcliffe, the CEO of INEOS, the chemicals giant, twenty-two UK chemical plants have closed since 2009, and he says that unless we resolve the energy price problem, there’ll be no chemical industry left in Europe in ten years’ time.  And remember they use gas not only for energy but also as a feedstock.  The list goes on – glass, cement, paper.  All these industries, all these jobs, are under threat from energy prices.

    Across Europe, there are increasing concerns about the costs of renewables.

    Denmark is scaling back climate and emissions targets which are proving just too expensive to deliver.

    Meantime in Germany, Der Spiegel reports that the German renewables business is in crisis.

    But despite these concerns, you can bet that the EU will cling doggedly to its perverse energy policies for years to come.

    The good news is that with Brexit, we can stop the haemorrhage.  We can keep those jobs here at home.  We can reverse the tide, so that industry and jobs and investment come back to Britain.

    That means that outside the EU, we in Britain will have a dramatic competitive advantage on energy prices against the rest of Europe when it comes to inward investment.

    Britain after Brexit will become the manufacturing capital of Europe.

    That’s the story from industry — but there’s the issue of domestic prices as well.  As we get into the referendum campaign, you may find people on the door­step who care about jobs – but don’t always enthuse about the problems of companies.  But they all get electricity bills, and many are suffering.  Maybe they – or their elderly relatives – are struggling to make ends meet.  For them, Brexit means the lower energy bills they desperately need.

    That’s the positive message of Brexit for the voters of Britain.  Lower domestic bills.  More jobs.  More investment.  More growth.  More prosperity.  Not a bad prospectus.

    So Conference, I think it’s time for us to speak up for those 2000 steel-workers in Redcar, and for all the other British workers whose jobs are threatened by perverse climate and energy policies.  It’s time to send a message to our Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Amber Rudd.  And to the Chairman of parliament’s Climate Change Committee, John Gummer, now ennobled as Lord Deben.  And to George Osborne and David Cameron.

    Let’s send a message from this hall in Doncaster, from this Conference, from this Party, that will reverberate in the Palace of Westminster.

    Do we want secure and affordable energy?
    Do we want Britain to become the manufacturing capital of Europe?

    Do we want our country back?

    Colleagues – thank you so much.  And if I may borrow David Steel’s famous rallying cry: Let’s go back to our constituencies and prepare for independence!

  • Priti Patel – 2015 Speech at ERSA Conference

    piritpatel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Priti Patel, the Minister of State for Employment, at the ERSA annual conference on 8 December 2015.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at this flagship event.

    You have played an important role in the success of the labour market over recent years – around half a million job outcomes across the Work Programme and Work Choice. Thank you.

    I’m grateful for your work and look forward to continuing to work closely with you.

    I welcome and share the sentiment of this conference: ‘Ambitious Futures: upping our collective game’.

    It is right that we are ambitious and my message to you today is that the focus should be on outcomes, not just inputs.

    My challenge is for you to think outside of the traditional approaches of provision – and to think innovatively.

    There is much we need to do, but it is worth reflecting on what changed over the last Parliament.

    Legacy

    Since 2010, we have made great strides reforming the welfare system – ensuring it better supports the people who need it, and remains affordable to the taxpayer in the long term.

    The labour market is in a much stronger position than it was 5 years ago:

    • the claimant count is nearly 700,000 lower and is at its lowest level since 1975
    • the unemployment rate is close to pre-recession levels
    • long-term unemployment has fallen by 274,000
    • 1 million fewer people on the main out-of-work benefits since 2010
    • the employment rate and number of people in work are at record highs

    I appreciate the role you have played in this….

    ….helping to deliver our shared goal of supporting those who need help back into work, and helping to drive performance improvements across our key provision.

    Building on success in this Parliament

    So, we’ve seen huge progress, but we know there is more to do.

    The government is committed to moving this country to a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare society.

    So, we will press ahead with our reforms over this Parliament and we will continue to be ambitious.

    The overall position following the Spending Review is that the funding for employment support will remain broadly stable.

    However, within this, we have aimed to improve the effectiveness of our spending, reflecting our key priorities.

    That means:

    • continuing the roll-out of Universal Credit and extending the same support that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants get to around a million more people by 2020
    • improving support for people with health conditions and disabilities through a real terms increase in funding
    • and ensuring value for money, with interventions that we know work

    This approach focuses on what our labour market most needs today whilst retaining flexibility for the future.

    I want to deal with each of these in turn.

    Universal Credit and refocusing employment offer

    Firstly, Universal Credit – the key plank of our welfare reforms.

    It marks a distinct shift in our approach and is transforming lives through more personalised support and by making sure work always pays.

    Under Universal Credit, people can expect early and continued support looking at what work they can do and what support they need to do it.

    Unlike in the past, Universal Credit stays with someone when they enter work and continues to support them until they leave the benefits system.

    Today we have published Universal Credit at Work.

    The independently reviewed research shows that Universal Credit is making a real difference.

    It shows that people who are on Universal Credit are:

    • more likely to be employed in the first nine months of their claim, spending twice as much time looking for a job than under the legacy system
    • work on average 12 days more than Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants
    • and are more likely to be earning more

    This is welfare reform in action, making things simpler, ensuring the right incentives are in place – and ultimately, changing culture and changing lives.

    The report also shows we are on track in terms of roll out.

    Universal Credit is now available in three quarters of all jobcentres, and by April next year it will be available across the country.

    Building on this, we are testing a digital service in 3 London jobcentres.

    This will expand nationally from May next year, initially to 5 jobcentres every month, as part of the gradual, safe and secure delivery plan.

    Health and disability focus

    Secondly, this renewed approach also represents the start of genuine integration between the health and work sectors, with a focus on supporting people with health conditions and disabilities return to and remain in work.

    Your input has been invaluable in helping us to set out our strategy here.

    I firmly believe that the perspective from the frontline – the perspective from people and organisations like you all who are helping people into work day in and day out – is essential to developing successful interventions.

    That’s why I so value the input you have been providing on the development of future employment support, and that’s why we’ll be taking those views on aboard as we design the new programme over the next few months.

    In particular you’ve told us that we need to target support more effectively.

    So, I have asked my officials to develop better ways of targeting and preparing people for employment programmes so that we can ensure that you have a good chance of supporting every person that walks through your door.

    Once people are with you, you should have enough resources to give them the support they need to make a difference to their lives.

    We will make sure the right incentives are there for you to deliver a first class service to everyone on the future programme, not feel the need to pick winners.

    You’ve also said that it is really difficult to find a way through the maze of services offered through different government departments and agencies.

    That is why my priority is to remove these roadblocks and prompt genuine integration of services across government, so you can better integrate services on the ground.

    Nowhere is this more important than in how we support people with health conditions and disabilities, which is why we have set out such an important programme of reform in this area.

    This work includes:

    • the launch of the new contracted Work and Health employment provision in 2017
    • an expansion of Access to Work, enabling up to 25,000 additional disabled people to receive support through Access to Work
    • and at least £115 million of funding for the Work and Health Unit, including a Work and Health Innovation fund

    The government will publish a White Paper next year setting out more detail of our plans to improve support for people with health conditions and disabilities.

    Good value for money for contracted employment

    Thirdly, we need to build on the success of current contracted employment provision and design support that helps today’s labour market and delivers good value for money.

    The decision on the level of central government funding to employment programmes in the recent Spending Review followed comprehensive consideration of our strategic direction against the current market; the economic climate and our manifesto commitments.

    Work has started on the design and structure of the new programme and draws heavily on all the best experience and consultation work we did over the summer.

    Senior officials also met with many of our prime providers last week and held an open, constructive dialogue around how we can continue to work in the spirit of partnership to ensure the most effective delivery of the Spending Review announcements and the best possible support for claimants.

    We will be working closely with providers both individually and collectively in the coming weeks and months.

    Devolution deals and integration

    We will also be capitalising on the expertise of local authorities.

    Local authorities know their local labour market and often have access to services which claimants may need alongside employment support. Help finding accommodation for example, or advice on budgeting and debt management.

    We have already collaborated with Manchester, Glasgow and Clyde Valley, and London to develop the Working Well, Working Matters and Working Capital programmes. And we will be looking carefully at whether the localised key worker approach being delivered in those areas improves outcomes for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants.

    We know that providing holistic support can be key to supporting the hardest to help claimants into work. It is therefore crucial that the design of the new programme supports providers, local authorities and other local organisations to better integrate services.

    So all local authorities will have the opportunity to comment on the national design of the new programme. And we will be testing different approaches to jointly designing and commissioning programmes across the 7 devolution deal areas – Greater Manchester, London, Sheffield, Tees Valley, Liverpool, West Midlands, the north-east.

    This approach will enable us put integration at the heart of the new programme. And accordingly, we will expect providers to demonstrate how they will forge strong partnerships with local organisations to deliver the integrated support that claimants need.

    Employers

    More often than not, we know that providing claimants with the support they need entails equipping them with the skills that local employers demand.

    It is the job of everyone in this room to engage with local employers, employer representatives and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to understand that demand. This means working in partnership with them to: to:

    • identify sustainable job opportunities
    • create and support apprenticeships
    • nurture skills that aid progression
    • and improve the way that the labour market works in low employment areas

    Together, we must listen to what employers in varying local labour markets need.

    Together, we must understand their skills and progression challenges.

    And together, we must be innovative in reaching out to new employers and engaging with those who may have overlooked the employment services we can provide.

    So think about how you currently work with employers, and consider how you can engage with them more effectively to ensure the support you deliver to both claimants and employers reflects local labour market demand.

    Conclusion

    Today’s challenges are different to those of 2010.

    We have largely overcome the issue of long-term unemployment.

    Our focus now is on the nearly 3 million people who are on ‘inactive’ benefits.

    The majority of sick and disabled benefit claimants want to work, but there is a large gap between the proportion that want to work and those that feel able.

    We worked effectively together on the labour market challenges of 2010 and witnessed significant improvements in the labour market.

    I see ERSA and its members being key partners to support people that can work into work. This is a shared challenge – delivering more integrated support to those with some of the most significant barriers to work, particularly those with health conditions and disabilities.

    Our role is to embrace that challenge….to integrate and innovate…..to support people into sustainable jobs.

    Thank you.

  • John McDonnell – 2015 Speech at Imperial College

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington
    John McDonnell

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Imperial College on 20 November 2015.

    I’m grateful to you here at Imperial College for having me here to speak today. And what an inspiring place it is to speak about the future of the economy and the world of work, at the College’s new Incubator where start-ups and entrepreneurs can work alongside some of the leading minds in science.

    My own experiences of work began with the technological revolution of the time.

    Looking back at it now, I think about the possibilities open to us then. There were skilled jobs available for the millions who, like me, didn’t go straight from university. There was generous access to courses at local FE colleges. There was free education for those who did go to university.

    On modest means, a young person could buy a house. After all the advances we have made, why is it that so many things we took for granted back then are no longer available to our children’s generation? Wages for the under 30s have been decimated since the financial crisis, and are still 10% below their 2010 level.

    Home ownership in many parts of the country is out of the reach of the millions whose parents are unable to help with a deposit. Social housing is almost a distant memory, and the insecurity of private renting means upheaval and uncertainty for a majority.

    How did this come about?

    How can it be, with all the productive and creative advances of the last few decades that in some of the most important aspects of life, my grandchildren have a less secure life to look forward to than mine?

    John Maynard Keynes famously predicted in the 1930s that these expanding capacities would lead to a fifteen hour working week, the rest of the time filled with leisure activities rather than worrying about how to find more money.

    For today’s young people, more than any other generation since, his dream could not seem further from coming true.

    This is the backdrop to Jeremy Corbyn’s election. Jeremy was elected leader of the Labour Party by an overwhelming majority of members and supporters on the basis of a programme that rested on three pillars.

    First, a New Politics, the creation of a more democratic, engaging and kinder politics in both the Labour party and society.

    Second, a New Economics, laying the economic foundations of a prosperous, fairer and sustainable society.

    Third, a New Relationship with the World, based upon a foreign policy promoting mutual co-operation, conflict prevention and resolution rather than military aggression.

    The good society that I think most of us envisage is one that is free, democratic, prosperous, environmentally sustainable, safe and secure, based upon the values of fairness, equality and social justice, where everybody has the ability to develop their talents and enjoyment of life to the full.

    Austerity provides none of this. Worse, it moves us further and further away from that vision. The impact is felt by the poorest and most vulnerable. Just one example, amongst many. The number of those sleeping rough has risen by a shocking 55 percent since 2010.

    In the sixth-richest country in the world, that anybody should be without a roof over their head is a disgrace. And there is worse to come. Unless reversed by the Chancellor, under public pressure, tax credit cuts threaten over  three million households with losing £1,300 a year. These raw figures hide the real stories – of huge suffering and personal tragedies now being borne across the country.

    Yet none of this suffering is necessary. Austerity, as I argued in September and have continued to argue, is a straight political choice. There is no economic necessity behind it. There is a broad consensus, from the International Monetary Fund and across the economics profession, against it. Austerity is a political choice. It threatens our future economic security. It is, however, for George Osborne and the Conservatives, the easy option.

    Since the late 1970s, governments across the World have promoted gains for the few in the belief that the many would, eventually, share. Capital markets were liberalised and taxes cut. But under successive governments, inequality rose. Not trickle-down, but trickle-up. It is time to change the rules of the game.

    Neoliberalism – the current rulebook – has outlived its time. The old rules are failing the majority. And they will not cope with the changes that are ahead of us. My real concern is for the long term well-being of our economy.

    If we are to thrive as an economy we have to base our future on the rapidly developing new technologies. It’s what many are calling the new machine age. Miss this boat and we will struggle to keep up in a competitive global market place. We will have a country divided geographically between the finance sector of the City of London – surrounded by a sea of low-paid, service sector jobs – and the rest of the country.

    In many areas, the pace of industrial decline will continue to destroy lives and devastate communities. If this sounds dystopian, take a trip to Teeside and see what the loss of steel, of Potash mining and the loss of 300 HMRC jobs can do to threaten the life of a community.

    Technological advance is forcing the pace of change. Bank of England research suggests that 15 million jobs could be at risk of automation over the next decade or so. And those most at risk from automation are the lowest-paid.

    For those who own the robots, of course, it will be a different story. Wealth will flow faster into fewer hands. A minority will continue to profit immensely. But there is a different way. First we need government to understand and accept the strategic role it has to play in our new economy.

    The current government is blocking the path to our future. They are willfully blind to the changes taking place. They privilege vested interests and the old ways of working. Our giant corporations are enjoying a boom time, taking their biggest ever slice of our national income as profits.

    Some of the most powerful institutions in the land appear to act almost unhindered. Think about how little has been done to get even our publicly owned banks to clean up their act since the crash. So many of our underlying problems can be traced back to the domination of a few powerful institutions that have failed, over many years, to act in the public interest. And yet we have a government all but captured by vested interests.

    Corporation tax, already the lowest in the G7, has been cut again and cut, heading towards just 18%. Featherbedding, through a wildly complex system of tax reliefs that now comes to £110bn a year.

    Cutting HMRC, while turning a blind eye to rampant tax avoidance and evasion, running into billions. And whilst large corporations are treated with kid gloves, those who work are shown the iron fist. We already have the most repressive union laws in Western Europe.

    The Trade Union Bill will tighten the screw still further. Labour will oppose the Trade Union Bill at every step of the way and, should it become law, repeal it in government. Unlike France or Germany, in the UK rights of workers to speak up in their own companies are limited in the extreme.

    No formal provision exists for workers to have a say in decisions that affect not only their own lives but potentially those of their customers. We are throwing away the chance for those who work to bring their skills, talent, and in-depth knowledge into how our corporations make decisions.

    Democracy isn’t just a political question. It is a bread-and-butter issue. A new contract for the workplace means securing a better balance between those who work, and those who employ. We will open a review on workplace representation, drawing on the best practice from around the world to unlock democracy in our workplaces and release its creative potential.

    We will seek to break open the monopolies and oligopolies that dominate our essential industries, offering extended support to those seeking to set up cooperative and community ownership of their companies and assets. Meeting the challenges of the future requires a state that can think and act strategically. A new economics can start to provide an alternative.

    We need to think about how government can operate on the basis not only of providing necessary public services, but also to meet challenges in the future. That is why we have launched reviews of the mandate of the Bank of England, and the Treasury’s function, to report on how they can operate in the best interests of society.

    That is just the first step in a process that will see us work with businesses, entrepreneurs, scientists, trade unions and wider civil society to shape the economy of the future.

    We know this can be done. Finland met its disastrous recession in the 1990s by transforming its economy from an exporter of lumber, to an exporter of technology. At the centre of its transition it established the Science and Technology Policy Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, drawing on expertise from across business, science, and civil society.

    Labour in government will bring together business, unions, and scientists in a new Innovation Policy strategy, with a mission-led goal to boost research and development spending, and maximise the social and economic benefits from that expenditure.

    We already have brilliant entrepreneurs like Dale Vince, who started the world’s first green energy company, Ecotricity, from a caravan in Gloucestershire. Ecotricity now supplies 75,300 homes with renewable energy and in 2014 had turnover of £66 million.

    We need more creativity like this.

    Thousands of new businesses are being created. We want government to work with, not against, those entrepreneurs helping create wealth in society. But rather than investing for the future, Osborne has overseen a slump in government funding for vital infrastructure.

    As a share of GDP, public infrastructure spending has fallen from 3.3% in the final year of the last Labour government to 1.6% today. It is scheduled to fall still further, to 1.4%. Meanwhile, our major corporations, despite record profits, are sitting on vast cash piles. At least £400bn is held in corporate bank accounts – money that should be invested.

    This is part of a pattern, identified by Martin Wolf, of slumping investment, relative to cash flow, across major economies. That slide has been amongst the worst in the UK, stretching back beyond the crash to the early 2000s.

    Meanwhile, dividend payments are at an all-time high. So we have a government that won’t invest and corporations that won’t invest, a damaging cycle setting up the generations ahead for failure.

    The consequences of this failure are all too apparent. Underpaid and overworked staff. Insecurity. Businesses unable to compete. Basic utilities under threat. The National Grid has warned of electricity shortages.

    This in Britain, in 2015 – the sixth richest economy on the planet. Clearly, some of this has got back to Osborne. In a state of panic, he has been running around China trying to drum up funding. Osborne opposes nationalisation – except when it’s the Chinese or the French state doing it. Short-termism and antipathy to the state dominates every decision.

    The OECD thinks that, as a minimum, a developed country like Britain should be spending 3.5% of GDP on infrastructure. Labour in power will meet and exceed that commitment, reversing decades of underspend. This could include renewable energy, energy efficiency, major public transport improvements and ultra-highspeed broadband.

    Labour understands that government’s role is to provide the opportunity for massive advances in technology, skills and organisational change. A Labour Government would prioritise provision of patient long term finance for investment in research to support the technology that will drive future innovation in our economy. And we would look to change our corporate tax system to give companies incentives to invest wisely. A higher tax on retained earnings should be investigated, alongside improved deductibility for long-term investment.

    The City of London and our financial institutions can also play their part. Labour will seek a new compact with financial services, looking for guarantees on stable, long-term domestic investment, mobilising their skills and resources for the wider public benefit.

    I am hoping to meet with Mark Boleat of the Corporation of London later this month to discuss ways in which the City and finance can play their part in a new contract for Britain. We will retain, of course, the right to legislate if needed. It is science, technology and innovation that are shaping our new world. Britain has an extraordinary and proud legacy of scientific research, of which this institution is a part. It is still a world-leader today in the quality of its research.

    But rather than build on that heritage, we are strip-mining it. Despite promising to protect research funding this has neglected it. Current expenditure on research and development has fallen by £1bn in real terms since 2010. This is having results. For example, the UK’s cutting-edge neutron source at Harwell is only running 120 days a year due to funding shortages, and leading scientists say we are facing irreversible declines in “particle physics, astrophysics, and nuclear physics.”

    Britain spends less on research as a share of GDP than France, Germany, the US and China, all of whom are increasing their commitment to science and technology. We spend less than 0.5% of GDP on science and that is set to reduce still further. The UK has no long-term plan to increase R&D spending. Modern breakthroughs in research are the result of past investment by government, built on the foundations of an immense scientific and technical heritage.

    However, in science, technology, and innovation, we are beginning to live off past glories. We can, and should, do better. The Royal Society recommends a target of meeting at least the OECD average spend on research and development by 2020. A Labour Government will aim to exceed this, with total spending – from both public and private sources – of at least 3% of GDP by 2030.

    We will extend Labour’s Ten-Year Framework to cover the next decade and increase innovation support, ring-fencing this spending. Osborne may be trying to close the fiscal deficit. But by failing to invest, he is opening up a massive deficit with the future.

    We believe that any fiscal rule should ensure government’s current spending is brought into sensible balance, consistent with sustainable economic growth, whilst allowing vital investment to continue. Another priority will be to ensure that our provision of skills is adequate to the needs of the new economy we wish to create.

    At present, employer after employer reports dire shortages. Further Education colleges, a vital lynch-pin of the education system, are threatened with swingeing cuts. If every person is to have the opportunity to share in the prosperity that the new economy can offer, every person must have the opportunity to learn, develop and fulfil their potential.

    Secure foundations for the new economy mean prosperity across the whole country. The widening gap between our richest places and the rest is clearly excessive. Average weekly pay in North-East Derbyshire is £389 a week while in the City of London it’s £921. Government’s response to this regional disparity has been persistently inadequate. Planned infrastructure spending per person in the North of England is one-fifth of its level in London.

    We won’t get a “Northern Powerhouse” unless government is prepared to pay for it. Improved transport, greater autonomy in taxation and spending decisions, and powers to borrow will enable our regions to meet their huge potential. And of course we cannot allow government to strip local councils to the bone. Labour will continue to oppose the devastating cuts being made to local authority funding. Local authorities can, and should, be local engines of sustainable, long-term prosperity. How we work is changing.

    Shifts in technology are opening up new possibilities. The spread of information technology, in particular, with the long-term decline in the cost of computing power has created opportunities that simply did not exist before.

    Airbnb, for example, simply could not have existed before the internet. It does not own or rent rooms itself. It provides a space through which others can do so. Sometimes this has been labelled the “gig economy”. Its enthusiasts talk up its possibilities for more exciting, more varied consumption, making better use of the assets we own.

    But a nice phrase can hide a grim reality for those who depend on the new world of work for their livelihood. The insecurity of self-employment. The uncertainty of not knowing where, or when, the next pay-cheque will be coming from. And the pressure this places on those in more typical employment, whether it is London taxi drivers threatened by Uber or call-centre workers placed on zero-hour contracts.

    Millions of workers excluded from the hard-won protections of formal employment contracts. And relentless pressure placed on those, the majority, still protected. It was the labour movement that won shorter working days. Health and safety at work. Rights in the workplace. But technological change, and the unfettered free market, are tearing up the old work contract. Labour, instead, will offer a new contract for a new workforce. Security of income against uncertainty. The same rights and protections extended to all those at work.

    This is why the fight over tax credits matters so much. The tax credit system is well-adapted to new forms of employment. Small businesses, providing a useful service to the community, rely on the tax credits system to get them on their feet and smooth out their earnings. So we will defend and, where we can, improve the tax credits system. Self-employment offers few protections. So we will look to extend maternity and paternity rights to all self-employed workers.

    White van man – and woman – deserve just as much protection and recognition as white-collar workers. Austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity. Unless we change our political choices, the vast majority will be denied the opportunities that technological change presents. We can’t afford to run a deficit with the future.

    Working with businesses, workers, and civil society, governments today can and must seize the chance to change how we live and work, both now and in the future. We can break the stalemate and change course. A new economy, where technology liberates rather than traps. Where the fruits of scientific advance are shared by all. And where every one of us has the opportunity to develop our talents. A prosperous society built on sustainable growth, and predicated on the values of fairness, equality and social justice. It’s socialism, but socialism with an iPad.

  • John McDonnell – 2015 Speech to London Chambers of Commerce

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington
    John McDonnell

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the London Chambers of Commerce on 2 December 2015.

    I’d like to start by thanking the London Chambers of Commerce for giving me this opportunity to lay out what Labour’s new approach means for business.

    Jeremy was elected, back in the summer, he promised a new politics. I’ve spoken in the past few weeks about how this relates to a new economics.

    Today, I want to begin to lay out what the new economics means for businesses, and how Labour’s approach will be a break with the kind of mistakes made in the past.

    That means a new relationship between business and government.

    Not one of antagonism. But recognising how together we can generate and share prosperity, with proper support where it is needed.

    It means identifying the challenges and opportunities the rapid technological change presents us with.

    It means recognising real wealth creation, and developing long-term investment for the future.

    And for London, it means building on an extraordinary economic record, but recognising the many problems the capital faces.

    The backdrop to my speech here today is an economy that is finally growing again after the slowest recovery on record, but where the headline figures hid deep underlying problems.

    The productivity gap between us and the G7 is at its largest since 1991, and last week’s Office for Budget Responsibility report downgraded their forecasts for productivity growth for the rest of the Parliament.

    Our current account deficit has reached record highs. We’re not properly paying our way, becoming far too dependent on short-term borrowing from the rest of the world.

    And with interest rates glued to the floor, the pace of household borrowing is picking up rapidly. So rapidly that the Financial Policy Committee is considering activating the countercyclical buffer, and warning about future shocks.

    London is an exceptional, world-class city. It’s an extraordinary centre for creativity and entrepreneurship. A new business in London is created every 6 minutes.

    But keeping London, and London’s businesses at the cutting-edge means recognising where we’re not doing enough. And that means changing what government is doing.

    Short-term vs. long-term

    It’s not good enough that 36% of London’s businesses report being affected by slow internet speeds in the last year.

    London ranks 26th out of the 33 European capitals for broadband speed. Average connection speeds in Bucharest are nearly four times faster than here.

    Meanwhile, as so-called “superfast” broadband trickles out, countries like South Korea are investing in ultra-fast broadband, with connections of 1,000 megabits per second compared to the 25 megabits speed typical today.

    It’s no good patting ourselves on the back about London’s great historic legacies, and its status as a cosmopolitan world city, whilst failing to build on either.

    And it’s no good the government talking up improvements in connectivity when too many businesses face a reality of delays, difficulties, and poor service.

    More needs to be done to support the digital economy. We would support the London Chamber of Commerce’s calls for the creation of a London business panel focused on raising awareness of the benefits of online trading to sole traders and small businesses.

    Building on London’s success means ensuring the whole country shares in the prosperity. The better our regions and nations outside the capital do, the better we all do.

    We want London businesses to also share in the potential of the rest of the country. That means delivering investment here and across the UK.

    We want to keep this city and country at the cutting edge, helping build the high tech, high wage economy of the future.

    That also means solving London’s housing crisis. London rental prices are the highest in Europe. The biggest single constrain on London businesses right now is that the people they want to employ can’t afford to live here. That’s bad for them, bad for business, bad for all of us.

    Labour is committed in government to providing at least 200,000 new homes a year, and would allow local councils additional powers to tax empty properties, bringing them properly into use. My colleague Sadiq Khan, if elected Mayor, would like to see public land held by bodies like Transport for London used for more housing.

    The Spending Review

    All of this together is why Labour has decisively rejected the Chancellor’s austerity policies. Not a single credible economist can be found to support his fiscal surplus rule.

    By restricting day-to-day and capital spending, it places a straitjacket on vital government investment.

    There is no credible economic case of austerity and there never has been. We think the tide is turning on this question as the real impacts of extraordinary spending cuts become clear.

    George Osborne was pushed into a u-turn on the tax credit reductions that would have seen 3m families lose £1,300 a year. It was under pressure from Labour and others that he reversed.

    However, the pain has been delayed, rather than postponed. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis shows, Cuts to Universal Credits will see a similar number of families lose a similar amount, but pushed somewhat into the future.

    Labour will continue to campaign for a fair deal here.

    The reality of his delayed cuts to tax credits is that 2.6 million working families will be £1,600 worse off, as the independent IFS has set out. This is taking £4.1bn of spending power out of the economy.

    Labour has offered George Osborne a way for him to reverse his own cuts – by targeting a lower surplus and reversing his giveaways to the wealthy, but we’ve yet to receive an answer.

    Other cuts will continue, even if at a reduced pace. Local authorities face an extraordinary 79% decline in their budget, should Osborne carry out his plan.

    And Osborne is continuing the extraordinary pace of asset sales, with air traffic control, the Land Registry and the Ordnance Survey all scheduled to be sold.

    But Osborne has to complete the sales to meet, as the Office for Budget Responsibility say, his own debt reduction target. Without the asset sales, he misses his own, economically worthless, target.

    This isn’t a long-term economic plan. It’s a series of short-term political manoeuvres.

    In place of austerity, Labour will seek to balance spending on the government’s day-to-day at a pace compatible with fair and sustainable growth, whilst making sure government can still use its full powers to invest in vital infrastructure, science, and skills.

    We are committed to raising the level of infrastructure spending to at least the minimum the OECD thinks applies in a developed economy, of 3.5% of GDP.

    At present, despite many fine words in the Autumn Statement, government infrastructure spending is scheduled to fall to well below half that figure over the next few years.

    It’s no use increasing capital spending in the Department for Transport, whilst cutting day-to-day spending a colossal 37%. We’ll be building new roads – but how will pay to repair them?

    This isn’t good enough. And whilst we welcome the government’s commitment to protect day-to-day science spending in real terms, we should, like the US, China, Germany and France, be looking to increase what we spend on research and development.

    That’s how we can start to make the most of the opportunities that technological change is bringing.

    The government spends less than 0.5% of GDP on research and development. We will look to lift that level, aiming to deliver research and development spending, from all sources, of 3% of GDP over the course of the next two Parliaments.

    And subsidies for solar energy have been slashed, tearing apart what was a British business success story. Businesses in their infancy and operating in high-potential areas need support. We’ll be losing out on what Barclays has called a $30trillion global investment blitz from fast-growing green industries.

    It’s the short-term thinking that leads to the closure of the successful Business Growth Service – not announced in the Spending Review itself, but only made public nearly a week later.

    The Business Growth Service had helped over 18,000 businesses meet their potential, raising £100m in funding for small businesses. It’s been sacrificed on the altar of austerity.

    Short-term vs long-term

    There’s a deeper failing here. We’ve had decades now where successive governments have focused on the short-term.

    It’s why we don’t invest properly in infrastructure. It’s why skills budgets are cut and the training we provide not adequate.

    Independent polling shows that among the main barriers to London’s global competitiveness is its lack of affordable housing and its lack of skilled workers. The future prosperity of our nation’s economy is dependent on strategic investment today.

    A future which is being gambled by this Government. We know that is our access to EU labour markets, our digital connectivity and our infrastructure which are the most important factors in attracting businesses ventures to London yet too often we are failing to incentivise that investment.

    We have major institutions, like the Treasury, that seem far too concerned about short-term penny-pinching at the expense of long-term investment.

    I’m pleased that Lord Kerslake is now leading a review of the Treasury, launched yesterday, and looking to see how it can function in the best interests of the whole economy.

    But we need a break with the past if we’re to meet the challenges of the future. This short-term way of thinking, sometimes called neoliberalism, has had its day.

    Short-termism means all of us lose out. It means skills shortages. It means poor infrastructure. It means failing to invest in science and technology.

    It means a seriously unbalanced economy, both domestically and in our relations with the rest of the world. Our current account deficit, and the dependency it creates on short-term financing with all the risks this entails, should be treated as a particularly concern.

    Above all, it means failing to reach this country’s potential.

    We need institutions and a government that stand on the side of our real wealth creators.

    The business that create decent jobs, that pay their taxes, and that bring a social value to their communities.

    The innovators and entrepreneurs who create new wealth.

    And those who work, whether for themselves or as employees, providing the goods and services.

    Fair financing

    But we are all being poorly served by the institutions we have.

    Our current financial system is plainly not fit for this purpose.

    2008 should have been a wake-up call. Instead, we’ve allowed it to settle back into a rut. Reforms have not gone far enough.

    This means businesses lose out. Less than half of small traders were approved for bank credit over this financial year.

    Lending to small businesses has fallen and fallen again, year after year. Even with a recent improvement, lending is down £49bn on 2008 levels. It’s no good expecting our high-street banks to provide. Despite recovery in some parts of the economy, the Funding for Lending scheme is having to be extended in an effort to get our banks to try and lend to small business.

    For small businesses, “too big to fail” shouldn’t also mean “too big to lend”.

    Nothing substantive has changed. The same failed institutions we had before the crash are all set to fail again.

    Labour will take a different approach.

    No other major developed economy has just five high street banks providing over 80% of all loans.

    A more diverse market for finance will be a more resilient financial market.

    We think that regional and local banks, properly managed with a public service mandate, are part of the answer for small businesses.

    We want banks that know their customers and understand the needs of their local businesses. Germany’s network of highly successful “Sparkassen”, publicly-owned local banks in tune with their communities, provide one model.

    The individual branches support each other to provide security, with a combined balance sheet of over 1trillion euros. But the banking licence for each branch means it has to lend only to local and regional businesses.

    The US’ Community Reinvestment Act has helped promote transparency amongst banks and lending to small businesses. We’ll look to introduce a similar Act of Parliament here.

    And we’ll look for ways for government to support innovative new forms of financing in peer-to-peer lending. Placing this emerging sector on a properly regulated basis can help it grow.

    I’ve been meeting with Mark Boleat of the Corporation of London to discuss how the City of London can use its resources and its talents to help deliver the patient, long-term financing businesses in the UK need.

    We want a new compact with the City, spelling out its obligations. And we’ll retain the right to legislate if needed.

    Fair contributions, fair taxes

    But it’s not just financing. Our tax system needs to be focused on the future.

    Tax reliefs have grown into an unmanageable thicket of different schemes and wheezes.

    This tangle is estimated to cost the taxpayer at least £110bn a year. Labour think it’s time for a pruning.

    We want to encourage healthy growth, keeping the reliefs that promote good investment, jobs and entrepreneurship.

    But we’ll cut away at the wasteful and the unnecessary.

    We’ll launch a proper review of the system, lead by my colleague Seema Malhotra, looking to cut away where we can but keeping the parts that help support decent businesses.

    We want to do what we can to unlock the potential of our businesses, including releasing the huge cash hoards they have built up over the last decade. We think money should be invested for the long-term.

    The system of reliefs needs a root-and-branch reform so we can get the best possible deal for taxpayers, businesses, and society at large.

    But we have to be clear. There needs to be a different approach to business taxation all round.

    This Chancellor has cut and cut again the rate of Corporation Tax. That’s cost the taxpayer £7bn over the last Parliament.

    Yet business rates have risen by a total of £3bn over the last Parliament. That’s a huge increase, particularly for small businesses.

    We think the tax burden should fall heaviest on the broadest shoulders. And we want to see our small businesses also able to grow and flourish.

    So Labour will cut the headline business rate in their first Budget, and freeze it thereafter.

    We’ve made a firm defence of tax credits, and we welcome George Osborne’s decision to reverse the cuts to tax credits.

    Of course, we know there’s a job still to be done here with the cuts to earnings still coming through the Universal Credit system.

    But we recognise the value of tax credits in helping provide a solid financial footing for the self-employed and those just starting their businesses.

    Labour has always been the workers’ party. The clue is in the name. But we need to recognise how, and where, people work has changed.

    Self-employment reached a record high last year.

    New technology is enabling new ways of working. Some of this is providing opportunities for entrepreneurship and expanding the range of goods and services we have access to.

    But it can also mean the exploitation and uncertainty of zero-hours contracts, or the intolerable pressures placed on those in existing forms of employment.

    We have many institutions that are simply not adapted to the new world of work. Labour is proposing a new contract for a new workforce, and for new businesses.

    We need to think of ways that we can offer the same protections to those in self-employment as those in more traditional employment contracts.

    We can start by making sure maternity and paternity pay is properly provided for those who are self-employed.

    Labour will insist on giving everyone a fair deal.

    Recognising decent businesses

    That fair deal applies across society.

    Businesses create a huge value. And that’s not just the revenue they earn. It’s the vital social value of small traders, of independent shops, of start-ups.

    It’s the taxes paid, and the good jobs supported.

    It’s being a part of a community. It’s providing a service, big or small.

    We think it’s dog eat dog. But real wealth creation isn’t about some desperate war of all against all.

    Now I’m a socialist. But my socialism has always meant all of us pulling together. What we achieve by working together is always going to be more than what we achieve separately.

    Working together means recognising contributions when they are made.

    It means recognising the hard work and effort our decent businesses make.

    When people are paid fairly, and taxes paid properly

    We know a small number fail the rest of us. The tax dodgers, wriggling out of making the fair contribution the rest of us make.

    The under-payers, ducking their responsibilities to their own employees and failing to pay a wage anyone can live on.

    It’s an attitude that’s fine for some. But the decent businesses who make the effort lose out.

    We’ve allowed a small minority to duck their responsibilities to society, undercutting wages and undermining the public purse.

    The rest of us lose out from the actions of a few.

    We think decent businesses should be recognised.

    So Labour would introduce a “Good Business” kitemark scheme

    Those businesses who pay their taxes transparently and properly, and who pay their employees at least the living wage, deserve proper, public recognition.

    It’ll be open to any business that wants to apply. We’ll make sure that the strivers are properly and publicly recognised.

    We’re for decent businesses.

    We’re on the side of the real wealth creators, across the country and right here in London.

  • John McDonnell – 2015 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington
    John McDonnell

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Labour Party Conference held in Brighton on 28 September 2015.

    John McDonnell, Hayes and Harlington, ex officio.

    I warn you this is not my usual rant, they get me into trouble and I’ve promised Jeremy to behave myself.

    Jeremy and I sat down at the beginning of his campaign for the Labour leadership to discuss what they call the strap line for his campaign leaflets and posters.

    We came up with the strapline you see now.

    Straight talking, honest politics.

    It just embodied for me what Jeremy Corbyn is all about.

    So in the spirit of straight talking, honest politics.

    Here’s some straight talking.

    At the heart of Jeremy’s campaign, upon which he received such a huge mandate, was the rejection of austerity politics.

    But austerity is just a word almost meaningless to many people.

    What does it actually mean?

    Well, for Michael O’Sullivan austerity was more than a word.

    Michael suffered from severe mental illness.

    He was certified by his GP as unable to work but despite the evidence submitted by 3 doctors, he was assessed by the company given the contract for the work capability assessment as fit for work.

    Michael killed himself after his benefits were removed.

    The coroner concluded his death was a direct result of the decision in his case.

    I don’t believe Michael’s case stands alone.

    I am grateful to Michael’s family for allowing me to mention him today.

    I send them, I am sure on behalf of all us here, our heartfelt sympathy and condolences.

    But also I want them to know that this party, when we return to Government, will end this brutal treatment of disabled people.

    Austerity is also not just a word for the 100,000 children in homeless families who tonight will be going to bed not in a home of their own but in a bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation.

    On behalf of this party I give those children my solemn promise that when we return to government we will build you all a decent and secure home in which to live.

    Austerity is not just a word for the women and families across the country being hit hardest by cuts to public services.

    Women still face an average 19.1 per cent pay gap at work.

    Labour will tackle the pay gap, oppose the cuts to our public services and end discrimination in our society.

    Whenever we cite examples of what austerity really means the Conservatives always argue that no matter what the social cost of their austerity policies, they are necessary to rescue our economy.

    Let’s be clear.

    Austerity is not an economic necessity, it’s a political choice.

    The leadership of the Conservative Party made a conscious decision six years ago that the very richest would be protected and it wouldn’t be those who caused the economic crisis, who would pay for it.

    Although they said they were one nation Tories, they’ve demonstrated time and time again, they don’t represent one nation, they represent the 1 per cent.

    When we challenge their austerity programme, the Conservatives accuse us of being deficit deniers.

    Let me make this absolutely clear.

    Of course we accept that there is a deficit but we will take no lessons from a chancellor who promised to wipe out the deficit in one Parliament but didn’t get through half.

    Who promised to pay down the debt but has increased it by 50 per cent.

    I tell you straight from here on in Labour will always ensure that this country lives within its means.

    We will tackle the deficit but this is the dividing line between Labour and Conservative.

    Unlike them, we will not tackle the deficit on the backs of middle and low earners and especially by attacking the poorest in our society.

    We have always prided ourselves on being a fair and compassionate people in this country and we are.

    We will tackle the deficit fairly and we can do it.

    Here’s how.

    We will dynamically grow our economy.

    We will strategically invest in the key industries and sectors that will deliver the sustainable long term economic growth this country needs.

    Economic growth that will reach all sections, all regions and all nations of our country.

    And I meant it.

    I was devastated by Labour’s losses in Scotland.

    The SNP has now voted against the living wage, against capping rent levels and just last week voted against fair taxes in Scotland to spend on schools.

    So here is my message to the people of Scotland:

    Labour is now the only anti-austerity party.

    Now’s the time to come home.

    We will halt the Conservative tax cuts to the wealthy paid for by cuts to families income.

    Three weeks ago we saw one of the starkest examples of the difference between us and the Conservatives.

    The Conservatives cut tax credits to working families to pay for a multi billion pound cut in inheritance tax.

    Families who had done everything asked of them.

    Working hard but dependent on tax credits to make up for low pay.

    They will have £1300 taken from them to pay for a tax cut to the wealthiest 4 per cent of the population.

    The Conservatives argued that they’d introduced a so called living wage to make up for the tax credit cut.

    But we all know that it was neither a living wage nor according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies did it make up for the amount families lost.

    I tell you now, when we return to office, we will introduce a real living wage.

    Labour’s plan to balance the books will be aggressive.

    We will force people like Starbucks, Vodafone, Amazon and Google and all the others to pay their fair share of taxes.

    Let me tell you also, there will be cuts to tackle the deficit but our cuts will not be the number of police officers on our streets or nurses in our hospitals or teachers in our classrooms.

    They will be cuts to the corporate welfare system.

    There will be cuts to subsidies paid to companies that take the money and fail to provide the jobs.

    Cuts to the use of taxpayers’ money subsidising poverty paying bosses.

    Cuts to the billion pound tax breaks given to buy to let landlords for repairing their properties, whether they undertake the repairs or not.

    And cuts to the housing benefit bill when we build the homes we need and control exorbitant rents.

    Where money needs to be raised it will be raised from fairer, more progressive taxation. We will be lifting the burden from middle and low-income earners paying for a crisis they did not cause.

    If we inherit a deficit in 2020, fiscal policy will be used to pay down the debt and lower the deficit but at a speed that does not put into jeopardy sustainable economic growth.

    We’ll use active monetary policy to stimulate demand where necessary.

    We’ll also turn the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills into a powerful economic development department, in charge of public investment, infrastructure planning and setting new standards at work for all employees.

    This is a radical departure not just from neoliberalism but from the way past administrations tried to run the economy.

    Why?

    Well we just don’t think the current model can deliver.

    We don’t think that destroying industries and then subsidising a low pay economy through the tax system is a good idea.

    But our radicalism, it comes with a burden.

    We need to prove to the British people we can run the economy better than the rich elite that runs it now.

    That’s why today I have established an Economic Advisory Committee to advise us on the development and implementation of our economic strategy.

    We will draw on the unchallengeable expertise of some of the world’s leading economic thinkers including Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Professor Mariana Mazzucato, Simon Wren Lewis, Ann Pettifor and former member of the Bank of England Monetary Committee, David Blanchflower and many, many others drawn in for their specialist knowledge.

    I give you this undertaking that every policy we propose and every economic instrument we consider for use will be rigorously tested to its extreme before we introduce it in government.

    And we will demand that the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England put their resources at our disposal to test, test and test again to demonstrate our plans are workable and affordable.

    These bodies are paid for by taxpayers and therefore should be accessible to all parties represented in Parliament.

    In government we will establish and abide by that convention.

    The foundation stones of our economic policy are prosperity and social justice.

    We will create what Mariana Mazzucato describes as the entrepreneurial state.

    A strategic state works in partnership with businesses, entrepreneurs and workers to stimulate growth.

    Government’s role is to provide the opportunity for massive advances in technology, skills and organisational change that will drive up productivity, create new innovative products and new markets.

    That requires patient long term finance for investment in research from a effectively resourced and empowered national investment bank.

    A successful and fair economy cannot be created without the full involvement of its workforce.

    That’s why restoring trade union rights and extending them to ensure workers are involved in determining the future of their companies is critical to securing the skills, development and innovation to compete in a globalised economy.

    We will promote modern alternative public, co-operative, worker controlled and genuinely mutual forms of ownership.

    At this stage let me say that I found the Conservatives rant against Jeremy’s proposal to bring rail back into public ownership ironic when George Osborne was touring China selling off to the Chinese State Bank any British asset he could lay his hands on.

    It seems the state nationalising our assets is ok with the Tories as long as it’s the Chinese state or in the case of our railways the Dutch or French.

    Institutional change has to reflect our policy change.

    I want us to stand back and review the major institutions that are charged with managing our economy to check that they are fit for purpose and how they can be made more effective.

    As a start I have invited Lord Bob Kerslake, former head of the civil service, to bring together a team to review the operation of the Treasury itself.

    I will also be setting up a review of the Bank of England.

    Let me be clear that we will guarantee the independence of the Bank of England.

    It is time though to open a debate on the Bank’s mandate that was set by Parliament 18 years ago.

    The mandate focuses on inflation, and even there the Bank regularly fails to meet its target.

    We will launch a debate on expanding that mandate to include new objectives for its Monetary Policy Committee including growth, employment and earnings.

    We will review the operation and resourcing of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that HMRC is capable of addressing tax evasion and avoidance and modernising our tax collection system.

    This is how we will prepare for the future and the day we return to government.

    Let me now return to today’s economy because to be frank, I am fearful for the present.

    George Osborne fought the last election on the myth that the slowest economic recovery from recession in a century has been some sort of economic success.
    In reality the Tories presided over the longest fall in workers’ pay since Queen Victoria sat on the throne.

    A recovery based upon rising house prices, growing consumer credit, and inadequate reform of the financial sector.

    An imbalanced economy overwhelmingly reliant on insecure jobs in the service sector.

    Our balance of payments deficit, which is the gap between what we earn from the rest of the world and what we pay to the rest of the world, is at the highest levels it’s been since modern records began.

    I worry that the same pre-crash warning signs are reappearing.

    The UK economy is in recovery despite the Chancellor’s policies and not because of them.

    You know the narrative George Osborne wanted to present of us this week.

    Deficit deniers risking the security of the nation etc.

    It was so obvious you could write it yourself blindfolded.

    He has brought forward his grandiose fiscal charter not as serious policy making but as a political stunt.

    A trap for us to fall into.

    We are not playing those games any more.

    Let me explain the significance of what we are doing today.

    We are embarking on the immense task of changing the economic discourse in this country.

    Step by step:

    First we are throwing off that ridiculous charge that we are deficit deniers.

    Second we are saying tackling the deficit is important but we are rejecting austerity as the means to do it.

    Third we are setting out an alternative based upon dynamically growing our economy, ending the tax cuts for the rich and addressing the scourge of tax evasion and avoidance.

    Fourth having cleared that debris from our path we are opening up a national discussion on the reality of the roles of deficits, surpluses, long-term investment, debt and monetary policy.

    Fifth we will develop a coherent, concrete alternative that grows a green, sustainable, prosperous economy for all.

    We are moving on the economic debate in this country from puerile knockabout to an adult conversation.

    I believe the British people are fed up of being patronised and talked down to by politicians with little more than silly slogans and misleading analogies.

    This is an immense task.

    That’s why we need to draw upon all the talents outside and inside the party.
    I admit that I was disappointed that after Jeremy’s election some refused to serve.

    In the spirit of solidarity upon which our movement was founded I say come back and help us succeed.

    We are in an era of new politics.

    People will be encouraged to express their views in constructive debate.

    Don’t mistake debate for division.

    Don’t mistake democracy for disunity.

    This is the new politics.

    Many still don’t understand its potential.

    As socialists we will display our competence with our compassion.

    Idealists yes but ours is a pragmatic idealism to get things done, to transform our society.

    We remain inspired by the belief and hope that another world is possible.

    This is our opportunity to prove it.

    Let’s seize it.

    Solidarity.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2015 Speech to Local Government Association Conference

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, to the Local Government Association Conference held in Harrogate on 1 July 2015.

    Let me start with a thank you.

    Right now the health and care sectors face a triple whammy: an ageing population, a budget squeeze and rising consumer expectations. And you are operating at the coalface of those pressures, and I want to thank you for the superhuman efforts you are making to make sure we do not let down our most vulnerable citizens.

    Elections focus on the differences between parties. But 2 months on from this last one, we should reflect that there was actually consensus on a critical aspect of health and social care policy: all parties were committed to going further and faster on integration. It also appeared prominently in the Queen’s Speech – and as we have been talking about it you have been getting on and delivering it through the Better Care Fund, where remarkable progress has been made. This includes:

    • 84,000 fewer hospital bed days; around 13,000 more older people remaining at home after discharge; and 3,000 more people being supported to live independently according to current plans
    • every part of the country now on track to start sharing records with the NHS, the most vital bit of integration ‘plumbing’
    • 72 areas – around half the total – actually putting additional money of their own into the pooling arrangements because they’re so enthused about its potential to improve care

    And they are right to be enthused, because some of the plans we’re seeing are truly transformational. 75% of the pooled budgets are being ploughed not into NHS acute care, but into social and community care – exactly the shift we need to keep people healthy and happy in their own communities, to prevent rather than cure, and to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions.

    One piece of the jigsaw, though, is missing as we embark on this journey, and that is effective metrics. Integrating health and social care is a first – perhaps a global first – so it would be fatal if the dead hand of Whitehall tried to tell you how to do it. But we do need to know how well it is going, area by area, so we can identify best practice, learn from each other and provide support where things are going wrong.

    And to help that I am developing a set of unified metrics, bringing together the work on the Better Care Fund with the broader objective of health and social care integration. These will use a methodology agreed by the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the NHS and local government through the Local Local Government Association (LGA), they’ll be independently verified and published quarterly with the first set coming out in December. This way we will help ensure that the process of integration carries on at the pace we need over the coming years.

    Money

    Now integrated care is safe to talk about – because we all agree on it. Trickier is the other issue on your mind right now, which is the spending review. I know that you know I am not in a position to gainsay the Chancellor on this. But I can set out some of the principles guiding our approach.

    The first is that proper funding for all public services in the end depends on a strong economy. So we do need to stick to our challenging deficit-reduction plans as outlined before the election – which we recognise will be particularly challenging for local government.

    Indeed even with a protected budget it will be challenging for the NHS too. On a do-nothing scenario, demand for our services will rise by £30 billion by 2020, with only £8 billion of additional funding – so we are having to find £22 billion of savings, the most difficult efficiency ask of the NHS in its history.

    I am of course only too well aware of the financial challenges that local government has faced over the last 5 years, and we all know there is still more to do.

    But – and this is our second principle – we will fail in our responsibilities to the most vulnerable if we approach those efficiency challenges separately, allowing the pressure of budgets to entrench a silo mentality between the NHS and local government.

    What happens in social care is inextricably linked to what happens in the NHS. A strong NHS needs a strong social care system and a strong social care system needs a strong NHS. It would be easy – but quite wrong – to balance the books by reducing access to care or the quality of care delivered. But if local authorities do that NHS A&E departments will be overwhelmed – and if the NHS does that the demand for permanent residential care that you will have to pay for will mushroom. So we must follow the harder path: finding smart efficiencies that improve patient care – something we can only do by joining forces and facing those efficiency challenges together.

    Personal responsibility

    But there is a third partner we need in this endeavour – and that is the people who actually use our health and care system.

    When Beveridge first called for a National Health Service he attacked the five great evils of ‘want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.’ His guiding principle was that the security of a national health service should be dependent on co-operation between the state and the individual. In other words, ‘the state should offer security for service and contribution.’

    Sometimes the state has not delivered as well as it should – whether Shipman, Bristol Heart, Mid Staffs or Winterbourne View. So my biggest priority as Health Secretary has been a move towards intelligent transparency so we find out quickly where any problems might be happening.

    As a result, for the first time we now know how good our local hospital is; we have independent ratings for GP surgeries and care homes; we publish consultant surgery outcomes and are looking to do the same for medical specialties. From next March Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), too, will be held accountable for the overall quality of healthcare delivered in their area. The NHS is moving from a closed organisation to an open one, with real accountability to taxpayers and patients for the quality of service delivered.

    But to deliver the highest standards of health and care the people who use those services need to play their part too: personal responsibility needs to sit squarely alongside system accountability.

    And that is the national conversation I want to start today.

    Personal responsibility for our health

    We need to start by taking more personal responsibility for our own health.

    The independent, American-based Commonwealth Fund recently ranked the UK first of all major health systems in the developed world. On access to health services the UK is unparalleled. On the safety of care we’re amongst the best. Yet on one key measure we fell far behind. When it comes to preventing illness or leading ‘healthy lives’, we are bottom of the pack, ranked 10th out of 11. That is deeply undesirable in a taxpayer-funded system that relies on a sustainable level of demand for services.

    This country pioneered through local government clean drinking water and clean air in cities – we effectively invented what is now called public health.

    But looking at some of the indicators you wouldn’t know it.

    Despite falling smoking rates, nearly 8 million people in England still smoke, and treating smoking-related illnesses costs the NHS an estimated £2.7 billion a year. Half the difference in life expectancy between our richer and poorer areas is caused by smoking-related illness, with two-thirds of smokers starting as children.

    We also have higher obesity rates than nearly anywhere else in Europe. This is closely linked to soaring type 2 diabetes rates – up 61% in a decade, now affecting 1 in 16 of the adult population and costing the NHS £8 billion a year. While childhood obesity has plateaued, are we really content with 1 in 5 children leaving primary school clinically obese, with three-quarters of their parents not even aware that they have a problem?

    Thankfully people are starting to take more responsibility. Doctors report dramatic increases in the number of expert patients who Google their conditions and this can be challenging for doctors not used to being second-guessed. But it is to be warmly welcomed: the best person to manage a long-term condition is the person who has that long term condition. The best person to prevent a long term condition developing is not the doctor – it’s you. Which is why last year, following changes to the GP contract, the number of GPs offering their patients online access to a summary of their medical record has risen from 3% to 97%. This needs to be the start of a much bigger change where everyone feels firmly in the driving seat for their own health outcomes and an area where the NHS and local government can work together.

    Responsible use of NHS resources

    Part of this change in mentality needs to be more personal responsibility for use of precious public resources.

    On the back of Lord Carter’s report on inefficiencies in procurement and rostering in the NHS, we have recently begun a big piece of work to bear down on waste in hospitals. We are insisting on a laser-like focus from the hospital sector to make sure every penny counts.

    But there is a role for patients here too. There is no such thing as a free health service: everything we are proud of in the NHS is funded by taxpayers and every penny we waste costs patients more through higher taxes or reduced services.

    Yet estimates suggest that missed GP appointments cost the NHS £162 million each year and missed hospital appointments as much as £750 million a year. That is nearly £1 billion that could be used for more treatments or the latest drugs. On top of which we spend £300 million a year on wasted medicines.

    People who use our services need to know that in the end they pay the price for this waste.

    So today I can announce that we intend to publish the indicative medicine costs to the NHS on the packs of all medicines costing more than £20, which will also be marked ‘funded by the UK taxpayer’. This will not just reduce waste by reminding people of the cost of medicine, but also improve patient care by boosting adherence to drug regimes. I will start the processes to make this happen this year, with an aim to implement it next year.

    Responsibility for our families

    The third and perhaps most important area where we need to take more personal responsibility is around care for the elderly. Here yet again health and local government must surely work together.

    You don’t need me to describe the burning platform. By the end of this parliament we will have a million more over 70s, one third of them living alone. Yes the health and social care system must do a much better job at looking after them. But so too must all of us as citizens as well.

    Shockingly, in Edinburgh last week police had to break down the door of a top floor flat because it had been so long since the door had been opened, they had to pick their way through mounds of unopened mail, to reach the body of a man who may have been left undiscovered in his flat for up to 3 years.

    Statistics from the LGA indicate that in 2011 in England there were 2,900 council funded funerals. That is around 8 ‘lonely funerals’ every single day, half of which were for over 65s.

    Are we really saying these people had no living relatives or friends? Or is it something sadder, namely that the busy, atomised lives we increasingly lead mean that too often we have become so distant from blood relatives that we don’t even know when they are dying?

    In Japan nearly 30,000 people die alone every year, and they have even coined a word for it, kodokushi, which means ‘lonely death.’ How many lonely deaths do we have in Britain – where according to Age UK a million older people have not spoken to anyone in the last month?

    It is not all bad news: we have 6 million carers in the UK who do a magnificent job, even if they do not always get the thanks or support they deserve. We have some of the most active charities and social support systems of anywhere in the world. But the uncomfortable truth is that praising that heroic army of carers and volunteers – as all politicians do – is not enough. If we are to rise to the challenges we face, taking care of older relatives and friends will need to become part of everyone’s life.

    International comparisons

    Other countries are starting to wake up to this challenge.

    A Chinese proverb states that ‘an elderly person at home is like a living golden treasure’. At the moment, around 40% of Chinese older people live with their children, but in Beijing they have a policy to increase that to 90% by 2020. China even passed a new ‘elderly rights law’ against ‘neglecting or snubbing elderly people’, which mandated that people should visit their elderly parents often, no matter how far away they live, with fines or prison sentences as penalties.

    Western traditions would rightly resist state interference on this scale. But France too passed an elderly care law in 2004 requiring its citizens to keep in touch with their elderly parents. They did this after a heatwave left 15,000 elderly dead, many of whom were left for weeks before they were found.

    In Italy, they have a well-established system of ‘badanti’ – a system of au pairs or ‘nannies for grannies’. They provide the majority of elderly care in Italy and take care of older relatives while busy parents go out to work.

    In the Netherlands, they’ve introduced a different type of au pair system for elderly people, where students are offered rent-free accommodation in nursing homes in return for spending at least 30 hours a month with some of the elderly residents.

    Another model is championed by the remarkable organisation L’Arche’, which has adopted a revolutionary approach to the care of people with learning disabilities. As a young man in the aftermath of World War II, Vanier L’Arche visited a grim institution in Paris for people with learning disabilities. He was accosted by a young resident who asked him simply: “Will you be my friend?” He was so struck by this cry of loneliness that he invited 2 men from the institution to live with him in his home. This became an international movement where people offer a year of their time to live alongside their charges. As Vanier said: “When you share the same bathroom, and your toothbrush shares the same mug, it’s different”, and there are now 147 thriving L‘Arche communities in 35 countries including our own.

    And we have some remarkable home-grown schemes, too, such as the HomeShare scheme in Dorset to Forth Valley, Scotland; and the Shared Lives programme in 150 locations from Bradford to Brighton. Or the extraordinary efforts of individual citizens like Maria Boot-Handford, a speech therapist from Greenwich, who was so moved by the plight of her elderly neighbours that she negotiated with her NHS employer to work 4 days a week so that she could use her Fridays to spend quality time with 3 different elderly neighbours and visit local nursing home residents.

    But individual examples of inspiration should not mask our national shame: 1 in 10 older people have contact with their family less than once a month and 4 million people say TV is their main source of company. Despite many local examples of innate British kindness and decency, the national picture is far from kind and far from decent.

    New carers’ strategy

    We should also note the hard-headed economic arguments that impact on this debate.

    All families have different needs and situations, and for some residential care will be right. But carry on as we are and we will need 38,000 more care home beds in the next 5 years – the equivalent of around 20 new care homes a month for the next 5 years.   The impact of this on you, the local authorities who fund 40% of all residential care beds, would be disastrous. Care home residents are some of the most frequent users of NHS services, so the financial impact on the NHS would be equally severe.

    Recent evidence suggests change is starting to happen – the latest ONS figures showed a welcome increase in multi-generational households. But with only 16% of older people living with their children in this country compared to 39% in Italy, 40% in China and 65% in Japan, we are starting from a low base and need to ask whether the pace of change is sufficient.

    We are proud of the new rights for carers enshrined in last year’s Care Act and made a manifesto commitment to increase support for fulltime unpaid carers. Passing new laws requiring people to care for relatives is not the British way, but I do want to make sure we are learning from the best of what happens around the world. So I can also announce that my new Minister for Community and Social Care Alistair Burt will develop a new carers’ strategy that looks at the best of international practice and examines what more we can do to support existing carers and the new carers we will need.

    The new strategy will ensure we deliver that – but it will do more. By looking at best practice from around the country and the world, it will seek to answer the big question: what do we need to do as a society to support people who are caring now, and crucially, for the millions who will have a caring role in the future? We can’t put our heads in the sand on this critical issue.

    Conclusion: a new social contract

    I have said before I want Britain to be the best country in the world to grow old in.

    But the government – nationally or locally – can’t do this alone. Attitudes need to change too, so that it becomes as normal to talk about elderly care with your boss as about childcare. Family planning must be as much about care for older generations as planning for younger ones. A wholesale repairing of the social contract so that children see their parents giving wonderful care to grandparents – and recognise that in time that will be their responsibility too.

    Responsibility for our health, responsibility for our families, responsible use of public resources. A revolution in personal responsibility to match the revolution in health and care provision that we are all determined to offer.

    Thank you very much.