UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Tim Farron – 2017 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, at the party’s conference in Bournemouth on 18 September 2017.

    I was at Euston the other day and a lady came up to me, half my size but still somehow able to look down her nose at me.

    She said ‘well, I’m not surprised you stepped down! Never trust a man who wears Doctor Marten shoes!’

    If only we’d known. I’d have worn the boots instead, cherry red with yellow laces up to my knees. And that would be the only thing I’d change.

    I’m not giving up, so this won’t be a giving up speech. And I’m not retiring, I mean I turned down celebrity Dancing on Ice! Because Lembit Opik is a friend. Not a blueprint.

    Look, I’m not going to give you a long list of advice – I’m not Paddy.

    Just one bit of advice really, it’s this:

    If you have joined this party as a fast track to a career in politics, then your careers officer wants sacking.

    This is not the place if you want an easy life. It is the place to be if you want to make a difference.

    31 years ago I joined the Liberals.

    Like the rest of you I chose the tough route in politics, I chose that tough route knowingly.

    Any old mediocrity can join Labour or the Tories, hold office, be someone for a bit, but do exactly the same as any other careerist would have done.

    But I also know you can only make a difference if you are brave enough to be different.

    When I first got elected, getting lost on the parliamentary estate was pretty much a daily event. Its like going to big school for the first time. One night Greg Mulholland and I were trying to find our way out of parliament, and we got lost, its just possible that we might have had a pint.

    Anyway, we wandered into the house of lords lobby by mistake and Greg whispered to me ‘I think we’re in the wrong place’ to which the policeman on the door responded ‘not in the wrong place sirs, just 30 years too early.

    Which tells you something about how folks see the comfortable trajectory of the career politician.

    Anyhow, about a week later I decided to join year 6 of Dean Gibson Primary School from Kendal on their tour around parliament. Everything I know about what’s where in parliament I got from that guided tour.

    As the tour progressed we ended up again in the House of Lords lobby, and I got distracted by Geoffrey Howe moving rather slowly out of the chamber and into the lobby.

    I don’t mind telling you, I was rather star struck, I mean he was chancellor of the exchequer when I was at school!

    One of the kids saw who I was looking at, and she said ‘who is he?’ and I said ‘that’s Geoffrey Howe, he brought down Margaret Thatcher’ and she said, ‘who’s Margaret Thatcher?’

    Which goes to show that, you know, there is some justice.

    Margaret Thatcher love her or not, was a great leader, immensely significant, and, apparently… forgettable.

    Those whose driving motivation is a glittering career, the fulfilment of personal ambition, are not only vain, their efforts are in vain.

    Careerism is futile. But changing people’s lives isn’t. So winning elections isn’t.

    These last two years, we have begun to win again.

    And we have a great, new leader in Vince.

    He is exactly what we need, just when we need it – and I still aim to encourage, inspire and support you as we seek to win, in councils and in parliaments, in your community, and across our country.

    To me, the Tories aren’t the enemy, Labour aren’t the enemy, defeat is the enemy.

    Because defeat robs us of the ability to make people’s lives better.

    The Women’s Hour survey last week showed that the South Lakes is the best place in the north for women to live… and it was pretty clear why, because of housing, affordable housing.

    And that’s down to us. Having built something like a thousand social rented properties, the liberal democrats have halved the housing waiting list.

    It wasn’t rocket science: you have a vision, a plan to make people’s lives better, you inspire your volunteers you inspire the voters, you win, you change people’s lives.

    I joined this party because I agreed with it. I stayed in this party because I fell in love with it. Because this is the party that is in no one’s pocket. This is the party that lets you think for yourself.

    This is the party that treats people like people, not pawns in an ideological game. This is the party riddled with compassion, and we are terminally infected with optimism. And guided by rational thought, by a refreshing wisdom in the face of extremism and dogma.

    Given that we are now led by the wisest person on the planet, it’s probably a good time for me to tell you that it is this party’s wisdom that I love the most. Wisdom is not always popular, but wisdom is what any country needs, especially this country and especially now.

    You can win elections and win power by being crafty and clever. But you only do any good by being wise.

    But choosing wisdom over populism can leave you pretty lonely. Just look at our record of being right, but standing alone. We spoke out about climate change decades before anyone else. And we were right.

    We spoke out about the impending banking collapse before anyone else. And we were right.

    We called for Britain to join Europe from the start. And we were right.

    We opposed the illegal Iraq war. And we were right. We called for Britain to take our fair share of refugees. We were right. We are right.

    And we said that leaving the EU is the biggest mistake we have made in a hundred years and that we should resist it. And we are right.

    But I am fed of being right and getting beat.

    And when I took on the leadership of this party, we had been beaten beyond our worst nightmares.

    It had been an honour to see Nick Clegg and our team in government put liberalism into practice for 5 years in coalition, but in July 2015 the question was not whether we would return to government it was whether we would survive at all.

    Our challenge wasn’t ‘trust’ or defending our record in government, it was far bigger and more basic than that.

    Our challenge was basic relevance.

    We simply didn’t matter.

    And because of the disaster of 2015, I was the first and hopefully last lib dem leader to fight a general election when we weren’t even the third party.

    90% of our MPs defeated, 50% of our councillors defeated, 50% of our members departed. Ejected as the 3rd party.
    Dismissed as irrelevant.

    The day I took over as leader one journalist predicted confidently that ‘the party that began with Gladstone will now end with Farron’.

    So that was cheerful.

    Well, not cheerful, but utterly motivating to me. I saw those assumptions that we were dead and buried and I resolved that we were going to survive and we were going to grow and we were going to matter and we were going to win again.

    The Liberal movement that gave us the welfare state, the old age pension, freedom of religion, the health service, LGBT equality, council housing.

    The Liberal movement of Gladstone, Lloyd George, Shirley Williams, Jo Grimond, Nancy Sear, Charles Kennedy – the movement I joined as a 16 year old, was not going to die on my watch.

    And so 2 years ago, in this very hall, I set you a challenge and you rose to that challenge, you picked a ward and you won it, we had the first local election gains for our party in 8 years, we grew our membership, we took risks, we made ourselves matter.

    We saved the Liberal Democrats and I am proud of every single one of you.

    In the early hours of the 24th June 2016 I took our biggest risk. A considered risk.

    You see, unlike David Cameron, I had made a plan as to what we would do if the EU referendum was lost.

    It was a simple plan, and it was to stick to our principles.

    It was to defiantly say that the Britain we love is a Britain that loves the world.

    That the Britain we love is open, tolerant, united, it is not insular, suspicious and divided.

    That to be a patriot is to do what is best for your country what is best for your children’s future.

    I respect the majority, because I am a democrat.

    But I resist Brexit and I want the people to have the chance to change and rescue their future, because I am a patriot.

    June 24th 2016 was a long day, but it was a day we turned a corner, with a conviction and clarity that meant for the first time in ages we actually seemed to matter.

    It was an especially long day if you worked in the Lib Dem membership department.

    When I arrived at HQ that morning everyone’s eyes were fixed on a TV screen, not BBC, ITV, Sky, no, the screen that displays the party’s current membership figures.

    That number was rising at the rate of a new member every single second, and it went on, and on and on and we grew and grew and grew.

    We made a risky call that morning, but since then our membership has doubled to 100,000, the highest it has ever been in the history of our party.

    We had the best run in council by-elections for more than a generation, we had Witney and then we had Richmond Park.

    We experienced something we had hardly experienced for years: winning, and the joy and energy and momentum that comes from winning, which leads to more winning!

    And for all the challenges of the June election, for the first time in four general elections, our party came back with an increase in MPs and our most diverse parliamentary party ever.

    I said during the campaign that my motivation for fighting the madness of Brexit was that I wanted to look my children straight in the eye in the years to come and say that I did everything, everything to prevent this disaster.

    And that is still my motivation.

    It is not too late. The Britain we love can still be saved. Do not give up.

    We will be mocked, we will be vilified, we will be snarled at as enemies of the people, remoaners, losers and it will feel easier to walk away, to keep your head down, to change the subject.

    Believe me, since the referendum there were times when I was tempted to do that.

    But I remembered Charles Kennedy.

    I remembered Charles Kennedy stood in the Commons speaking wisdom and reason as Tories and Labour ganged up to take us into that illegal war in Iraq, I remember Charles being screamed at for being a traitor, and hounded for daring to stand up to Bush and Blair.

    And I remember public opinion against us at first. I remember Charles determination to keep going all the same, he was right, he knew it and he wasn’t going to let it go.

    And as the months went by and our cause was proven right and just, the mood changed and Britain agreed that Charles Kennedy was right.

    We need to follow Charles example today.

    We are right, we will be proven right, we must not give up.

    But lets not fixate on the disaster that is Brexit, let us build the positive case for a Europe that is Britain’s home.

    Back in 1977, at the height of the Cold War, Jimmy Carter sent a recorded message up into space on board the voyager spacecraft.

    He said we are trying to survive our time so that we may live into yours.

    Well, Voyager has now left the solar system and so far we have survived.

    When he recorded those words the nuclear arms race was at its most terrifying. Six countries who are now members of the European Union had nuclear weapons on their soil, pointed at us. But today, instead of plotting one another’s annihilation we are friends who trade and share a destiny…or at least we did.

    The European Union is flawed, imperfect, in need of reform…for sure… but in its sinews and veins, in its very existence, it remains beyond compare the world’s most successful peace process.

    That is why I will not let it go, get over it, suck it up.

    Patriots are never populists. Because patriots tell their country the truth, it is a treacherous act to tell lies to your country, Boris ….. or to be a coward, acquiescing while lies gain a foothold, Jeremy.

    So we must tell the truth. Britain’s exit from the European Union will make, is making, my country poorer, my country less safe, my country less powerful… and it is damaging the future for our children.

    Of course there is one promise that Brexit will fulfil. It will reduce immigration, without changing a single law. Because if you turn Britain into a poorer, meaner, insular place, no one in their right mind will choose to come here.

    So the Tories are breaking Britain to repel the immigrants. And they do it with Labour’s shameful connivance. What a disgrace!

    You want to know why we need Liberals?

    That is why we need Liberals.

    You can be a Corbyn or a May and change your mind on Europe to suit the weather.

    Too afraid of the people to ever deserve to lead them.

    Leadership requires courage…not cowardice.

    We stand between two parties led by cowards.

    We stand between two parties leading Britain to disaster.

    And people know it.

    They vote for one because they’re terrified of the other.

    We must give people hope to vote for not fear to vote against.

    Britain deserves something better. Liberal Democrats are that something better.

    Theresa May. With whom in the early 1990s I once shared a ballot paper, and a hairstyle, Rick Astley’s hairstyle to be precise. We wore it well.

    Let me say this about Theresa May. When she and I fought North West Durham in 1992, she did actually turn up to the debates!

    It didn’t do her any good mind, not that it did me any good either – But today she embodies perfectly the bankruptcy of the Tory party.

    People act surprised that her manifesto was a vacuous disaster.

    Why the surprise?

    Why would the Tories bother with a serious manifesto – the only conviction they have is that people like them should run the country.

    Holding office is more important than wielding power. Policies are mere details, why would you bother with those?

    Theresa May, is still in number 10 because the Tories think that however dreadful she is, everyone else is worse.

    And you can see their point.

    You see, once upon a time, Michel Barnier would have croissants and coffee for breakfast, now he has David Davis.

    Every flipping day.

    Its embarrassing because my kids future depends on this circus, in which our representatives are the clowns and the rest of Europe is the audience, not sure whether to laugh at us, shout at us, or increasingly to just to walk away and spend their time on something less boring.

    Because this is what this Conservative government is really doing.

    Its making Britain weaker, smaller and less important.

    Its making Britain smaller overseas, and its making Britain smaller at home.

    Diminishing our schools as this summer, most head teachers had to lay off staff because of budget cuts.

    Letting our NHS shrink, demoralising clinicians, betraying patients.

    Pushing those who were just about managing into poverty and family crisis.

    After the dementia tax disaster, going from a bad plan to no plan for the future of social care.

    Turning its back on affordable and social housing.

    Cutting rail investment.

    Downgrading the green energy revolution that Nick and Ed delivered in government.

    Brexit was never just about being out of Europe, it was always part of a wider plan: to shrink the state, cut the green crap, small government, weak citizens, everyone for themselves, a small Britain, a weak.

    Britain, a mean Britain.

    But that is not our Britain.

    And this menace to our future is multiplied because the official opposition is a joke.

    The party of Atlee, Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown… is now run by the kind of people who used to try to sell me newspapers outside my students union. A party which now has more in common with Class War than they do with the Fabian Society.

    But Labour’s election result in June was better than expected.

    Labour MPs won who had expected to lose. And so we have the born again Corbynistas.

    Those who fought to get rid of him then, but who are happy to support him now.

    I say this to the majority in Labour who are social democrats.

    You may have saved your seats, but you have lost your party.

    I’d argue that Labour’s most effective leader was actually Neil Kinnock. Blair would never have won without him.

    Kinnock took a party in the grip of the extreme left, and he transformed it -he made it a social democratic party not a hard left socialist party.

    Hard left socialism is an assault on our economy, an assault on our internationalism, an assault on our liberty. If you are social democrat in labour today, you know that.

    and if you’re breathing a sigh of relief that you held on in June, you need to have a good long look at yourself.

    You do not belong now to the party that you joined. You know that Labours leadership would keep us apart from Europe, trash our economy and lead us to the worst austerity in living memory.

    And you know that the people who would suffer the most wouldn’t be the rich it would be the poorest.

    It would be those who most rely on strong public services, health, social care, schools, welfare, pensions.

    Those who would suffer from extreme socialism would be the many and not the few.

    But for the thousands of labour members across the country who know this, its too late to do a Kinnock now.

    You have lost your party for at least a generation.

    Your party has left you, so its time for you to leave it.

    Because it is now clear if there is to be a realignment of progressive forces then it can only be around this party.

    Liberal Democrats, we should embrace that role, seize this moment, lead that movement.

    So our job is to do good, not to attempt to leave vain personal legacies.

    Careerism is futile. But there is nothing wrong with ambition, so long as your ambition is to do the right thing.

    For me, I joined the party at 16, I’ve been a student activist, union President, councillor, parliamentary candidate in a winnable seat…that I lost, and then won, so then an MP, shadow cabinet, party president, party leader.

    I guess if I had personal ambition, then I’ve done everything I realistically could have done.

    So now is the time to do what I love to do.

    And with a bit more time on my hands, I have done a bit more running, seen a lot more of my kids… and I co-authored a book with JK Rowling.

    Well, sort of.. we both wrote chapters in the RAM album book which came out a fortnight ago.

    She wrote about the Violent Femmes and I, as you know, wrote about NWA’s straight outta Compton having now established myself as the party’s leading authority on gansta rap.

    Which is a niche position.

    As, some would say, is our position on Brexit.

    Indeed despite all the challenges we have faced it is true to say that we’ve 99 problems but the niche ain’t one.

    But doing what I love, means being here.

    I love being a campaigning MP, and I love being part of the lib dem family I have belonged to for 31 years.

    So if its alright with you, then I’m here for at least the next 31 years too. Which would put me in my 70s… which is of course the perfect age to run to be party leader.

    We’ve got a brilliant leader in Vince. A uniquely impressive leadership team in Vince and Jo. I’m very very proud to fight under their banner. Just as you have fought under mine, and for which I am so grateful.

    And so I want to focus my final words on the most important people in our party. You.

    This week, you are here, giving up your time and money.

    All year, your work in your communities, fighting elections, running the local party, building our campaigning infrastructure on the ground is what really saved this party.

    Half of you joined in the last 2 years, but you are the movement that forces this party through its dark times and which has now filled it with its greatest ever purpose and mission.

    You make sacrifices for our cause, you are selfless in your commitment, you are all that stood between this party and oblivion and I salute you all.

    And now I rejoin your ranks, proud to march alongside you.

    Because activist I was since the day I joined, activist I was as leader, activist I remain until the day I die.

    On the desperate plight of refugees,; on the dishonesty and calamity of Brexit; on the tragedy of homelessness; the horror of climate change; the chaos in care.

    You are the people who will not walk on by, because you cannot walk on by.

    That is why you are different and that is why I love you

    And that is why our ambition matters.

    Britain needs the Liberal Democrats, sanity in economics, compassion for all, a plan for the long term, an exit from Brexit… what’s not to like?

    And there’s no one else in our market.

    Of course celebrate our survival, but if we love our country then our ambition cannot now just be to survive, it must be to grab this moment, take that space and fill it with all that we have.

    When I needed you, you were always there.

    But your country needs you now.

    It needs you to win, it needs you to grow, it needs you to get behind our outstanding leader and it needs you to believe that you belong to the only movement that can rescue our country and the generations to come from the disaster it now faces.

    That is the ambition we all share, that is the ambition that burns within when personal ambition fades, that is the ambition that gives clarity to our mission, purpose to our campaigns, a reason to fight.

    We have made our party matter, now we must make our party win.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech to UN General Assembly

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, to the UN General Assembly in New York on 20 September 2017.

    Mr President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the government and people of Mexico following the devastating earthquake. I also want to reiterate my sympathies to those affected by the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean. Our thoughts are with them all at this time.

    As we meet at this General Assembly we face challenges that go right to the heart of who we are as nations. Challenges that test our values, our vision and our resolve to defend the rules and standards that underpin the security and prosperity of our fellow citizens. As I argued in my speech here last year, many of these challenges do not recognise or respect geographical boundaries. I think of course of the terrorism that has struck so many of our countries including my own 5 times this year. And fuelling that terrorist threat the increasing numbers being drawn to extremist ideologies not only in places riven by conflict and instability, but many online in their homes thousands of miles away from those conflicts. I think of the climate change which is depleting and degrading the planet we leave to our children.

    And I think of the vast challenges that come from the mass displacement of people. Many are refugees fleeing conflict and persecution. Others, economic migrants, prepared to risk everything on perilous sea crossings in the desperate search for a better life for themselves and their children. Through this migration we also see the challenges of economic inequality between countries and within them. This inequality, together with weaknesses in the global trading system, threatens to undermine support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that have done so much to propel global growth. And it is pushing some countries towards protectionism in the belief that this best defends the interests of their own people.

    And as the global system struggles to adapt we are confronted by states deliberately flouting for their own gain the rules and standards that have secured our collective prosperity and security. The unforgiveable use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime against its own people and perhaps foremost in our minds today the outrageous proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and a threat to use them.

    I believe that the only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create and the values by which we stand. For it is the fundamental values that we share, values of fairness, justice and human rights, that have created the common cause between nations to act together in our shared interest and form the multilateral system. And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions, the international frameworks of free and fair trade, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and laws and conventions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enables the global cooperation through which we can protect those values.

    Indeed, the defining purpose of the UN Charter is to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character; and to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of those common ends. And I do not see these as vaunted ideals to be held for their own sake. These values and the rules they imbue are central to our national interest, to our security and prosperity. And the international system with the UN at its heart is the amplifying force that enables countries to cooperate and live up to the standards in word, spirit and deed, to our collective and individual benefit.

    If this system we have created is found no longer to be capable of meeting the challenges of our time then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of all our peoples. So those of us who hold true to our shared values, who hold true to that desire to defend the rules and high standards that have shaped and protected the world we live in, need to strive harder than ever to show that institutions like this United Nations can work for the countries that form them and for the people who we represent.

    This means reforming our United Nations and the wider international system so it can prove its worth in helping us to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. And it means ensuring that those who flout the rules and spirit of our international system are held to account, that nations honour their responsibilities and play their part in upholding and renewing a rules-based international order that can deliver prosperity and security for us all.

    Reform

    First, we must ensure that our multilateral institutions can deliver the aspirations on which they were founded. Think of UNHCR looking after those who’ve been driven out of their homes. The OPCW striving for a world free of chemical weapons. UNICEF helping children in danger. These are all vital missions where the UN surely has a unique role to play. And that is why the UK has over 70 years been such a pioneering supporter of these organisations and more.

    But we should also acknowledge that throughout its history the UN has suffered from a seemingly unbridgeable gap between the nobility of its purposes and the effectiveness of its delivery. When the need for multilateral action has never been greater the shortcomings of the UN and its institutions risk undermining the confidence of states as members and donors. Even more importantly they risk the confidence and faith of those who rely upon the blue helmets, who rely upon that sign I stand in front of today coming to their aid in the darkest of hours.

    So we must begin by supporting the ambitious reform agenda that Secretary-General Guterres is now leading to create a more agile, transparent and joined-up organisation. Much of this work will be practical and unglamorous. It will require the UN to deliver better cooperation on the ground between agencies, remove competition for funding and improve gender equality. But it will also require real leadership to confront damaging issues that have beset the UN. So I welcome the Secretary-General’s new circle of leadership on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse in UN operations and I’m pleased to be part of this initiative.

    We, the nations of the UN, need to give the Secretary-General our backing for these reforms and as an outward-looking global Britain and the second biggest funder of the UN the UK will remain committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on development and humanitarian support. We will use our military to support peacekeeping and our diplomats will continue to work to tackle conflict and support peace building. In turn the UN and its agencies must win our trust in proving to us and to the people we represent that they can deliver. And that is why we will remain generous in our funding but set aside 30% to be paid only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.

    But this is about more than technical reforms, important as they are. It is also about reforms that enable the United Nations to truly respond to the global challenges of the 21st century. At last year’s General Assembly we undertook to do far more to resolve the challenges of refugee and migration flows. We agreed to develop global compacts to address the causes and the consequences of the mass movements of people we see today. This was an important step to elevate significantly our global response and enable us collectively to tackle this challenge of our times.

    So in the year ahead as well as agreeing the principles of these compacts we must ensure they can be applied in practice. We must do more to identify, protect and support refugees and those hosting them near conflicts. And on migration our starting point must be that it can benefit both countries and migrants themselves but only when it is safe, orderly, well-managed and legal. If we do not manage this effectively, we will fail both our own citizens and those taking these dangerous journeys. And we will push more people into the curse of modern slavery and the hands of the human traffickers and organised criminal groups that drive this inhuman industry.

    But the steps we are agreeing through these compacts alone will not be enough. For if people cannot find jobs, opportunity and hope for themselves and their families where they live they will continue to look elsewhere. And so as the United Nations and as members, we must work harder to combine the efforts of our development programmes with the private sector and the international financial institutions. To support the creation of jobs and livelihoods that will address not just the consequences, but the causes of this great challenge of our time. For the truth is that despite our best efforts, we are not succeeding. We must do more.

    The same is true with terrorism, where again the challenges we face today are vastly different from those of previous eras. When terrorists struck London and Manchester this year, the world saw our cities come together in defiance. Our parliament carries on. Ariana Grande came back to Manchester and sang again. London Bridge is bustling with people. Our communities came together at the Finsbury Park mosque in North London. And Londoners got back on the Tube. The terrorists did not win, for we will never let anyone destroy our way of life.

    But defiance alone is not enough. As leaders, we have all visited too many hospitals, and seen too many innocent people murdered in our countries. In the last decade, hundreds of thousands have been killed by terrorists across the world. This is a truly global tragedy that is increasingly touching the lives of us all. This year is the tenth anniversary of the death of the woman who introduced me to my husband, and who was known well to many of us in this United Nations. Benazir Bhutto was brutally murdered by people who actively rejected the values that all of us here in this United Nations stand for. In a country that has suffered more than most at the hands of terrorists. Murdered for standing up for democracy, murdered for espousing tolerance, and murdered for being a woman.

    When I think of the hundreds of thousands of victims of terrorism in countries across the world, I think of their friends, their families, their communities, devastated by this evil, and I say enough is enough. So of course, we must continue to take the fight to these terrorist groups on the battlefield. And the UK will remain at the forefront of this effort, while also helping to build the capabilities of our alliances and our partners to better take on this challenge. And we must also step up our efforts as never before to tackle the terrorist use of the internet. For as the threat from terrorists evolves, so must our cooperation. And that is why today, for the first time in the UN, governments and industry through the Global Internet Forum for Counterterrorism will be coming together to do just that.

    The tech companies have made significant progress on this issue, but we need to go further and faster to reduce the time it takes to reduce terrorist content online, and to increase significantly their efforts to stop it being uploaded in the first place. This is a major step in reclaiming the internet from those who would use it to do us harm. But ultimately, it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat, it is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, so division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them across all parts of our societies.

    As I said in the aftermath of the attack on London Bridge this summer, we have to face the fact that this will require some difficult conversations. We all need to come together, to take on this extremism that lives among us, and to nurture the common values that must ultimately win out. These are the values of this United Nations. And yet, despite our best efforts, we as nations and as a United Nations have not found the ways or the means to truly take on this threat. And that is why today, as I talk about UN reform, I ask the Secretary General to make this fight against terrorists and the ideologies that drive them a core part of his agenda, at the heart of our development, peace building, and conflict prevention work. And to give this effort the prominence it surely requires. I’m calling on the Secretary General to make this a theme of next year’s General Assembly and use this to harness the efforts of governments, the private sector, and civil society so that we can truly strike the generational blow against this vile evil in our world.

    And as we do so, we must clearly strike the balance between protecting our people and protecting their freedoms. And we must always guard against those who would use the fight against terrorism as a cover for oppression and the violation of human rights. So as we look at the situation in Northern Burma, I call on the Burmese authorities to put an end to the violence, allow humanitarian access, and fully implement Annan Commission recommendations.

    Responsibilities

    And so by reforming our multinational institutions, we can strengthen their ability to deliver for the people we serve, protect the vulnerable and fight injustice. We can enable multilateralism to multiply the effect of our individual commitments through its convening power and spending power. Through the economies of scale it can bring, the standards it can set, the moral leadership it can harness, and the legitimacy it can confer. But multilateralism can only reflect the values that individual states project, and can only multiply the commitments that they are prepared to make. It is strong nations that form strong institutions, and which provide the basis of the international partnerships and cooperation that brings stability to our world.

    And so it falls to us all to decide whether we will honour the responsibilities that we have to one another. I’ve talked about the role of the UN in stepping up on counterterrorism. But this is an area that we as states have critical responsibilities, which the UN cannot itself address alone, for it is inescapable that the terrorism conflict and the instability that we see across the world is in many cases driven by the actions of states acting through proxies.

    So when countries back groups like Hezbollah to increase instability and conflict across the Middle East, support so-called separatists in Ukraine to create instability on Europe’s eastern borders, or give tacit support to criminal groups launching cyber-attacks against our countries and institutions, they call into question the very rules and international systems that protect us. And that is why, both globally, but also in our own continent of Europe, the UK will remain steadfast in our commitment and responsibility to ensure the security and stability of our friends and allies as we have done for generations.

    And just as it the responsibility of nations not to seek to advance their interests through terrorist or proxy groups, so it is also the responsibility of each of is to act together in the face of the most egregious violations of our common rules and standards. Clearly responsibility for the chaos and tragedy that we see in Syria lies firmly at the door of Asaad. He and his backers have continually frustrated the efforts of the UN to act as the broker of peace through the Geneva Process. As responsible states, we must not abandon our support for the UN’s attempts to secure peace and stability in Syria. And indeed, we must continue to call on all those with influence on the regime to bring them to the table.

    But in recent weeks, the UN has also confirmed what we all new, namely that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on its own people. In the face of that, we have a responsibility to stand up, to hold the Syrian regime to account. This responsibility sits with us all, but a particular special responsibility lies on the shoulders of the permanent members of the security council. And as one of these five members, the United Kingdom takes our special responsibility seriously.

    So I am proud that we have used the full weight of our diplomacy to ensure that we have not had to exercise our veto in a generation. Seeking to foster international cooperation, not frustrated. But others have not done so. One country in particular has used its veto as many times in the last five years as in the whole of the second half of the Cold War. And in so doing, they have prevented action against a despicable regime that has murdered its own people with chemical weapons. As a result, in Syria, the United Nations has been blocked. This has undermined the values that we hold dear, and the international rules based system that is the basis of security and prosperity around the world.

    Now we face an even more immediate, global danger in the activities of Kim Jong Un and his regime in DPRK. Time after time he’s shown contempt for the international community of law-abiding states. Contempt for his neighbours and contempt for the institutions and rules that have preserved peace and security. On this challenge, the UN in recent weeks has shown it can step up to the task. With last Monday’s security council resolution creating the biggest sanctions package of the 21st Century. We have seen regional and global powers coming together and as in its founding charter putting aside limited self-interests to show leadership on behalf of the wider world. But despite these efforts, DPRK continues to defy and provoke the international community and threaten its neighbours. And unless all security council members continue to live up to the special responsibilities that are placed upon us, and in seeking to resolve this crisis, be prepared to take on necessary measures to tackle this threat, we will not be able to bring stability to the Korean Peninsula.

    So as the world looks on, I am calling for further steps and for nations with this special responsibility to work together and exert the pressure we know is necessary to force Kim Jong Un to change his ways. Let us not fail this time. Let our message to North Korea be clear. Our determination to uphold these rules is stronger by far than their determination to undermine them.

    Mr. President, throughout the history of this United Nations, countries have shown time and time again that by being true to our values, rules, and standards, it is possible to come together and to deliver in ways that have the most extraordinary impact on the lives of the people we serve. I believe we can do so again. We must do so again, and we will do so again. Thank you.

  • Teddy Taylor – 1993 Speech on the European Communities

    Below is the text of the speech made by Teddy Taylor in the House of Commons on 9 December 1993.

    It is a shame that we shall not be able to vote on amendment (c). It would have been helpful to the House and to the public in general if we could have simply recorded the fact that the debate is pointless, worthless and useless, and can have no influence on determining developments in the wide range of issues that are mentioned in the huge pile of documents. It is terribly important that people should realise that, in the House and outside.

    I ask hon. Members, look at that huge pile of documents, dealing with vast expenditure! There is nothing that we can do and, no matter how we vote about anything, it is simply a waste of time. It might help the unemployed and those people who are suffering if we were to get across the simple message that no matter how they vote, no matter what they do, the power has gone. The second message that we have to get across—although it is sad to say so, when we have the always most courteous Foreign Secretary opening the debate—is that it is important that we start telling people the truth.

    I heard, and all of us heard—and I am sure that he meant it—the Foreign Secretary say that we now have control of the funds; we are not going to have overspending; we cannot go across the budget. In Edinburgh, however—I have the letter here from the Agriculture Minister—even though there was a budget laid down for spending on agriculture which one could not exceed by a penny because the Foreign Secretary and civil servants would prevent us, in practice they agreed to exceed it by an extra £1 billion on the basis that that was a special reserve fund.

    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford) Does my hon. Friend agree that half the problem with the CAP is that, although it is aimed at farmers, to help to sustain their income—that may be a laudable aim—60 per cent. of the money goes to the administration and only 40 per cent. reaches the farmers?

    Sir Teddy Taylor My hon. Friend is so right. The CAP is totally wasteful and damaging to almost every interest. I find in my constituency, and I am sure that Treasury Ministers find in theirs, that poor people have to pay more and more for their water rates because vast sums are being spent on huge machines for taking out of the water the nitrates, pesticides, and all the other things that are thrown into the ground in order to produce more and more food. We have to spend a fortune on destroying or dumping those substances.

    I was at Hanningfield recently, and I wish you had been there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see how the Essex water company—now privatised and French-owned—is spending millions of pounds on a new procedure for taking out pesticides. I asked, “Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have all those nasty nitrates and things in the ground in the first place?” I was told, “Of course.” And it is the water rate payer who foots the bill.

    The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) told people the facts of life, and he will accept that there is little point in saying to the voters. “Those nasty Tories are putting up your water rates; Labour will not do that,” when we know what is really going on. Poor people are suffering and their burdens are increasing.

    Secondly, it is sad to hear all the assurances being given to try to pacify us. For example, our courteous Foreign Secretary—with sincerity, doubtless—talked about all the things that were going wrong, with people breaking the rules, and told us that the Commission would now impose fines. I have been looking at the figures, and they are frightening. The Court of Auditors report is one of the big documents that I mentioned earlier, and it shows that, although millions of pounds have been levied in fines, only 10 per cent. of them have been collected. There is a great new mechanism to sort everything out, supported with enthusiasm by the Liberal Democrats and designed, once again, by those clever Foreign Office civil servants to ensure that people do not do nasty things. Yet the fines are still to be paid; only 10 per cent. have been paid over many years.

    Thirdly, we must watch carefully what is happening on the continent today. It is frightening, and I hope that: the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will answer one simple question. I have been horrified to see that the other European countries have been borrowing vaster and vaster sums of money. All of us, even those who do not have degrees in economics, know that that simply cannot go on, because there is a limited amount of money to lend—unless we start printing.

    The whole message of Maastricht and of the EC is that one should not print money. Even the Leader of the House would stop us if we tried to print money in this country. Continental countries are borrowing huge sums of money this year and next. Germany is borrowing £57 billion, and we are told that France is borrowing £30 billion—although we know that that sum has now increased. Italy is borrowing £70 billion; and Belgium is the worst of all. Where will the money come from?

    The Treasury in Britain is in good condition, because the currency is strong, so we are ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, the European countries will not be able to do that. I understand that some money can be borrowed domestically. In Britain about £22 billion can be obtained from the institutions. But much of the money has to come from other sources. Where will it come from?

    I have been told by my friends who advise the insurance and banking firms of which I am a director that, basically, it is the Arabs and the Japanese who provide the cash. But the poor old Arabs are having a difficult time these days, because the price of oil has dropped like a stone, so they do not have so much to lend. The Japanese, too, have plenty of problems of their own, and are holding on to their money. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because I fear that early next year, because so much money is being borrowed and there is a limited amount of money available for loan, there will be a sharp rise in interest rates on the continent. I realise that that may not happen—although I believe that all the conditions are in place—but if it does, what the blazes will we do about it?

    There are now 17 million unemployed people on the continent. That is a horrendous figure. We can see the instability in Europe; it is shown by what has happened in Germany. We have seen the uncertainty and the attacks on minority groups there. In Italy—a delightful country—people voted for fascism or communism in the local government elections, not because they especially like those things but as a way of saying, “Please let us have a strong Government.” With an unstable situation, and unemployment high and rising, if there is a sharp rise in interest rates, what on earth will we do about it? I fear that there is a horrible danger.

    Our Ministers at the Treasury and the Foreign Office, or at least most of them—now that there has been one resignation things are much better—are decent, respectable, sincere people. But it worries me sick that we are deluding ourselves about what is happening. I have been worried about what happens to poor people and the unemployed in the EC ever since I came to the House. I have probably been considered a silly minority person, putting forward a minority view, but it makes me sick to see people made unemployed unnecessarily because of the stupid exchange rate mechanism and all that came with it.

    The facts are there and we all know what they are. It makes me angry to see poor people suffering because they have not got the money to pay their electricity bills or even to buy a light bulb when I know that, even according to the Foreign Secretary, all those people are paying an extra £28 a week for the stupid CAP. Think what a boost it would be to poor people in Britain if we could say, “You can have £28 extra a week—and an extra £3 a week for the cost of membership of the EC.” I have been talking about such things for a long time.

    I know that Britain is now more popular in the EC. That nice chap Boris Johnson, who writes for The Daily Telegraph, says that Britain is more accepted because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been disclosing his personal support for the goal of a single Euro-currency. That may make him more popular in Brussels, but whether it does or not, please let us face up to the possibility that something nasty may happen. We must ask ourselves what we shall do if it does.

    I am afraid that we British are comforting ourselves by saying that we are the best in Europe, but we all know that we are doing well economically not because we have a brilliant Government or a brilliant Opposition, but because we had the boost of getting out of the ERM. That made our currency and our interest rates drop like stones. It is rather like having an Australian uncle who sends one £1,000 to help with one’s financial hardship—it makes one feel good for a while. But that is not happening on the continent. It does not help us or the people there if we take the attitude, “We are the best in Europe and we are doing terribly well.”

    Will the Minister say whether he thinks that I am right in any way to say that there may be a terrible problem with a sharp rise in interest rates on the continent next year? Will he tell me what we can do about that if it happens?

    It is too late for Parliament to control the legislation. Maastricht has been passed, so to that extent our power is useless, but we must think, “What about the people?” What about the poor and the unemployed of Europe, who are now in a horrendous position? What shall we in Britain do if by chance things continue to get worse, and we have the social upheavals and misery that we have seen in Europe?

    Conservatives must face the facts. We cannot go on kidding ourselves about the European People’s party, and saying that we are not linked with it, and have nothing to do with it. We may say that although we all sit together and work together, we do not agree on anything, but everyone knows the score. There was a meeting in Athens in 1992. The Conservative Members of the European Parliament and the members of the European People’s party were there, and a great document was drawn up to say that the EC should be given powers of taxation.

    We should not bother about all the talk about federalism, because a federal Europe would be better than what we have now. I do not understand why Ministers keep saying that they will fight to the death to avoid a federal Europe. If we had a federal Europe, at least some things would belong to us. However, at some stage the Conservative party will have a real problem in deciding how to carry on with our stable mates—

    Mr. Cash Would my hon. Friend care to know that the congress of that great European People’s party is meeting this afternoon? Furthermore, it appears that it may publish its manifesto tomorrow. It was not so long ago that Mr. Herman, the rapporteur of the Christian Democrats, published the European Parliament’s working document on a new constitution which said that if we did not go along with it all we would be expelled. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is becoming an increasingly reasonable proposition, from some people’s point of view?

    Sir Teddy Taylor All I am saying is that the Government and my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) does not agree. But he is a good guy. [Laughter.] I mean that sincerely; I am not trying to be funny.

    It is crucial to stop pretending that people are stupid. We cannot go into the European elections and treat people as stupid by saying that we do not really have anything to do with the European People’s party; the names of the candidates simply happen to be in the same box. It will not wash. Similarly, we should not think that people are stupid when we talk about the EC. They know what is happening to unemployment on the continent. They are not daft. They know what is happening to prices which they must pay unnecessarily. They are not stupid. They can see the damage that is being inflicted by the mad EC system of everything being based on artificial prices and more money being spent.

    I have been a Member for a long time. The same thing happens every time we debate a treaty. Ministers say, “Do not worry—we will get tough with the nasty Euro-guys. We will kick Mr. Delors down the stairs. Everything will be sorted out.” Sadly, it is continuing—more money, more power, more waste, more extravagance, less conservatism, less control for the people and more control for the bureaucrats.

    This is a pointless, useless debate and all we can do is to express our views. The crucial point is that we must appreciate that something nasty will happen early next year. If we do not wake up to it, and if we do not treat people as adults and stop pretending that they are stupid, we will have a horrible democratic mess.

  • James Brokenshire – 2017 Speech at Top 100 Companies

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 14 September 2017.

    Thank you David [Elliott, Ulster Business Editor], and thank you for the kind invitation to speak here today. It is a great honour to be here and to join you in celebrating the very best of NI business.

    I would like to thank A&L Goodbody, Ulster Business Magazine and Lanyon Communications for hosting and organising this fine event.

    Events like these are a welcome reminder of the economic progress we have seen in Northern Ireland since the Belfast Agreement nearly two decades ago.

    Some often query whether, when politics comes to the fore, business takes a back seat as a result.

    But the transformation of Northern Ireland in the past two decades shows why it is imperative to keep both at the heart of the work we do.

    To see the change, from a place which had struggled to attract investment and jobs against a backdrop of terrorism and instability, to one of the most popular locations in the UK outside of London for foreign direct investment, shows exactly why we see a stronger economy as a key priority for Northern Ireland.

    And as Mark Thompson mentioned in his remarks, 2016 was a hugely successful year for the Top 100 – with record sales and a 16% increase in profits from world-beating businesses making strides at home and globally. I can only congratulate you all for that achievement.

    The fundamentals of the UK economy as a whole are strong. We have grown continuously for more than four years, reduced the deficit and delivered a record number of jobs.

    We are proud of this record but not complacent. We must restore productivity growth to deliver higher wages and living standards for people across the country. That is why we are committed to investing in infrastructure, technology and skills to deliver the best possible base for strong future growth.

    This strength includes continued growth in Northern Ireland, which has secured 34 new Foreign Direct Investment projects in the last year alone, creating more than 1,600 new jobs. We now have more than 800 international companies located in the region and employing in excess of 75,000 people.

    And overall the picture is one of solid growth, increasing output, falling unemployment, and job creation.

    Indeed we saw yesterday that unemployment is now at 5.3%, the lowest since the great crash in 2008, while more than 10,000 jobs were created over the course of the year. And the last quarter saw the sharpest rise in business activity in 2017 so far.

    It is wonderful to be able to celebrate such success – to recognise the strength and resilience of the economy in Northern Ireland. But building upon that success must be the priority for the year ahead. And as we look to do so, it is important that we acknowledge the key issues that we must face.

    EU Exit

    The first is EU Exit.

    We might be leaving the EU but we are not turning our backs on our friends and partners in Europe.

    As a Government our goal is to secure a deal that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as we leave the European Union.

    This was reiterated in the Government’s Position Paper on Northern Ireland and Ireland, setting out in more detail how we might achieve our objectives.

    This Position Paper expanded on the Government’s proposals for a future customs relationship with Europe. We proposed two options: a highly streamlined model and a new customs partnership. In our Northern Ireland/Ireland Paper we have set out the additional facilitations that the Government see as necessary to protect the open border and ensure as frictionless a movement of goods as possible.

    Specifically, the Government has proposed that small and medium sized businesses should be exempt from all customs processes entirely. This imaginative and flexible solution to the free movement of goods would see some 80% of all Northern Ireland businesses free from any interaction with customs processes.

    And for those businesses not falling into that category, the Government wants highly streamlined and flexible administrative arrangements to ensure no physical checks are required on goods crossing the land border.

    Our second proposal is a new customs partnership with the EU, aligning our approach to the customs border in a way that removes the need for a UK-EU customs border.

    One potential approach would involve the UK mirroring the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world where their final destination is the EU.

    These are bold and imaginative proposals to the issue of free flow of goods across the border with Ireland. And we would encourage everyone to get behind that debate as we look to develop the next stage of detail and an implementation plan.

    But of course the open border is about more than goods, it is also fundamentally about people and communities. The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring the border remains open to allow for the normal everyday interactions between people on either side.

    For its part, the UK wants to continue to protect the CTA and associated reciprocal bilateral arrangements. This means protecting the ability to move freely within the UK and between the UK and Ireland with no practical change from now, recognising the special importance of this to people in their daily lives, and the underpinning it provides for the Northern Ireland political process.

    We also recognise that investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and the EU, and beyond, need to be able to plan ahead. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses would benefit from an interim period, for the implementation of the arrangements, which allowed for a smooth and orderly transition.

    The Government believes it would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption and provide certainty for businesses and individuals if we agree this principle early in the process.

    The Government is keen to explore with the EU a model for an interim period which would ensure that businesses and people in the UK and the EU only have to adjust once to a new customs relationship.

    So the UK Government has been clear that we will respect and recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and its relationship with Ireland as we leave the European Union.

    We must avoid a return to a hard border, and trade and everyday movements across the land border must be protected as part of the UK-EU deal.

    The Government will take account of these unique circumstances and the priority attached by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland to avoid a hard border and protect cross-border trade and cooperation.

    Lack of an Executive

    But the most immediate challenge is the lack of an Executive, and the imperative – for growth, prosperity and for the people of Northern Ireland – to see power-sharing return.

    For nine months government has effectively been in the hands of civil servants, rather than politicians who are rightly accountable to the public for the decisions they make. This has meant there has been no political direction to tackle the fundamental challenges facing Northern Ireland – including the reform and transformation of critical public services.

    So our overriding priority for the UK Government in Northern Ireland remains the restoration of devolved power-sharing government in Stormont. We believe in devolution. It is right that decisions over local services – like health, education, transport and economic development – are taken by local politicians in locally accountable political institutions.

    This is why I am working intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach, the Irish Government, to secure the reestablishment of inclusive, stable, devolved government in the interests of the entire community in Northern Ireland.

    I have been clear with the parties that they must come together and reach agreement in the short window of time that remains.

    If this does not happen within a short number of weeks, we risk greater political decision-making from Westminster – starting with provision for a 2017-18 Budget this autumn.

    This is not what anyone wants and would profoundly be a step back not a step forwards. But in the continuing absence of devolution the UK Government retains ultimate responsibility for good governance and political stability in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom – and we will not shirk from the necessary measures to deliver that.

    If things don’t change we are on a glide path to greater and greater UK government intervention.

    But I believe we can change course. This can be achieved with political leadership and with support of the people of Northern Ireland – including communities and businesses.

    I ask everyone here tonight to do all you can to help secure what Northern Ireland wants and needs.

    There is so much at stake. Risks, yes. But also so many opportunities, because I firmly believe in the huge unlocked potential there is right across Northern Ireland.

    Opportunities to leverage the UK-wide Industrial Strategy to deliver stronger growth, and capitalise on new Sector Deals to support the industries of the future – like biotech and life sciences – where the UK, and Northern Ireland in particular, has the potential to lead the world.

    To take forward with this Government a comprehensive and ambitious set of City Deals for Northern Ireland to prosper, and to put innovation at the heart of Northern Ireland’s growth.

    To be at the heart of a stronger, fairer and more prosperous United Kingdom, and one that is more outward looking than ever before as we make trade deals around the world – with NI business able to realise their ambitions and make their mark on the world stage.

    And to make use of the considerable freedoms available, getting the devolution of corporation tax back on track to enable Northern Ireland to cut its rates to attract investment and jobs.

    In all of these ways – and more – I see a bright economic future for Northern Ireland.

    And that is a future that the UK Government will support – through all the ways above, as well as through the range of funding streams there will be available, whether our £4.7bn Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, our £23bn National Productivity Investment Fund, and far more besides.

    And that is what a restored Executive can do for Northern Ireland. It can promote an enterprise-driven economy, somewhere where young entrepreneurs want to invest and the younger generation see opportunities to forge their careers in Northern Ireland – a place where innovation, skills, opportunity and prosperity are at the forefront of the way ahead.

    With a stable, power-sharing government in place, business can rely on the backdrop of stability that removes barriers to finance, to investment, and which boosts confidence to create jobs and opportunities.

    And that is exactly why it must remain our absolute priority in the critical weeks ahead.

    Impact on business/private sector

    All the while, I want to reassure you that the UK Government will always uphold its responsibilities to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.

    I will continue to keep communications open with businesses right across Northern Ireland. Some of you may be aware of the work of my Business Advisory Group, but more broadly too, my door will always be open to hearing more from the business community.

    For no matter what, I will remain a strong advocate for Northern Ireland and NI business within the Government and beyond.

    Including on the Government’s ongoing work to support Bombardier in the ongoing trade case brought by Boeing.

    Let me be very clear: it is a top priority for this Government to safeguard Bombardier’s operations and its highly skilled workers in Belfast.

    This is obviously a commercial matter, but Ministers across Government have engaged swiftly and extensively with Boeing, as well as the US and Canadian governments on this case.

    We want to encourage Boeing to drop what we see as an unjustified case, and to get round the table and seek negotiated settlement with Bombardier. And we would encourage all those with an interest, whether of a political view or none, to join us in pushing for the same outcome.

    Working to restore devolved government

    So as we approach our dinner, I want to finish by being clear of what we want to see in the weeks to come in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

    Over the last few weeks, the DUP and Sinn Fein have been holding meetings together and this intensive dialogue is continuing.

    These discussions have been constructive and I am hopeful that further progress will be made as they continue. The issues remain relatively small in number and are clearly defined. But difference remains.

    We have also been bringing together the other parties eligible to join an Executive and have had positive engagement with them in line with our commitment to an inclusive process.

    But ultimately we cannot force an agreement.

    That has to come from the parties themselves.

    And we – all of us in this room – want to see those parties come together to…

    …make the important decisions facing Northern Ireland’s public services…

    …to contribute to the important discussions about how the UK will leave the European Union alongside the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales…

    …and to support continued economic growth in Northern Ireland: investing in infrastructure, taking its own decisions on corporation tax, and taking other actions to support businesses large and small…

    To do this it’s vital that they continue to work together to find a solution to their differences.

    And it is my belief that they are committed to doing so… in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

    I have very much welcomed the growing voice of businesses, trade unions, the voluntary sector and others in stressing the need for the return of devolved government – as we have seen for example in the media profiles by business leaders from across different sectors this week.

    And tonight, I would encourage all of you here to continue to make it clear to the political parties just how important the restoration of devolved government is for business, for ordinary people and for Northern Ireland as a whole.

    We all want to see the parties come together and form an Executive. They need to hear from you just how important it is for to you to see them working together for the good of Northern Ireland.

    And deliver the bright positive future for NI we know we can achieve together.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2017 Speech on National Democracy Week

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, on 15 September 2017.

    Thank you all for coming today.

    This year marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the International Day of Democracy by the United Nations General Assembly.

    In November 2007, the Assembly resolved that the 15th of September should be marked as an International Day of Democracy, with all member states invited to commemorate the day in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness of democracy.

    I thought it would be fitting for us to meet here today, not only to share with each other what progress has been made over the past year in promoting democratic engagement and participation across the United Kingdom, but to recognise that the promotion of the importance of democracy cannot be achieved by government alone.

    Indeed, the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly in November 2007, noted that there was a ‘central role’ for the ‘active involvement of civil society organisations’ in celebrating and promoting democracy, equality and freedom.

    I recognise too the crucial role that you and your organisations here today play in creating what should be termed as our Democratic Society.

    Which is why I have invited Women’s Aid and Mencap to share their experience of working with Government to ensure all voices can be heard. I am very pleased that Sian Hawkins from Women’s Aid and Matthew Harrison and Ismail Kaji from Mencap are able to join us today to discuss the progress we have made on the anonymous registration process and the steps we are taking to improve accessibility for people with disabilities.

    Speakers:

    Women’s Aid – anonymous registration
    Mencap – call for evidence on accessibility to elections

    Thank you both, your work is not only valued— it is vitally important that we should continue to work together in partnership, as we continue our pursuit of increased democratic participation. We all know that this work cannot stand still.

    It does not begin or end in the run up to and at the end of an electoral cycle. It must be sustained and be seen to be sustainable, if we are to ensure that as a society, our democratic processes are to be safeguarded and confidence in our democracy renewed.

    Since I was appointed the Minister for the Constitution over a year ago, I have had the opportunity of not only meeting many of you personally, either at the many ministerial roundtables that I have held in the Cabinet Office, or on my Every Voice Matters tour that has taken me across every region and devolved nation; I have also had the privilege of working with you in our common and shared goal.

    That endeavour, simply expressed, has been to ensure that, regardless of background, gender, disability or race, we all want the maximum number of citizens who are eligible to vote, to register to do so and to have their say at the ballot box.

    And I have been grateful to charities and civil society organisations such as Bite the Ballot, Patchwork Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation, Voices 4 Change here today – to name but a few, who have not only given their time and effort to attend the several roundtable discussions that I have held in the Cabinet Office, helping to shape our plans for what more can be done to improve and increase democratic engagement, but have also worked hard to demonstrate what can be done, and what new approaches can be taken, to reach out to those groups in society who are under-registered, and do not participate in our elections.

    All of you have done so much to give a voice to the voiceless; your passion and energy for what you do and have achieved has been clearly evident to me, and I hope that we continue to work together in our shared activity of ensuring that we have a democracy that works for everyone.

    Next year, we will celebrate the centenary of women getting the right to vote, with the passing of the Representation of the People Act on 6 February 1918.

    Not an equal right to vote— importantly, that would only come ten years later, when in July 1928, the Equal Franchise Act was passed. Even so, this milestone in our democratic history increased the proportion of adults qualified to vote from 28% to 78% and opened the door to the modern democratic age.

    Whilst we can talk of our democratic system being one of the oldest in the world, revere our institution of Parliament and traditions of freedom enshrined in documents such as Magna Carta, the fact that we will be celebrating the fact that the equal franchise was created only 90 years ago, highlights that our modern democracy is in fact a very new one.

    The Government has already confirmed that it intends to mark the Suffrage Centenary with the significant investment of £5 million, announced by the Chancellor at the last budget. Cabinet Office are proud to be collaborating with the Government Equalities Office who are leading on this work, and I know that further announcements will be made in due course on how the government intends to both commemorate and celebrate the achievement of women getting the right to vote.

    It is an achievement we must never forget, for their struggle against the burning injustice of their situation demonstrates how fortunate we are in a modern democracy to live with the democratic freedoms that are ours today. Many in the world still do not, and it is right that the International Day of Democracy today gives all democracies in the world the opportunity to reflect upon the importance of our values, often taken for granted.

    For myself, the legacy of the past, of the achievements of those women who fought tirelessly for the vote and to have their say, must also be reflected in our commitment to the future.

    A commitment to future generations, to ensure that the importance of the vote and each individual voice is never eroded; a commitment to those vulnerable groups and people who find that there are still barriers that prevent them from participating in our democracy; and a commitment to ensuring that as a democratic society, though we recognise our differences are part of a healthy democracy, that should not prevent us from coming together to promote a democracy where every voice matters.

    That is why I am delighted that you have been able to join me as I announce today that next year, in the 90th anniversary year of the establishment of the Equal Franchise, the Government intends to establish a new National Democracy Week.

    I aim to establish this as an annual event of national significance, with the inaugural week taking place from 2-6 July 2018, in commemoration of the passing of the 1928 Equal Franchise Act on 2 July. In its first year National Democracy Week will complement the Suffrage Centenary Programme, expanding on the themes of inclusion and representation that underpinned women’s struggle for their right to vote.

    My ambition is for National Democracy Week to increase the number of people who understand and take part in our democratic process. This includes those who feel excluded from the democratic debate, face barriers to participation and are less likely to be registered to vote.

    Many of our partners have told us a focused week of activity is needed to help amplify their messages and build on the momentum of democratic participation in our most recent electoral events.

    There will be many opportunities for organisations from all sectors to take part and I am confident that the creativity, enthusiasm and experience of our partners will be vital in helping achieve our shared objective of a democracy that works for everyone. That is why I believe that stakeholders should have a key role in National Democracy Week and we will announce in due course our plans for formal involvement.

    In the meantime I welcome your ideas for making National Democracy Week 2018 a success and look forward to discussing these with you. We can make a start today: please take a moment if you can to share your first thoughts using the board behind you.

    As we plan ahead, I hope to obtain cross party support for National Democracy Week. I have spoken with the shadow spokesperson on voter engagement, who is happy to support the event in principle, while I am also delighted that the Speaker for the House of Commons has also given his backing. I hope that all MPs, indeed all elected representatives, regardless of their political party, will feel able to get involved in National Democracy Week, and I will be actively encouraging them to do so.

    It is vital that we recognise that when it comes to or democracy and increasing democratic participation, while we as politicians and political parties may disagree on details of policy, we do, in the words of Jo Cox, have more in common than that which divides us. It is in the spirit of those words that I hope everyone who is part of our Democratic Society, regardless of their political allegiance, will embrace National Democracy Week.

    Thank you.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2017 Speech on Talent in the Armed Forces

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tobias Ellwood, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence People and Veterans, on 15 September 2017.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today at DSEI. I’ve always enjoyed these things, I’ve come to them for many years. And anyone who has been in the Armed Forces and served, and I’m still in the reserves as well, you love wandering round and climbing on the equipment.

    And if you’ve left the Armed Forces you’re curious to see what will come around the corner next. It’s interesting to see that some of the many things we are seeing are actually going to be used not by us, who are getting older in this audience, but by a fresher generation that is perhaps yet to even see it – the youngsters that we want to attract into the Armed Forces, and that is the theme I want to play on today.

    In going round the stands I also noticed some interesting products. One stand is selling cross bows, for which there is a role I’m sure. It must be some special forces who can justify the need of that particular weapons system!

    But it did remind me of how war has changed. The Longbow in Agincourt and the advent of that weapon changed the balance of war. After that everyone had the Longbow. There are many examples in military history where a key invention helped win a battle. The tank in the First Would War, for example. And we see this in the modern context with cyber security coming in.

    Perhaps it’s too early to say but we are about to conduct from the SDSR a National Security Capability Review, simply because what has happened over the last couple of years with terrorism, where an individual is content to die to cause violence is forcing us to reconsider how we defend our assets and our people as well.

    The scale of this event here reflects the determination and the commitment Britain has to play our role on the international stage. We are living in uncertain times but there are a few nations who want to step forward to change our world as a force for good, and we are one of them.

    It doesn’t matter what ID card you have in your back pocket but it’s about whether you want to be part of that coalition of the willing in stepping forward to actually stand up to tyranny. So whether it’s tackling ebola, or coming together to come to a solution on Iran, on the nuclear deal, Britain will continue to step forward and play our role.

    This week you’ve heard plenty about the Government investing our £178 billion budget towards our armed forces and equipping them for these very challenges that we know about, and perhaps the ones we don’t know about as well.

    From F35 to the carrier, from Ajax to Apache, from Dragonfire lasers to Dreadnought submarines, this is the defence industry, moving together with out Armed Forces to create capability for the future.

    We’re also playing our part across the world using that equipment. We shouldn’t forget that we have troops in South Sudan, Nigeria, the Gulf, in Iraq and over the skies of Syria, in Ukraine and doing training with our Allies across the world as well.

    We step forward with our Armed Forces when others need our help. When the Blue Light services need support – Operation Temperer is when we provide that that help, flooding is another example.

    So I’m displaying the wide variety of skill sets that anyone in uniform today will need to have to provide that versatility. There’s plenty to do to make sure we equip our personnel. But also plenty to do to make sure that what we do make we export as well.

    That has been reflected this week, the need to drive up productivity, drive down cost and increase innovation as well. We need to make sure we are making the best kit that we can, attracting the best people to fly, see or use them in any capacity.

    The pace of change that is taking place is incredible. I always think that when i have to put on my ipad and create an Imovie with my son that he now knows more about how to use the ipad than I do. I’m sure many of you can appreciate that if you have small children yourselves. And looking at some of this equipment, even though I’m a reservist myself, I wouldn’t know how to use them. And there’s two sides to that concern. one is simply making sure we can attract the people who can use the equipment. But second of all there’s a challenge for those of us who are in uniform to collect all that data and turn it into something that is useful.

    Those of you who attended the land warfare conference this year, there was a very interesting study of the scale of date that is now being accumulated from the battlefield. It is enormous. If you have too much data you can’t go through the process of turning it into useful intelligence and plans. And when there is pressure on you to make decisions you can see that we’re getting to the point where we’re overloaded with data as well.

    The selection of data is ever so important. But what’s also important is who we are recruiting to make sure they understand how to use that data.

    I remember working with some Americans on an exercise and we were firing some rocket launchers. On the rocket launchers themselves the instructions were quite simple. It said on it, ‘aim towards enemy’. And that was the sole instruction on this entire thing. And that simply makes sense. But some of the kit we’re seeing today is far more complicated, required degrees and qualification that we need to look at and attract.

    It reminds me of a story a Naval officer told me that equipment must be used in the right way because any ship can be used as a Minesweeper, once.

    The vital task of recruiting and retaining is becoming ever more challenging as we adjust to society’s changing expectations and the exponential advance of technology.

    So today we’re not just thinking about plugging critical skills gaps but how we can recruit people with a diversity of skills whether welders or cyber warriors at a time when the notion of a career for life has actually disappeared completely.

    Today we’re considering how best to retain and develop our nuclear scientists and Apache pilots when faced with face stiffer competition from other industries for their talent. And we have to acknowledge that is very much the case. We need to make sure we attract people in the right ways and there are three approaches I want to share with you.

    MOD BROADENING ITS TALENT BASE

    First, we’re broadening our talent base. We can’t afford to miss out on the talents of our people no matter their gender, sexuality, religion or social background. A diverse community brings a diversity of talent into our Armed Forces.

    That’s why, by 2020, we want 10 per cent of our workforce to hail from ethnic minority communities and 15 per cent to be women. We also want to make sure we extend opportunity to all. We’re lifting the ban on women serving in close combat units in the British military. Opening up the Royal Armoured Corps and the RAF regiment to women. And next year the Royal Marines.

    We’re helping our young people get a better start in life, championing the apprenticeship programme. And I’m really proud to say that the Armed Forces are the country’s largest provider with as many as 19,000 people on our books. I think that’s a commendable achievement. But we want to increase that number by 50,000 by 2020.

    All the while we’re hoping to appeal to a broader range of people by introducing legislation to make service life far more flexible.

    Making it easier for personnel to temporarily change the nature of their service to work part-time or be temporarily protected from deployment to support an individual’s personal circumstances where operational need allows.

    INDUSTRY

    In wanting to attracting the right people, with the right skills, to the right jobs will mean more than just extra MOD effort, it’s about drawing on our Whole Force. So we’re using our Reserves to draw in the talent and skills that we need, whether in medicine, communications, or cyber skills, often in those areas where we don’t have the necessary standard of support.

    The people who possess these high level skills are likely to be more familiar with smart phones than smart bombs. But that shouldn’t mean to say they can’t have a role, even for a short space of time in helping us do our job.

    This is just a reflection of our need to change our outlook on how we use people and use civilian life. A broader minded perspective is also shaping our approach to plugging the skills gap which we have to admit is very much there.

    Take engineering. We recognise it’s in the mutual interest of industry and government to find individuals who have these critical skills. So we’re looking at creating skills passports, enabling those with the right talents to move seamlessly between government and industry.

    At the same, we’ve appointed an engineering champion to work with industry partners across the Defence enterprise to help make better use of the existing talent in the workforce.

    Meanwhile, under the Defence Growth Partnership we’re looking at how we can make careers within MOD more rewarding creating a new programme to train our staff to support exports and future trading relationships.

    I know Dave Armstrong will set-out more details later on.

    But the headlines involve the creation of new qualifications in export and International trade, a common industry and government career pathway and secondments to allow individuals to develop their skills and gain key experience across both industry and government.

    I hope those of you who are in industry will lend us your support and encourage that to be done to support the Armed Forces covenant. The commitment that we’ve created between business and the Armed Forces to help recruitment and retention of Reservists, the employment of veterans and service spouses/partners and the Cadets movement with supportive HR policies. This has proved very successful indeed and we’re almost up to our 2000th company signing up to our Armed Forces Covenant and I think that’s a great tribute to the work that’s been done.

    PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP

    Finally we’ve recognised that building the workforce of the future demands collaboration not just across defence but across Government and across the public sector as well.

    So we’re currently working with the departments of Education and Business to reinvigorate young people’s interest in science, maths, engineering, and technology.

    At the same time we’re working with academia to make sure to tell our defence story and show it for what it really is, a dynamic place of enterprise, of adventure, a place where you get to see the world, and get to make a difference.

    Britain has always been blessed with brilliant talent. From John Harrison to Alan Turing to Sir Tim Berners Lee. In Defence it was Air Commodore Frank Whittle who invented the turbo jet. It was British engineer Robert Whitehead who first designed a torpedo launched from a ship underwater. It was Squadron Commander Edwin Dunning who landed a Sopwith Pup on HMS Furious 100 years ago completing the first successful aircraft landing on a moving ship.

    And today our people have built the two mightiest carriers this nation has ever seen, satellites that can land on the back of asteroids, lasers that can strike targets 6 km away.

    Our challenge is to fire up the ambition of the average 12-year old with the world beating record breaking kit on display in the room today, kit that can help us dive deeper, fly faster, reach higher.

    CONCLUSION

    So Britain isn’t just building the technology of the future, we’re building the workforce of the tomorrow. And we’re calling on the next generation of innovative heroes to come forward, for it will be on the back of the next Whittles and the next Berners-Lees that our future security, prosperity and reputation, is founded.

    The conduct of war, as I mentioned at the beginning, is changing again, as the fourth phase of the industry revolution takes hold, Britain doesn’t just want to be part of it, we very much want to lead it.

  • Jo Swinson – 2017 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at the party’s annual conference in Bournemouth on 17 September 2017.

    Let me take you back to a rainy Saturday morning, 28 years ago. I’m doing what many 9-year-olds do on a Saturday morning, watching TV. It’s a children’s programme called Going Live, presented by Philip Schofield – some of you might even remember it, and depending on your age, nostalgically feel it was no match for Swap Shop or Saturday Superstore.

    That particular morning’s show sticks in my mind because in amongst Gordon the Gopher, kids’ cartoons, and celebrities getting gunged, there was an amazing competition. The prize was to win a piece of the Berlin Wall, recently torn down in one of the most pivotal moments of 20th century history.

    It was pretty obviously in an entirely different league to the usual phone-ins to win toys, or CDs, or tickets to concerts. I didn’t win the competition, but later on my dad visited Berlin and brought me back a little piece of that history.

    I think it’s fair to say that as a child, apart from one Christmas watching the animated film “When the Wind Blows”, I hadn’t given much thought to nuclear war. But the cloud had hung threateningly over the world, at times perilously close to disaster on an unimaginable scale.

    Thanks to the diplomacy, courage and political leadership which led to the end of the Cold War, we have enjoyed three decades with much reduced levels of nuclear threat, until now.

    The provocative and aggressive actions of North Korea are stoking fear. This is a regime that is prepared to enslave, torture and starve its own people. The UN inquiry was harrowing.

    One former prisoner told of being made to burn the bodies of fellow inmates who had starved to death, and then use their remains as fertiliser. Another spoke of seeing a mother forced by guards to drown her newborn baby. A dictatorship showing such unimaginable cruelty to own population, cannot be relied upon to act rationally and step back from nuclear confrontation to protect them.

    Some of you are old enough to have survived the Blitz: the sirens, the air-raid shelters, hiding and huddling with family members until the danger passed. What do you tell your children as you run for cover? What were you told?

    Now imagine being in Japan in recent weeks, as the news broke that North Korean missiles were on their way. A country where people can still remember the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A country that has endured decades of fallout from those deadly mushroom clouds. What did they tell their children as they prepared for the worst?

    When calm heads and brave leaders are needed more than ever, global politics seems broken. A few years ago it would have seemed inconceivable that in such a crisis, China would be a voice of reason, and Russia more measured than America. The politics of the bully is back.

    Human rights are trampled. Climate change is denied. Hate and division are spread like poison into society.

    Just look at Turkey, until recently a democratic, reliable neighbour. A signed-up member of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in the process of becoming a member of the European Union. But now President Erdowan is cracking down on anyone who challenges him. More than 150 journalists have been imprisoned. The Chair and Director of Amnesty International have been rounded up and face trumped up charges.

    In Venezuela, protestors against Maduro’s power-grabbing Executive have been attacked, imprisoned, and tortured. It reminds us that neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on undermining democracy and abusing human rights. And it beggars belief that Jeremy Corbyn would rather defend a tenuous link to socialism than condemn these atrocities.

    In Myanmar, we are witnessing the appalling ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya by the military led by General Min Aung Hlaing. This religious and ethnic oppression serves as a recruiting sergeant for jihadi groups across the world.

    And in Chechnya, back in 2010, I saw for myself the impact of Russia’s disregard for human rights, giving Kadyrov free rein to oppress the population. People told me about house burnings and how the state would make people disappear. I’ll never forget the distraught mother who pressed a photograph of her missing son into my palm. Missing, presumed executed by the state.

    In recent weeks, we have seen the terrible power of nature.Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have left a trail of flattened communities and broken lives.20 years ago, Harvey would have been a 1 in a 2000 year event.Yet Irma followed immediately after, wreaking destruction with record-breaking winds.

    In South Asia, 41 million people are battling floods and displacement, which destroy lives and livelihoods.

    Climate scientists predict that global warming will have reached over 2 degrees by 2050 – far beyond the 1.5 degrees safe limit set in the global climate change deal, the Paris Agreement. 2 degrees of warming will ruin crop production in many parts of the world, leading to disease, malnutrition, and rising food prices.

    It is hard to communicate the absolutely urgency of this situation. We must act now to prepare and adapt for the warming that is now inevitable.

    And we must radically cut carbon emissions to have any hope of limiting the temperature rise to levels which humanity as we know it can survive.

    Just two years ago, world leaders gathered in Paris and committed to an ambitious plan to tackle global warming. Now we face the withdrawal of the world’s largest economy from the agreement, while Brexit threatens to weaken action on climate change in the UK and across Europe.

    Every time the world witnesses crimes against humanity, every time there is ethnic cleansing, or genocide, we solemnly say ‘Never Again’.

    And we struggle to comprehend, how such horrors unfold. Not just how brutal megalomaniac dictators can order atrocities, but perhaps more how ordinary people in the population can comply. Violent threats are part of the reason, but planning such evil acts also requires another ingredient: hate.

    The politics of the bully rely on hate and division.

    And we should be very worried about the spread of hate in both our online and offline worlds.

    We need to talk about racism and religious bigotry.

    For people with brown skin, being abused in the street is a depressing reality.

    Levels of anti-Semitic abuse are at a record high.

    A tirade of bile is directed at migrants fleeing war-torn countries, the language of “swarms” and “cockroaches” dehumanising these desperate people with heart-breaking stories.

    Some of this is fed by the elite cabal of media owners and their hate-filled newspapers. Online communities spreading lies and misinformation have flourished. Russia has a sinister army of social media bots spreading division, and it looks like they’ve even branched out into paying people to be internet trolls.

    The footage of Charlottesville was incomprehensible to watch. Just seventy years after the Second World War, white supremacists marching through streets carrying Swastika flags. And the US President draws some kind of moral equivalence between Nazis who kill a woman and people taking to the streets saying there’s no place for that hate. Don’t be fooled if you think this is only in America. Just look at the murder of Jo Cox.

    The thing is, all of these hate groups, these extremists – they feed off each other. They seek to pervert cultural, ethnic and religious identities and turn one against another. ISIS is no more representative of Islam than the KKK are of Christianity. They use each other as recruitment tools. We cannot end one without tackling them all.

    I know you shared my despair on 24 June last year, as the news sank in that we had voted to leave the European Union. I was completely gutted. Dismayed to be leaving the EU institutions, yes, but distraught at what it said about our country, our values, our vision.

    I was altogether more optimistic on the 8th November. The polls were looking good and, eagerly anticipating a momentous night, I popped into the shop to buy some prosecco on the way home. I settled down on the sofa to watch the US Presidential results with an excitement that will be familiar to fellow election geeks, and with a feminist hope that was shared right across the world. As the night wore on, no amount of prosecco could have helped.

    President Trump is a product of the anti-liberal forces we face. He is also their poster child.

    Faced with rising nuclear tensions, we have a President who picks up his phone not to talk, but to tweet inflammatory rhetoric in capital letters.

    A man who has made clear his own support for torture, and wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US, is in no position to advance the cause of human rights.

    He puts climate change deniers into powerful positions, defunds environmental programmes and even tells scientists to remove mention of our warming climate from their government websites.

    His conflicts of interest are legion, treating the Presidency like a marketing campaign for the Trump brand. And still not a sign of that tax return.

    The Trump regime unleashes daily despair, enough to keep liberal America into a state of constant shock.

    Trump is a bully, a misogynist and a racist. He boasts about sexually assaulting women. He cruelly mocked a reporter for his disability. He has rolled back trans rights. And for someone who makes much of being straight-talking, he won’t call a Nazi a Nazi.

    Yet the Conservative Government thinks it is right to offer Trump the honour of a state visit to the UK.

    They are wrong.

    It is also a sign of our weakness in a Brexit world. How easily will our values be cast aside in our desperation to sign trade deals to avoid economic catastrophe.

    Barack Obama had a rug made for the Oval Office, with his favourite Martin Luther King quote woven into it. It says “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

    I’m afraid I am less optimistic, or less patient

    As far as I can see, there is nothing inevitable about the triumph of liberal values.

    We need to understand what is going on, so we can work out what to do.

    The most fascinating research I saw on the Brexit vote was by a Birkbeck Professor, Eric Kaufmann.

    He analysed a simple question:

    Do you think it’s more important that children are considerate, or well-behaved?

    Considerate, or well-behaved?

    I read it and my first thought was as the mother of a 3 year old, frankly I’d settle for either.

    But amazingly, how people answer this question better predicts whether they voted for Brexit, than their income does.

    Let’s try it out. Conference, let’s have a vote. Don’t worry stewards, I’m not going to make you count it, but I do want you to all to vote. Hands up if you think it is more important for children to be considerate?

    Hands up for well-behaved?

    It holds true for the Trump v Clinton voting patterns too.

    The question is used as a fairly neutral way of assessing whether people tend towards respect for authority, or a more liberal approach, do they prefer things to be in order, controlled, or do they openly embrace change?

    This is the culture clash that is playing out, in the UK, in other parts of Europe, in the US and beyond.

    Politics feels broken. To me, to many in this room, and to many far beyond this conference hall.

    We are absolutely right to fight for an exit from Brexit. Brexit will make it harder to follow our values, to protect human rights, to tackle climate change, to solve global problems.

    An exit from Brexit is necessary, but not sufficient.

    Because this culture clash continues.

    And the populists stoke this tension. They do it deliberately. They talk in simple soundbites that scapegoat different groups. It’s all someone else’s fault.

    As liberals we know this is nonsense. The Faragey Trumpy angry arsey shouty slogans aren’t a solution to anything.

    But we do need to offer our own alternative solutions. And conference, I think we need to have the humility to admit that we haven’t found all the answers yet. And it’s blindingly obvious the other parties haven’t either. We need to be much more radical, both in what we propose and in how we craft it.

    The basic deal – you work hard, you get on – feels broken for so many people. How are you supposed to support your family on the minimum wage? How do profitable companies get away with paying tiny amounts of tax? Why are so many people stuck in overcrowded housing, with no hope for change?

    We need new, 21st century, liberal solutions to all of these problems and more. We need to get out of our own echo chamber and start bridging the divides in our communities. We need to bring people together to create the answers, leaving no room for the populists to sow their seeds of division.

    We can do this.

    In the Netherlands and in France this year the populists were defeated. In Canada we cheered Trudeau’s Liberal victory.

    Creating the bold vision we need is bigger than any single political party. Indeed it’s bigger than party politics itself. We need to reach out and collaborate across society, with thinkers, activists, the young and the old, faith groups, trade unions, entrepreneurs – and with all of you who want to change the world.

    A considerate one. A fairer one. A loving one.

    A liberal one.

    This is our challenge. And we must rise to it.

  • Matt Hancock – 2017 Speech on the Global Cyber Challenge

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister of State for Digital, at the opening ceremony for Singapore international Cyber Week on 18 September 2017.

    I am delighted to be here with you today.

    We meet at an auspicious time.

    A time of change faster than anyone has known. Around the world, we are living through a technological revolution which brings unimaginable opportunity. And with this unimaginable opportunity, so too risks unknown just a few short years ago.

    The internet fifty years ago. The world wide web, twenty five years after that. Ten years ago, social media and the smartphone, and now artificial intelligence and machine learning. New generic technologies that have sporned a thousand revolutions, from fintech, to lawtech, to edtech or govtech, indeed in almost every area of our lives. The pace of change is relentless. And if you don’t much like change, I’ve got bad news. For the nature of artificial intelligence means we are likely to be experiencing, right now, the slowest change we will see for the rest of our lifetimes.

    So now is a good moment to bring together some of the leading nations in the world of digital technology. And it’s good to be here in Singapore for this discussion. Like us, Singapore is a small island nation with an emphatically global reach, that revels in a culture that’s open and looks for trading partners the world over among friends and neighbours, near and far.

    And amongst friends, let us be open and talk not just of those opportunities, but how we protect those opportunities, for the good of all our citizens, from those who would do harm.

    Since its conception, the internet has brought enormous freedom. But the internet is growing up. To protect that freedom as it grows we must also be restless in protecting a safety and security online.

    From the pioneering work of Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage to the visionary Tim Berners-Lee, the UK has always been at the forefront of digital innovation.

    Yet around the world, none of us can rest on our laurels. For each nation, even areas where our strengths are well-established, such as our world-renowned creative industries, are being transformed, and kept at the cutting edge, by developments in technology.

    I feel this keenly, as before I became the Digital Minister, my first job was solving the Y2K bug in cobol. Thankfully, that went ok.

    Yet even the most enthusiastic supporter of new technology must acknowledge that it also brings risks. The challenge we now face is how to harness the power of emerging technology so it works always in our favour, always to improve the quality of people’s lives, and that where it poses dangers we mitigate against them.

    In 2011 we hosted the London Conference on Cyberspace, a discussion that continues in New Delhi later this year. From ASEAN to the UN, Interpol to ICANN, we are strengthening our partnerships on a bilateral, regional and global level to collectively tackle threats, build confidence and transparency, and strengthen global cyber security.

    That includes building capacity in less developed nations so they can combat threats at source. This work involves supporting the development and implementation of national cyber security strategies, and we’ve supported capacity building projects in over 50 countries in the past few years.

    As we negotiate our exit from the European Union, and position ourselves as Global Britain, we aim to be even more open to collaboration, with all our international friends and partners. In this age of digital we are all becoming more and more connected. It is estimated that in less than a decade the Internet will connect one trillion things.

    Both our countries will take on major responsibilities next year. Singapore will be chair of ASEAN and the United Kingdom will host the Commonwealth Summit in London. I am sure these will both be great opportunities to deepen our friendship and strengthen our working relationships.

    Today I’d like to share with you the principles we apply to the cyber challenge:

    Principles of openness to new ideas, of adaption to change; and preparing for the future.

    How we seek to seize the opportunities of the growing tech industry, how we adapt to the changing environment, and how we are preparing for what lies ahead.

    The first principle is to be open and optimistic about the opportunities digital technology is creating, for businesses and for all citizens. We seek an internet that is open and free. And we seek a tech industry that is vibrant and innovative. The UK’s tech industry has huge momentum, is growing strongly, and is ripe for investment.

    Since 2001, tech industries have created 3.5 million new jobs in the UK, more than four times the number that have been replaced. London is now recognised as one of the top tech clusters in the world, and we have internationally competitive hubs across the whole UK. Over just the last year a whole series of multi-billion pound investments have been agreed.

    This openness and this technology is helping our citizens, to learn, to better manage their finances, to access government services and simply be better connected to their friends, their family and to new acquaintances. In short, technology improves people’s lives.

    So our first principle is never to see just the threat, but keep front of mind the fundamental openness of the internet, and its power to do good.

    The second principle is to be ready to respond to change and honest about the risks.

    The UK categorises cyber crime as a tier one threat to our national security. Since 2011 we have had in place a National Cyber Security Strategy, which sets out how a full spectrum plan.

    The Strategy covers the direct tasks we in Government must take to detect threats, deter and disrupt adversaries, and keep Britain secure online. But moreover, it recognises that we can’t do this alone.

    Our full spectrum approach ranges from developing the new skills and expertise we need, supporting the cyber ecosystem, collaboration with critical infrastructure, the established cyber industry, start ups, and academia to protect our national security and protect the public’s way of life, while contributing to our prosperity and building a more trusted and resilient digital environment. I’ve been struck here in Singapore just how similar the challenges, and the responses are.

    Our growing expertise was perhaps best showcased during the 2012 Olympics. The London games were the first ever “digital games” – the first to provide public Wi-Fi access in all Olympic venues, with more content broadcast online than ever before, and much of it accessed via mobile devices – and yet, despite a peak of over 11,000 attacks per second, the network was never once compromised.

    We are now six years into that Strategy. In the time since, our cyber security industry has gone from strength to strength. The workforce has grown by 160 per cent and cyber security exports were worth £1.5 billion to the UK last year alone. I’m delighted that many of our leading cyber security businesses are here this week too.

    UK universities play a critical role at the forefront of research into cyber security. Because while we address the challenges of today we must work to anticipate those of tomorrow. We have awarded fourteen UK Universities the status of Academic Centre of Excellence in Cyber Security Research, reflecting world class research.

    Last year, we refreshed the Strategy. The refresh had at its heart one inescapable fact we had learned: that successful cyber defence requires the collaboration of government, academia, and business. A strong cyber ecosystem needs all three.

    Based on that insight, we put together and opened our new National Cyber Security Centre as the authoritative voice on cyber in the UK. As we designed it, we looked around the world to see best practice, including at your CSA here.

    The NCSC is formally part of GCHQ, but culturally reaches outside the secure fence to draw on academia, and work with and inform businesses, citizens and the public sector about emerging threats, to provide very practical support when attacks happen, talk to the public, work with international partners, and educate our nation on how best to stay safe online. Crucially, it brings together national leadership on cyber security in one place.

    Our safety, of course, means our friends’ and partners’ safety, whenever you do business with us. We are committed to making the UK the most secure place in the world for digital and online activity. Respected, and most importantly, trusted.

    So this is how we are adapting to the constantly changing risks.

    Our third principle, is always to look to the future.

    For we much cite cyber security within a bigger attitude we take to how digital technology is transforming society’s norms.

    Digital technology is a force for good in the world. To keep it that way, we are proposing a new framework, a new global consensus, for how we interact, do business and participate online.

    The aim is to protect and promote freedom online, by ensuring that we promote liberal values that underpin freedom while preventing harm online. Our starting point is that the boundaries and norms that exist off-line also apply in the online world.

    This approach lies at the heart of our proposed Digital Charter, recently announced by Her Majesty the Queen. The Charter seeks to balance freedom and responsibility online while establishing a new framework for how we all conduct our digital business.

    Every society is facing the same sorts of challenges. And by the nature of the technology many of the solutions are global too. Local nuances will depend on each country’s culture, but ultimately this balance is needed everywhere.

    So our hope, if we get all this right, other countries will want to join us.

    Humanity, the world over, we share this technology. Together we have developed it, and together people worldwide now collaborate to develop it further.

    We are all connected by it, and harmony will lie in – perhaps even depend upon – a shared sense of its norms. The debate is moving quickly, as the pace of technology increases. As more and more of how we interact – our society, in short – moves online we must be sure it abides by the rules of decency, fair play, and mutual respect we have all built in the offline world.

    Cyber security sits in this context.

    So let us be clear. We are part of something much bigger than ourselves. We have a job to do.

    So let us keep talking, let us keep sharing, so we reach a mutual understanding of how we can best harness this amazing new technology, for the benefit of all mankind.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech to National Housing Federation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the National Housing Federation on 19 September 2017.

    Thank you, David [Orr, Chief Executive, National Housing Federation], and good morning everyone.

    It’s great to be here in Birmingham and a real honour to be opening your conference this year.

    And it’s good to see so many of you here at what is a particularly important and, as we’ve just heard, particularly challenging time for this country’s housing associations.

    I know, of course, you’ve got a lot on your minds.

    I’ve certainly got a lot on mine and I’m looking forward to sharing that with you.

    But before all that, as an almost-local Member of Parliament I have to give you a quick West Midlands history lesson!

    Here at the ICC we’re literally just over the road from the site of the first major Cadbury factory, which opened its doors in 1847.

    It’s not there anymore, sadly.

    But if you pop out at lunchtime you can still see the little canal spur that served the rapidly growing business.

    It’s right there behind the giant hotel and the Australian theme pub!

    I’m fairly sure neither of them were there at that time!

    And that wasn’t the only difference.

    Back in the 1800s, the area wasn’t the clean, fresh, welcoming place that you all saw this morning.

    Quite the opposite.

    And that’s why after nearly 30 years here on Bridge Street, the Cadbury brothers upped sticks and they moved operations 5 miles south to what was then a bucolic rural idyll that sat just outside the city.

    They moved there because, yes, they needed a bigger, more appropriate site.

    But they also wanted a better place for their workers and their families to make their homes.

    As George Cadbury said at the time “No man ought to be condemned to live in a place where a rose cannot grow”.

    The Cadburys recognised that our homes aren’t just places where we sleep and eat.

    They aren’t just machines for living in.

    Machines don’t have souls and hearts, but homes do.

    They shape who we are.

    They reflect our lives, our choices, our personalities.

    And our homes can limit us too.

    Living in the wrong kind of house or the wrong kind of place can close off avenues and opportunities, and of course can affect your life chances.

    A child who can’t find a quiet place to study may struggle to make progress at school.

    An adult who is unable to relocate may miss out on a life-changing promotion at work.

    And, of course, you’re also judged on where you live.

    On what kind of house you live in.

    Which side of the tracks you came from.

    I grew up on Stapleton Road in Bristol – also known as “Britain’s most dangerous street” or a “moral cesspit”, depending on your tabloid of choice.

    And I remember my school careers adviser telling me that there was no point in aiming high because kids from my neck of the woods simply didn’t take A-levels or go to university.

    Society had low expectations of us, and we were expected to live down to them.

    It was the same years later, when I was applying for jobs with merchant banks in London.

    I got the sense that the interview panels had never before met someone who lived in the overcrowded flat above the family shop.

    That’s just my experience. It’s just one person’s story.

    But if the Grenfell tragedy showed us anything, it was the extent to which these attitudes have spread and become deeply ingrained in the way this country thinks and it acts.

    While I don’t want to pre-judge the findings of the public or police inquiries, it’s clear that in the months and the years before the fire the residents of Grenfell Tower were not listened to.

    That their concerns were ignored or dismissed.

    That too many people in positions of power saw tenants less as people with families and more as problems that needed to be managed.

    A lot has been written and said about the social and political context of Grenfell.

    Much of it accurate, some of it less so.

    There’s certainly been some unfair criticism of social landlords generally.

    Unfair because I know that everyone in this room is passionate about what they do.

    Passionate about getting safe, secure, affordable roofs over the heads of families.

    I know that and you know that.

    And I want to thank you all, and everyone that you employ, for all the good that you do. Thank you very much.

    But the question I keep coming back to is very simple.

    In one of the richest, most privileged corners of the UK – the world, even – would a fire like this have happened in a privately owned block of luxury flats?

    If you believe that the answer is no, even if you think it was simply less likely, then it’s clear that we need a fundamental rethink of social housing in this country.

    Because whether they’re owned by a council or by a housing association, whether they’re managed by a TMO or a local authority, we’re not just talking about bricks and mortar.

    We’re not just talking about assets on your balance sheet.

    We’re talking about peoples’ homes.

    About people’s lives.

    Over the past few weeks the Housing Minister, Alok Sharma, has been meeting with social housing tenants right across the country.

    And from those conversations it’s already clear that they want us to look again at the quality and safety of what’s on offer.

    To look again at the way tenants are listened to and their concerns acted on.

    To look again at the number of homes being built, at community cohesion and more besides.

    And that’s exactly what this government is going to do.

    Today I can announce that we will be bringing forward a green paper on social housing in England.

    A wide-ranging, top-to-bottom review of the issues facing the sector, the green paper will be the most substantial report of its kind for a generation.

    It will kick off a nationwide conversation on social housing.

    What works and what doesn’t work.

    What has gone right and what has gone wrong,

    Why things have gone wrong and – most importantly – how to fix them.

    And the results will help everyone involved in the whole world of social housing: local and central government, housing associations, TMOs, and of course the tenants themselves, to make this country’s social housing provision something the whole nation can be proud of.

    Of course, in the wake of Grenfell, the green paper will look at safety issues.

    But it will need to go much further.

    It will look at the overall quality of social homes, many of which are now beginning to show their age.

    It will cover service management, the way social homes and their tenants are taken care of.

    It will look at the rights of tenants and show how their voices can be better heard.

    And it will cover what can be done to ensure their complaints are taken seriously and dealt with properly, and make sure tenants have clear, timely avenues to seek redress when things do go wrong.

    If a resident reports a crack in the wall that you can fit your hand in, big enough to use as a book shelf, it shouldn’t just be patched up and ignored.

    The reason it’s there and the impact it could have need to be properly investigated.

    Problems shouldn’t just be fixed, they should be learned from.

    These are the kind of issues the green paper will explore.

    But that’s not all. It will also look at wider issues of place, community, and the local economy.

    How can social landlords help to create places that people really want to live in, places where roses can grow?

    What role can social housing policy play in building safe and integrated communities, where people from different backgrounds get along no matter what type of housing they live in?

    How do we maximise the benefits for social housing for the local, regional and national economy as part of our Industrial Strategy?

    What more can we do to help tackle homelessness?

    What support is needed for leaseholders who have a social landlord?

    What can be done to tackle illegal sub-letting, not just chasing down offenders but dealing with the cause of the problem in the first place?

    And, at the heart of it all, how can you, me, local government and others work together to get more of the right homes built in the right places?

    As you can tell – I hope! – I’m talking about a substantial body of work.

    It’s a green paper that will inform both government policy and the wider debate for many years to come.

    And I want to make sure that we hear from everyone with something to say.

    Not just the usual suspects – those working in the sector or the think-tanks and lobbyists.

    But the people who matter most, the people living in or clamouring for social housing.

    So it’s not something we’re going to rush.

    Yes, I do want to see it published as soon as possible.

    But what matters most is getting it right.

    There’s simply too much at stake to do otherwise.

    Whatever comes about as a result of the green paper, much of the delivery is going to be down to the people in this room, the housing associations.

    You own homes, you manage homes and of course you build homes.

    Tens of thousands of them every year.

    The housing market in this country has been crippled by a long-term failure to match supply and demand.

    But I’m under no illusion that, without your contribution, the situation would have been far, far worse.

    By next year you’re set to reach 65,000 new homes a year, an incredible achievement and one that makes a real difference to the lives of countless people. So thank you again.

    The associations you represent are charities, trusts, co-operatives, societies and so on.

    But you don’t get build-out numbers like that, numbers that rival the likes of Barratt and Bellway, without running your organisations as serious businesses.

    And for all your passion and your social mission, you’re exactly that – serious businesses.

    The people in this room today represent a sector with £140 billion of assets and some £70 billion of debt.

    Before I came into politics, a huge part of my job was all about helping companies secure the capital that they needed in order to grow.

    Some of it through debt, some of it through investment.

    So I know first-hand that a business can’t attract funding without certainty about its future prospects.

    Businesses need to know that economic regulations aren’t going to dramatically change without warning.

    They need a stable, predictable base on which to build – literally, in your case!

    And of course lenders need to know that a company is a reliable investment prospect before they’ll put up any money.

    Our housing white paper, which was published earlier this year, gave you all a detailed insight into our long-term plans for fixing the broken housing market, and the vital role that housing associations will have in that.

    Thanks to the white paper, you already know that we’re doing all we can to free up sites, to reform the planning process, to invest in infrastructure and so on.

    That we’re working with you to help you build faster and better, raising both the quality and quantity of our housing stock.

    But of course you need much more than that.

    Right now, you’re trying to make long-term investment decisions without knowing what your rental return is going to be after 2020.

    It’s not ideal, of course I get that.

    You need certainty and you need clarity and you need them sooner rather than later.

    That’s why I’ve been pushing right across government, as hard as I can, to confirm the future formula for social housing rents.

    I would have liked to stand here today and tell you exactly what it is going to be.

    Unfortunately, I have to tell you, the t’s are still being crossed and the i’s dotted.

    But I can promise you this: an announcement will be made very, very soon.

    I’m doing everything I can, pushing as hard I can.

    And you’re not going to have to wait much longer for the detail you need and deserve.

    The same is true of Right To Buy.

    It’s a policy that has always been popular with tenants.

    I know the same is not necessarily true of all the delegates here today.

    I think it’s a great scheme.

    It helps people get on the housing ladder and, by releasing funds, it helps deliver the next generation of homes for affordable rent.

    There are issues that need looking at, I accept that.

    I thank the National Housing Federation and all of you for your open, honest and constructive feedback on Right to Buy.

    We’ll be making a decision on the way forward just as soon as we possibly can.

    As many of you will have seen, at DCLG’s main office there’s a wall with official portraits of everyone who has led the department or its predecessors.

    They go all the way back to Hugh Dalton, in 1950.

    Some of the pictures are more flattering than others.

    Richard Crossman, he looks like he’s appearing in an Alfred Hitchcock film.

    Chris Patten seems to have been surprised by a photographer while relaxing in his local library.

    And John Prescott’s eyes… they kind of follow you wherever you walk…

    I know some civil servants find that a little bit creepy when they’re alone in the office late at night!

    But the one that always catches my eye is Harold Macmillan.

    When Winston Churchill appointed Macmillan as Housing Minister in 1951, he gave him one very simple instruction: “build houses for the people”.

    And the presence of his photograph on the wall at DCLG is a daily reminder of the spectacular fashion in which he did just that.

    I’m proud of my government’s record on council housing.

    But Macmillan was on a whole other level.

    While he was housing minister, Britain built 300,000 houses a year, the vast majority what today we would call social homes.

    Cramped, dense, inner-city slums were replaced with spacious, high-quality homes in the suburbs.

    Millions of people were given their first experience of indoor plumbing, of front and rear gardens.

    Never mind living somewhere a rose could grow – the planners behind new towns boasted of homes where a tree could be seen from every window.

    Supermac built houses for the people and the people loved them.

    Living in social housing carried no stigma, no shame.

    Quite the opposite, in fact.

    For many, it was seen the gold standard for accommodation.

    Not a final safety net for the desperate and destitute but something you could genuinely aspire to, housing you would actively choose to live in.

    As a country we were all rightly proud of it.

    But over time, that all changed.

    Social housing stock became increasingly neglected, as did the people who lived in it.

    The Establishment became detached, aloof, focussed its attentions elsewhere.

    And the tragic events of 14 June showed exactly where that attitude can lead.

    That’s why, when I say we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of Grenfell, I’m not just talking about the cladding or the stairways or the sprinklers.

    We need to shift the whole conversation about social housing, reframe the whole debate.

    We need to challenge outdated, unfair attitudes.

    We need to return to the time, not so very long ago, when social housing was valued.

    It was treasured.

    Something we could all be proud of whether we lived in it or not.

    I know that’s exactly what many of you in the sector have been trying to achieve for many, many years.

    Well, I’m proud to stand here today and say that you have a Secretary of State who’s totally committed to the cause.

    I’m delighted to say you have a Prime Minister who is too.

    Because we both recognise that if we’re going to make this a country that works for everyone, we need housing that works for everyone.

    And that’s true regardless of whether you’re an owner-occupier, a private rental tenant, or living in social housing.

    After any disaster we search for lessons, for a legacy, for some light to come out of the darkness.

    The legacy of Grenfell, the lessons that we learn, the changes that we make – none of that should be confined to fire safety.

    The legacy of Grenfell can and must be a whole new approach to the way this country thinks about social housing.

    Achieving this will not be simple or straightforward.

    We – all of us – must be committed to bringing about this change.

    It demands nothing less.

    Thank you.

  • Tom Watson – 2017 Response to Government Statement on Sky/Fox Merger

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, in the House of Commons on 12 September 2017.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

    The Secretary of State has taken her responsibilities seriously, and I give her credit for that. I give her credit, too, for listening to the evidence before her, including new evidence submitted after she had announced her initial decision, and for changing her mind. I also want to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who has run a very effective campaign in this area. Dare I say it, but I think he leads the race for Back Bencher of the year for his campaign?

    I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision—or, I should say, the fact that she says she is minded to make such a decision—to refer the bid on broadcasting standards grounds, as well as on media plurality grounds. This is the first time that a Minister in the current Government has ever stood in the way of what the Murdochs want—and, frankly, not before time. So well done, and as they say in the Black country, “She’s a good ’un.”

    The Secretary of State has done everything we asked her to do—or almost everything. Her statement does in my view, however, reflect a failure on the part of Ofcom. In its first report, as she said, Ofcom said that there were

    “no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference”.

    It has now admitted that there are, as she said, “non-fanciful concerns”. On that basis, she had to refer the bid, and she has done so. It should have been obvious to Ofcom, as it certainly was to all Labour Members, that concerns about the Murdochs were more than fanciful.

    After all, the Murdochs have a long history of regulatory non-compliance and of corporate governance failure. Just last week, Fox recognised its own failure to comply with broadcasting standards when it pulled Fox News, which has breached Ofcom’s rules again and again, from the UK. Ofcom could have gone further, too, on the “fit and proper” test. It decided that a post-merger Sky would pass, despite clear evidence of impropriety and failure of corporate governance both at 21st Century Fox and at News Corporation.

    Such failures include the phone hacking scandal, which still has loose ends that are yet to be tied up. Just last week, News Group settled 17 cases related to allegations of criminality at The Sun newspaper, ensuring that James Murdoch will not have to appear in court later this year. Those 17 cases are just the first tranche of 91 new claims of phone hacking and illegality in obtaining information against The Sun and News of the World. This story is far from over, even if we will read little about it in the pages of the Murdochs’ newspapers, and ​all these cases are claims against a company that claimed for over a decade that there was no problem and that tried to move heaven and earth to prevent abuses from being uncovered. This is alongside the ongoing sexual and racial harassment scandal at Fox News, which is part of 21st Century Fox’s empire.

    As I have said, the Secretary of State has done almost everything we asked her to do. The one thing we still want, and we have said this time and again, is that we need to get properly to the bottom of the scandals at the Murdoch empire—part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. She has now shot her fox with the Murdochs. She has burned her boats, and they already do not like her—I know what that is like—but that liberates her. Go on, Secretary of State, do the right thing: go ahead with Leveson 2.