Home » Posts tagged '2012'
Tag Archives: 2012
"Legal Aware" review of the year 2012
January
A rough guide to the online application form for City law firms
February
Have we got an objects-focused curriculum?
March
Recommendations of the Legal Awareness Society at BPP for the Legal Education and Training Review
April
Prof Philippe Sands and Carl Gardner “counting time” – not an ‘omnishambles’
May
BAILII – worthy of your urgent attention
June
#LawTechCampLondon 2012 : where law confronted innovation
July
British Gas and oligopolies – the need for regulation
August
September
The brand new “Corporate Client Strategy” project of the BPP Legal Awareness Society
October
Full text of Attorney-General’s speech to BPP this week on parliament and judiciary
November
I will be supporting the BPP Student Engagement team for the BPP Innovation Award
December
Book Review: The English Legal System 2012-3 by Prof Gary Slapper and Dr David Kelly
Estimate for GDP is +1.0%, but “overall this broadly leaves GDP unchanged”
The preliminary growth estimate is GDP grew by 1.0%, production 1.1%, service 1.3%, construction -2.5%. These had been affected by the special factors in the Q2, additional bank holidays, and the exceptionally poor weather conditions. Also, the Olympics had a number of effects, summarised in an article on the ONS website. “Overall these broadly leave GDP unchanged”, according to Joe Grice. GDP has fallen by 6.3% to the rough announced in 2009, and possibly about half of that trough has been recovered today.
Today’s estimated growth in the UK economy is very much despite the economic policy of HM Government. Despite a temporary bounce expected from the Olympics, due to ticket sales for the Olympics and Paralympics, the UK economy still has massive underlying structural faults, and it is very difficult to be optimistic about the future with any degree of certainty. George Osborne will be desperate to use the third quarter GDP figures to demonstrate that he has taken ‘tough decisions’, and that ‘the medicine is working’. However, any sign of growth on Thursday will reaffirm that the economy was always capable of growing, and indeed had been growing before the Conservative-Tory government took power. The figures will also much undermine the notion that some citizens of the UK are ‘intrinsically lazy’, a theme spun by a Government which has allowed Starbucks to pay no corporation tax amidst much public disgust.
Stripping out the effects of the Olympics, the economy is definitely flatlining – it’s flat at barely beyond 0%. Part of the problem is that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats refused to acknowledge the cause of the crisis in the UK economy as being generated abroad. The financial crises of the past decade have restricted access to funding, suppressed consumer demand and stifled international and domestic growth. Consequently, their premature calls to blame the Eurozone crisis, aided and abetted by the British Chambers of Commerce, has smacked of a bad dancer, George Osborne, desperately trying to blame the floor. The standard rate of VAT increased from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent on 4 January 2011, and is likely to stay at this historically record level. In a period of slumping consumer confidence an increase in VAT is effectively a tax on retailers rather than consumers. Initial attempts to absorb the increase in VAT are difficult to maintain when supply chain pressures are not equally suppressed, but as the year continues the VAT rise is likely to push up prices and further undermine demand. As with international cost changes this puts an increased focus on value and costs.
Whilst the average voter might be willing to swallow the story that Labour ‘spent too much’ in the previous government, being the cause of the depression, pump-fed to them vicariously by the BBC on behalf of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government, it is an inescapable fact that UK business confidence slumped to its lowest point this year. This is confirmed amid fluctuating economic prospects, according to research by BDO. The BDO Optimism Index, which predicts business performance two quarters ahead, has hit a seven-month low in the firm’?s latest “Business Trends” report. The indicator fell for the fifth consecutive month, from 93.5 in June to 93.1 in July. BDO says there was a brief resurgence in business confidence in Q1 2012, where confidence reached as high as 98, but the index is now at the lowest level since December 2011. The poor performance is a sign that contraction will continue for the remainder of 2012. The UK’s trade deficit also more than doubled in August 2012, according to the Office for National Statistics. The difference in goods and services imported and exported widened to £4.2bn in August, from £1.7bn in July. The UK’s deficit with the 27 countries of the European Union – including the crisis-plagued eurozone – widened to £4.9bn in August from £4.4bn in July. Separately, the UK’s industrial production fell in August for the 17th month in a row. Arguably the trade statistics continue to provide few reasons for optimism in the short term, with the large drop in goods exports to parts of the eurozone over the past year underlining the ongoing impact of the crisis.
Firms are generally less confident in taking on staff too. The CIPD, which represents Britain’s employers and employment professionals, has previously highlighted that Adrian Beecroft’s fire at will proposal would be a ‘licence for bad practice’, and could harm the reputation of small businesses seeking to hire new employees at the very time when we need to help them drive growth and jobs. This further adds to the chorus of criticism of the proposals which we have already heard from business. It can hardly be a proud claim that the number of people in any employment, without the most basic of employment rights, is at an all time, as indeed the UK slips one place in “business friendly” ranking, announced today. So, somewhat despite the management of the economy by the Conservatives-Liberal Democrats, Britain is this week expected to emerge from recession later this week, with the Olympics providing a much needed boost to the economy in the third quarter. Analysts expect a 0.6% rise in GDP, lifting the economy out of the longest double-dip recession since the second world war. Economists have predicted that a rise in GDP would largely be a result of temporary effects, such as the Olympics. A bounce back is also expected after the jubilee weekend in the second quarter dented output. you can easily start to build a case of GDP growth is between 0.8, maybe even 0.9 (percent) in the third quarter.
The data published today may provide a further boost for George Osborne, coming after news of falling unemployment. The rising employment, consisting of a workforce with next-to-no employment rights, with zilch job security, may be a price ‘well worth paying'; for a start, you need some sort of workforce, however flexible and transitory to make a dividend for a shareholder. That will surely strengthen the chancellor’s resolve to stick to “plan A” budget cutting measures ahead of the autumn statement in December, but the ‘hard won respect from the markets’ will be in absolute tatters if the economy continues to suffer from drivers towards growth. It could be at least symbolic that George Osborne’s conference speech did not even mention ‘growth’ once this year in Birmingham. Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics has opined as follows, cautiously: “GDP will therefore need to have risen by more than that to point to any recovery in underlying output. Anything less should be viewed as disappointing. That is, however, likely to be only a temporary boost. Samuel Tombs of Capital Economics says: “There are bigger factors at play. The eurozone is one of the biggest constraints on growth.” He forecasts a 0.4% drop in GDP in the final quarter, meaning the UK would shrink by 0.5% this year. That would be bad news for George Osborne, who bases his budget on forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has pencilled in growth of 0.8% this year.
Looking forward, the Conservatives-Liberal Democrats look set to continue on their course of deception, with David Cameron shamelessly lying on Twitter that Labour opposes all spending cuts. That is a naked lie: Labour has specified, for example, where it would not have cut in the frontline services, well before David Cameron’s “tough and intelligent” speech about law and order today. The problem with lies from the current government, unfortunately, is that they all dispelled eventually by the Office for National Statistics in time. The full answer will be revealed in the next few months, which even threatens UK’s much prized credit-rating. Voters will have a chance to provide feedback too on May 8th, 2015.
Are single issue politics dead?
Michael Green is not just the ‘alter ego’ of Grant Shapps, whose personal image continues on its ‘slow burn’ after a mass of ridiculous stories concerning his business activities. Michael Green is the name of a top Carlton Communications figure, known to be a personal friend of David Cameron, like Andrew Cooper, the founder and strategic director of the Populus voting initiative.
There are many problems with polling as a way to make policy. Not least, it can produce results which are at odds with domestic and European law, such as repeal of the Human Rights Act, encouraging a swop for fundamental employment right in share ownership, or ‘bash a burglar’. The further problem is that the results themselves can be intrinsically unreliable on public policy grounds; such as the vast majority of survey respondents in the Sun who believe that the death penalty should be re-introduced. Furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that in politics the whole is more than the sum of its constituent parts; therefore the ‘gestalt’ of the policy must overall make sense. However, data-driven policy is attractive from an ‘efficiency’ aspect of the operations management of politics; money can be spent in producing data, which can be number-crunched, to act as the input for a speech-writer. The impact of the delivery of the speech written by Clare Foges and colleagues can then be ascertained through further polling, in a ‘feedforward’ mechanism of feedback control.
The idea of ‘strivers’, as Isabel Oakeshott points out, sounds like the product of a computer cluster analysis of polling data (though she did not phrase it in such statistical words.) The concept of strivers does not make sense if you consider that members of the Conservative Party also wish to cut non-employment benefits, the economy has been imploding under the direction of George Osborne since May 2010, parts of the government wishes to take away basic legal rights (such as human rights or employment) which would protect and enhance the wellbeing of a ‘striver’. Oh – that’s another aspect of data-driven policy which doesn’t make sense; how can you pursue an agenda of happiness and wellbeing, when you wish to impose austerity and swingeing cuts that is doing much short-term damage to the economy and much long-term damage to society?
It has been interesting to watch how the mainstream and blogosphere have responded to ‘single issue’ politics. It is perhaps true that general polling data do not give a helpful picture of the value of disability issues to non-disability voters, but Sonia Poulton’s articles have had a genuine captive audience. On welfare, Kaliya Franklin was even shortlisted for this year’s coveted Orwell Prize, and her friend and fellow campaigner for disability issues, Sue Marsh, has had a remarkable impact in breaking the ‘glass ceiling’ of this topic which previously had barely been addressed. Likewise, Dr Eoin Clarke, in the blogosphere, has been addressing with considerable bravery previously taboo issues of potential conflicts of interest and the implementation of the NHS Act, which would be felt by most reasonable people to be issues of public interest. Mainstream media may of course be frightened to tackle the complex issues of the Health and Social Care Act, or simply do not understand them, but it is noteworthy that the Daily Mail has recently, and successfully, embarked on a campaign against A&E closures.
That Hunt has decided to frame the argument as ‘modernisation’ of the NHS, which Andy Burnham MP, had started is indeed interesting. David Cameron hardly mentioned the NHS in his speech, which perhaps does reflect the polling data. Recent estimates have provided that the Labour Party is indeed around 30% ahead on the NHS, ‘can be trusted with the NHS’ and so forth. On the other hand, there has always been ambivalence about Labour’s record in public spending, despite the fact that this double-dip recession was directly caused by the policy of the Conservatives, and that George Osborne MP in opposition had promised to meet the spending commitments of Labour, a fact which has conveniently forgotten with his Liberal Democrat accomplices.
Danny Finkelstein has previously warned that the Conservatives should not put all their eggs in the austerity basket. The austerity plan has of course been utterly discredited, with the economy going into reverse under the Conservative-led government, and the Financial Times recently warned that due to the ongoing problems austerity would have to continue until 2018 at least. The austerity agenda could be another ‘single issue’ which might cause pain for Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, if members of the public sector continue to ‘feel the pain’ in the relative absence of a Labour government wishing to tax heavily the top 1% of earners.
Voters are likely to produce a decision on a combination of factors, and certainly predicting this less than three years ahead of a general election is not easy. Whilst ‘Bigotgate’ probably did not lose Gordon Brown the 2010 election, though it might have been representative of a confusion on Labour’s part in understanding the aspiration of voters in an immigration context, certain issues can seem to prove fatal. It is perhaps significant that the poll tax debacle was necessary and sufficient in toppling Thatcher, but it is also significant perhaps that the Conservatives went on to win the 1992 general election. That was the last election they actually won, as many members of Labour will remind you.
David Cameron and the Conservatives should be given credit for a challenging, if inaccurate, speech at their Party Conference
I think the main danger in misinterpreting David Cameron’s speech, written by Clare Foges and colleagues of the Conservative Party (including presumably David Cameron), is to do so without viewing it from the perspective of a potential Tory voter.
Individuals who are ardent Conservative voters, one assumes, are not distracted by factual inaccuracies in the narrative (such as how many people on housing benefit are unemployed, or how much borrowing this current government is doing). Certain things might have stuck in the minds of potential voters, such as the idea of an unemployed person in a bedsit queue-jumping in the housing ballot ahead of a person who’d dedicated his or her life for decades. To such people, the prevalence of benefit fraud is immaterial. Cameron tried to produce a narrative of the rich being punished for being successful, in his characteristically patronising explanation of how income tax works for Miliband’s benefit. A caller on Iain Dale’s show last night on lbc considered that he might vote for the Conservative Party, having voted for decades for Labour. He felt that his ambitions as a worker had not been recognised by the Labour Party, and was sick of it. Rather than blaming Cameron and his team for tapping into this ‘aspiration’, Labour runs a genuine risk of pursuing evidence-based politics while simultaneously failing to capture the sentiment and feelings of workers of this country.
How this situation has come about is interesting, but it is patently obvious that it has not come about overnight. Cameron indeed would be right in thinking that such a voter is not overly concerned about what Prof Michael Sandel or Prof Jim Hacker have to say about public good or predistribution particularly; the mental masturbation over intellectual sociological ideas might lead to an even greater disconnect between Labour and its missing voters. It is clearly of concern that there are millions of voters who cannot remember why they did not vote in the 2010 general election, but it is fair to say, probably, that not all of them produced a protest vote on account of the expenses scandal. While talk of whether Andrew Mitchell will survive is of immense interest to the Westminster village, it is curiously not the allegation that he may have said “fucking” or “pleb” that is the problem with the focus groups, but the fact that the Conservative Party do not consider themselves at one with the general public.
This is why Cameron’s pitch was effective, as it was ‘levelling’ with the public in a way that they largely comprehend. Labour has its own arguments why it increased public spending, but it seems that there is no appetite for such a technical debate; however much Labour wishes to debate it, the Labour Party are generally not trusted with the public finances. While ‘One Nation’ talk might be appealing, even after the forty-sixth repeat, if Labour cannot be trusted to be in control of the public purse, the most they can hope for is a Lib-Lab pact. The dynamics of a potential future Lib-Lab pact are interesting, in that the vast majority of Labour voters would not wish to enter into a pact with Nick Clegg still at the helm of the Liberal Democrat party. It becomes 50/50 if it’s any leader but Nick Clegg, and still most Labour voters stubbornly feel that Labour politicians are better at running the economy than the Liberal Democrats. It can be tempting for Labour members to think that the NHS is a ‘make or break’ issue, but this policy has been evolving for some time, especially under New Labour, with the emergence of NHS Foundation Trusts and clinical commissioning. Labour voters are not likely to get angry over the pay packets of private directors of healthcare companies at the ballot box, but are more likely to resent the Health and Social Care Act if quality is seen to suffer. While the NHS remains branded as an unitary NHS, this is unlikely to be the case, and the Conservatives can justifiably continue, perhaps, with their strategy of either not mentioning it, or describing it as a ‘modernisation strategy’.
The legal aid cuts might be a more productive way for Labour to reach out to the strivers. For example, due to the managed decline of law centres on the high street, access-to-justice for housing, immigration, asylum, welfare benefits, and employment advice, inter alia, is compromised. This is hardly in the best interests of strivers? Strivers are unlikely to be impressed by trading off their rights not to be unfairly dismissed for some shares in a company which cannot produce a dividend unless it has distributable profits. It might be that strivers do not particularly care whether the Human Rights Act is abolished or not, although its abolition might help to return a Conservative government. Individuals may be inclined to think that so long as he or she is not affected by torture, privacy, or freedom of expression issues, they are unlikely to be touched by the Human Rights Act, especially if legal aid for such matters is abolished. Cameron has also perhaps succeeded in painting the Conservative Party as firmly footed in the “real world”. There are two major issues for why Ed Miliband has trouble on this: the spending of Labour “even during the good times”, and the thirst by Miliband for the application of sociological theories which have yet to be tested in practice. The empirical evidence for ‘Nudge’ of course has never been compelling, but there is a sense that the standards that Conservatives apply for themselves are not the ones they apply to Labour.
So it comes to something when David Cameron calls trade union leaders “snobs”, but no amount of hatred for inverted snobbery will deliver Miliband a landslide for the 2015 general election. Practical problems emerge if Ed Balls signs up for an austerity agenda indistinguishable from the Conservatives, not least in the sense that workers will wonder why on earth they are still supporting Labour. Miliband does not want to be seen in the lap of ‘vested interests’ codeword for ‘trade unions’, but likewise he has not embraced a redistributive tax system targetting the very highest earners yet. Trade union members contribute up to 40% of the funding of the Labour Party, but, like the debate on public purse handling, Miliband is unlikely to sway the minds of voters on this. It is not improved aspiration from the middle class and centre that will win Miliband the 2015 general election, but it will be working class leaving Labour in droves in finding their aspirations unaddressed. One term oppositions are extremely rare, and Labour finds itself in a difficult position in perhaps having to rely on the Liberal Democrats to form a government having spent the last five years in slagging them off. Cameron’s speech yesterday was full of statements all good lefties would have found contemptible, but it was clever in that it was sufficiently practical (for example, not mentioning the ‘bash a burglar’ policy) that it did offer a course for government. As others have pointed out, this is not a speech that Cameron can ever give in future, if he fails to deliver. The starting gun for the 2015 general election has most definitely been fired, and the first ‘hurdle’ takes the form of the OBR assessment in a few weeks time about the UK deficit. Cameron has given himself in a sense a suspended sentence, but there are strict conditions for his future behaviour.
Despite the inaccuracies, Cameron's pitch was sufficiently effective to be of concern
I think the main danger in misinterpreting David Cameron’s speech, written by Clare Foges and colleagues of the Conservative Party (including presumably David Cameron), is to do so without viewing it from the perspective of a potential Tory voter.
Individuals who are ardent Conservative voters, one assumes, are not distracted by factual inaccuracies in the narrative (such as how many people on housing benefit are unemployed, or how much borrowing this current government is doing). Certain things might have stuck in the minds of potential voters, such as the idea of an unemployed person in a bedsit queue-jumping in the housing ballot ahead of a person who’d dedicated his or her life for decades. To such people, the prevalence of benefit fraud is immaterial. Cameron tried to produce a narrative of the rich being punished for being successful, in his characteristically patronising explanation of how income tax works for Miliband’s benefit. A caller on Iain Dale’s show last night on lbc considered that he might vote for the Conservative Party, having voted for decades for Labour. He felt that his ambitions as a worker had not been recognised by the Labour Party, and was sick of it. Rather than blaming Cameron and his team for tapping into this ‘aspiration’, Labour runs a genuine risk of pursuing evidence-based politics while simultaneously failing to capture the sentiment and feelings of workers of this country.
How this situation has come about is interesting, but it is patently obvious that it has not come about overnight. Cameron indeed would be right in thinking that such a voter is not overly concerned about what Prof Michael Sandel or Prof Jim Hacker have to say about public good or predistribution particularly; the mental masturbation over intellectual sociological ideas might lead to an even greater disconnect between Labour and its missing voters. It is clearly of concern that there are millions of voters who cannot remember why they did not vote in the 2010 general election, but it is fair to say, probably, that not all of them produced a protest vote on account of the expenses scandal. While talk of whether Andrew Mitchell will survive is of immense interest to the Westminster village, it is curiously not the allegation that he may have said “fucking” or “pleb” that is the problem with the focus groups, but the fact that the Conservative Party do not consider themselves at one with the general public.
This is why Cameron’s pitch was effective, as it was ‘levelling’ with the public in a way that they largely comprehend. Labour has its own arguments why it increased public spending, but it seems that there is no appetite for such a technical debate; however much Labour wishes to debate it, the Labour Party are generally not trusted with the public finances. While ‘One Nation’ talk might be appealing, even after the forty-sixth repeat, if Labour cannot be trusted to be in control of the public purse, the most they can hope for is a Lib-Lab pact. The dynamics of a potential future Lib-Lab pact are interesting, in that the vast majority of Labour voters would not wish to enter into a pact with Nick Clegg still at the helm of the Liberal Democrat party. It becomes 50/50 if it’s any leader but Nick Clegg, and still most Labour voters stubbornly feel that Labour politicians are better at running the economy than the Liberal Democrats. It can be tempting for Labour members to think that the NHS is a ‘make or break’ issue, but this policy has been evolving for some time, especially under New Labour, with the emergence of NHS Foundation Trusts and clinical commissioning. Labour voters are not likely to get angry over the pay packets of private directors of healthcare companies at the ballot box, but are more likely to resent the Health and Social Care Act if quality is seen to suffer. While the NHS remains branded as an unitary NHS, this is unlikely to be the case, and the Conservatives can justifiably continue, perhaps, with their strategy of either not mentioning it, or describing it as a ‘modernisation strategy’.
The legal aid cuts might be a more productive way for Labour to reach out to the strivers. For example, due to the managed decline of law centres on the high street, access-to-justice for housing, immigration, asylum, welfare benefits, and employment advice, inter alia, is compromised. This is hardly in the best interests of strivers? Strivers are unlikely to be impressed by trading off their rights not to be unfairly dismissed for some shares in a company which cannot produce a dividend unless it has distributable profits. It might be that strivers do not particularly care whether the Human Rights Act is abolished or not, although its abolition might help to return a Conservative government. Individuals may be inclined to think that so long as he or she is not affected by torture, privacy, or freedom of expression issues, they are unlikely to be touched by the Human Rights Act, especially if legal aid for such matters is abolished. Cameron has also perhaps succeeded in painting the Conservative Party as firmly footed in the “real world”. There are two major issues for why Ed Miliband has trouble on this: the spending of Labour “even during the good times”, and the thirst by Miliband for the application of sociological theories which have yet to be tested in practice. The empirical evidence for ‘Nudge’ of course has never been compelling, but there is a sense that the standards that Conservatives apply for themselves are not the ones they apply to Labour.
So it comes to something when David Cameron calls trade union leaders “snobs”, but no amount of hatred for inverted snobbery will deliver Miliband a landslide for the 2015 general election. Practical problems emerge if Ed Balls signs up for an austerity agenda indistinguishable from the Conservatives, not least in the sense that workers will wonder why on earth they are still supporting Labour. Miliband does not want to be seen in the lap of ‘vested interests’ codeword for ‘trade unions’, but likewise he has not embraced a redistributive tax system targetting the very highest earners yet. Trade union members contribute up to 40% of the funding of the Labour Party, but, like the debate on public purse handling, Miliband is unlikely to sway the minds of voters on this. It is not improved aspiration from the middle class and centre that will win Miliband the 2015 general election, but it will be working class leaving Labour in droves in finding their aspirations unaddressed. One term oppositions are extremely rare, and Labour finds itself in a difficult position in perhaps having to rely on the Liberal Democrats to form a government having spent the last five years in slagging them off. Cameron’s speech yesterday was full of statements all good lefties would have found contemptible, but it was clever in that it was sufficiently practical (for example, not mentioning the ‘bash a burglar’ policy) that it did offer a course for government. As others have pointed out, this is not a speech that Cameron can ever give in future, if he fails to deliver. The starting gun for the 2015 general election has most definitely been fired, and the first ‘hurdle’ takes the form of the OBR assessment in a few weeks time about the UK deficit. Cameron has given himself in a sense a suspended sentence, but there are strict conditions for his future behaviour.
'One Nation' – but it may not be 'one direction' for Labour
Bear in mind when reading this I am a nobody – I am not a MP, councillor, journo, wonk, but I am a member! You’d be forgiven for thinking that this speech was only about “one nation”, but Ed first utters the first of his 46 “one nations” 20 minutes in. This was, by far, the best Labour leader’s speech to, and it was only my third conference in total. Ed Miliband spoke passionately, articulately, and convincingly, without notes, for over an hour, and would have been genuinely inspiring for many. If, on the other hand, you were a Scottish voter looking for Scottish independence, you might have been desperately hoping that Ed Miliband would announce a policy for Scottish independence. It is probably at least accurate to form the judgment that Ed Miliband has converted himself from the “Not never” to the “Yeah but” candidate, as proposed by Matthew Taylor today (the CEO of the RSA). Ed Miliband is clearly much better without an autocue, and his delivery was witty, engaging, vibrant and interesting. The jokes were good too. People who saw the Conference were definitely buzzing afterwards, and I was sat around the corner with some of the ‘Labour Left’ contingent, awaiting a fringe session on ethics in media and in business.
It has become known as the ‘One Nation’ speech, because of the use of the phrase ‘one nation’ forty six times. The speech managed to pull off Ed’s pride in the NHS hospital in which he was born, and the Haverstock Hill Comprehensive School in which he was educated prior to Oxford. And yet the speech did not have the jingoism that Disraeli was in fact known for, and Frank Dobson indeed noted that it was any appropriate that the Left should appropriate back a national sense of pride and identity. A clear message, which Ed convincingly explained, that politics was not simply a well-paid job for Ed, but a genuine life motivation, but a “faith” “to leave the world better compared to how we found it”, and “not to shrug our shoulders against injustice”, and “overcome any odds in coming together”. These are not particularly socialist or social democratic ideals, although the ‘coming together’ may be symptomatic of the solidarity inherent in solidarity, or the action against injustice as a social democratic ideal. Whatever the exact etymology of Ed’s beliefs, Miliband is more concerned about the millions of members of the public who have become disconnected with politics, and it happens that the political process is a central third strand of the extensive policy review currently in progress through 37 focus groups being led by Jon Cruddas MP.
Ed discusses individuals ‘brimming with hope’, such as individuals who have sent off hundreds of CVs to potential employers. It is interesting especially how Ed’s “aspiration” is not of the same tone as the Thatcherite individualistic definition, but rather one combined with a notion of insecurity not exclusive to the middle-class. The feeling that people are “at the mercy of forces beyond their control” is certainly one will chime with many of potential voters. His focus on prices in utility bills (and the profits of privatised utilities) is an interesting one, as these represent genuine concerns of Daily Express readers on a regular basis apparently. Interestingly, Ed Miliband stops short of proposing renationalising of the utilities, or introducing a windfall tax for the utilities, which would have been a radical solution (and which indeed could have been shoehorned, just, within the framework of ‘pre-distribution’). This brings Miliband to the notion that people at the very top are still doing well in Tory Britain, and hence his faith of “One Nation”. The line about Cameron writing himself a cheque as a tax-cut is rather misleading, especially given the blurring of the factual difference in tax terms between income and wealth.
In fairness, a sense of shared destiny has been evoked previously by Prof Michael Sandel in his philosophy of ‘equality of opportunity’ for the common good, and Miliband himself has often spoke much about how the economy is a ‘one nation’ economy, not private vs public, north vs south, millionaires vs non-millionaires, or rich vs poor. ‘We need banks that serves the country, not a country which serves the banks” is indeed a convincing slogan, but Miliband stops short of arguing for intensive regulation of the banking industry in the speech (although he threatens it by offering first an opportunity for self-regulation). A problem, which came up as a recurrent theme in this year’s fringe meetings of the Fabians and Labour Left, is that an optional ‘responsible capitalism’ might not be implementable, but that the State might have to legislate for transparent details to be published about sustainability and ethical practices of the banks, if banks decided not to publish such data voluntarily to secure competitive advantage through a strategy of ‘differentiation’. This is a recurrent theme in Miliband’s speeches, and critics have often remarked how it seems rather disingenious that Miliband criticises a lack of ‘one nation’ while waging some sort of class war. Ed Miliband does not feel that the Conservatives can be a ‘one-nation party’, but is less than clear about his reasons for doing so. The economic narrative initially is clear; that the raison d’être, to cut borrowing, has failed, the economy is not growing, fewer people are in work, and borrowing is going up. One of Labour’s criticisms regarding economic competence is of course that Labour recklessly borrows, but Miliband argues that borrowing is going up anyway. However, as usual, the details from Labour as to what it exactly it will commit to in terms of austerity cuts – and critically where – is ambiguous, and it is particularly confusing that Ed Miliband, while appearing to support austerity in the Conference Hall, is simultaneously willing to go on an anti-austerity march soon.
There are noteable absences in themes, such as the green economy or Europe, and even some burning issues are not tackled at all, such as disability. Ed Miliband concludes that ‘one nation’ is a way of making difficult decisions, including ‘compassion and support for those who cannot work, particularly the disabled citizens of our country’. Miliband has thus far avoided the confusion, in much the same way that Byrne has, that the disability living allowance is not an employment benefit, and this myth must be busted by Miliband soon. Disability campaigners therefore, fundamentally, have every right to be skeptical of the ‘one nation’ narrative, having been sidelined as ‘benefit scrounging scum’ (by some) for far too long. The incompetence narrative is convincing, particularly on the eve of the disaster of the West Country Train fiasco: “”Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope, miserable shower?”
The clever aspect about ‘One Nation’ is that it appears to be quite a politically framed left-agenda, but sugarcoated in centrist packaging. For example, “there will be tough settlements for the public sector” might send alarm bells ringing for the Unions, but introducing a 50p tax rate for millionaires might offer some balance. Notwithstanding, Maurice Glasman has been eager to propose how collective workers may be beneficiaries of the new ‘One Nation’ project. The usual criticism is that Labour never introduced a 50p tax rate until the very end, and even then it was finally implemented after the Conservatives had come into power. So, if “those with the broadest shoulders take the greatest burden”, before Miliband then criticises Murdoch explicitly, is this genuinely the talk of “one nation”? There are obvious possible contradictions within the text: for example Scottish members cheering on “Team GB” in the Olympics, whereas one of the greatest triumphs of New Labour had been cited as devolution. There are not only contradictions within the text of the speech, but of Labour with its past. There may be a sense that it is better that ‘the sinner does finally repenteth’, and indeed the move towards youth apprenticeships (and youth employment) may be a practical solution as the antithesis to New Labour wishing to send more and more people to University. It is indeed promising that Ed Miliband even proposes that contracts will only be awarded to those private sector companies which implement apprenticeships, but it is somewhat surprising that Miliband does not state explicitly ‘the minimum wage’ as part of the solution for the dodgy employment activities of some multi-national companies.
It is further uncertain whether Ed Miliband’s description of the core values of the NHS as “competition, care and collaboration” was a Freudian slip; when I later attended the Andy Burnham interview with Caroline Crampton of the New Statesman, people I spoke to in the audience queried the inclusion of the word “competition”. It is likely that Miliband did not in fact mean “competition” at all, as he then graphically explains why competition had failed in the privatised utility companies. Indeed, Conference started off with the report that Labour would not be able to reverse the Health and Social Care Act, but later statements from Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband and Jamie Reed later confirmed that the Health and Social Care Act would be repealed, if Labour came into power. Labour still appears to endorse (in some form) GP commissioning and NHS Foundation Trusts, and was indeed responsible for introducing them, but Andy Burnham’s promise to change the narrative, in ‘getting rid of the market’, is still not entirely convincing with existing structures still in place in 2015. Whilst it is true that the Conservatives went much further and faster than the Labour administration had, many feel that the ‘purchaser-provider’ split is still very much at the heart of the problems in the NHS. A truly socialist NHS might get rid of this split? A very good thing that Ed Miliband did to highlight the lack of inclusion was to state that the medical Royal Colleges had not been involved in the dialogue over the NHS reforms, which definitely supports his “one nation” narrative.
Labour has a lot of time on its side, and we do not know how much further the economy will regress between now and then. This certainly gives Jon Cruddas and his colleagues enough time to work out details about how Labour can build on the ‘one nation theme’. Miliband has indeed experienced a ‘bounce’ in the polls, and previous criticisms of Ed’s leadership have for now been muted. The speech had a clear structure and a clear theme, and was genuinely extremely well received by many Labour members; but the danger is that Labour is preaching to the converted, and overestimating its popularity. However, the distinct possibility has now emerged that David Cameron might be in fact be an ‘inglorious leader’ of a one-term government, and Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet have now suddenly found themselves “back in the race”. This can only be a good thing for democracy.
The problem is brilliantly illustrated by Gary Baker ((c) of Gary Baker therefore) in Tribune in this incredible cartoon!
The Annual Labour Conference Speech 2012 by Ed Miliband : 2 October 2012
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said the following in his speech to Labour Party conference in Manchester on 2 October 2012:
It is great to be in Labour Manchester. And you know Manchester has special memories for me because two years ago I was elected the leader of this party. I’m older. I feel a lot older actually. I hope I’m a bit wiser. But I am prouder than ever to be the Leader of the Labour Party.
You may have noticed that doing this job you get called some names, some of the nice, some of them not so nice. Let me tell you my favourite; it was when Mitt Romney came to Britain and called me ‘Mr Leader.’ I don’t know about you but I think it has a certain ring to it myself, it’s sort of half-way to North Korea. Mitt, thanks a lot for that.
Let me tell you a bit of insight in to Conference. I always look forward to Conference. But the Leader’s Speech, as previous leaders will attest, can be a bit of a trial. You get all kinds of advice from people. Say this, don’t say that. Smile here, don’t smile there. Stand there, don’t stand there. Thanks Tony, Gordon and Neil for that. But sometimes you get a bit fed up with it as the Leader. And so the other day, and this is an absolutely true story, I decided that to get away from it all, the speechwriting, all of that, I’d go for a walk with my three year old son, Daniel. It was an absolutely gorgeous late summer day. So we went out, I wanted to go to the park. Here’s the first thing he said to me: “Daddy, I can help you with your speech.” I was like not you as well! He is a Miliband after all. And he said to me: “Daddy, you can’t do it on your own.” This is absolutely true, and I said “well that’s a good Labour insight, you can’t do it all your own. Daniel what do you want in my speech?” He said “I want dinosaurs! I want dinosaurs, I want flying dinosaurs! I want dinosaurs that eat people daddy!” I said, “No Daniel. We tried predators last year.”
OK, look only one problem, where’s my speech? I want to do something different today. I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you who I am. What I believe. And why I have a deep conviction that together we can change this country. My conviction is rooted in my family’s story, a story that starts 1,000 miles from here, because the Miliband’s haven’t sat under the same oak tree for the last five hundred years.
Both of my parents’ came to Britain as immigrants, Jewish refugees from the Nazis. I know I would not be standing on this stage today without the compassion and tolerance of our great country. Great Britain.
And you know my parents saw Britain rebuilt after the Second World War. I was born in my local NHS hospital, the same hospital my two sons would later be born in. As you saw in the film I went to my local school. I went to my local comprehensive with people from all backgrounds. I still remember the amazing and inspiring teaching I got at that school, and one of my teachers, my English teacher, Chris Dunne, is here with us today. Thank you Chris and to all the teachers at Haverstock.
It was a really tough school, but order was kept by one of the scariest headmistress you could possibly imagine, Mrs Jenkins. And you know what? I learned at my school about a lot more than how to pass exams. I learned how to get on with people from all backgrounds, whoever they were.
I wouldn’t be standing on this stage today without my comprehensive school education.
So, Britain gave me, gave my family, a great gift that my parents never had. A safe and secure childhood. And you know my parents didn’t talk much about their early lives, it was too painful, it hurt too much. The pain of those they lost. The guilt of survivors. But I believe that their experience meant they brought up both David and myself differently as a result. Because having struggled for life itself, they instilled in us a sense of duty to ease the struggles of others. And this came not just from my parents’ wartime experience it came from the daily fabric of our childhood. You know there were toys and games, rows about homework. I was actually a Dallas fan, believe it or not, which didn’t go down well with my dad as you can imagine.
So of course there were the normal things, but every upbringing is special, and mine was special because of the place of politics within it. When I was twelve years old, I met a South African friend of my parents, her name was Ruth First. The image I remember is of somebody vivacious, full of life, full of laughter. And then I remember a few months later coming down to breakfast and seeing my mum in tears because Ruth First had been murdered by a letter bomb from the South African secret police. Murdered for being part of the anti-apartheid movement. Now I didn’t understand the ins and outs of it, but I was shocked. I was angry I knew that wasn’t the way the world was meant to be. I knew I had a duty to do something about it. It is this upbringing that has made me who I am. A person of faith, not a religious faith but a faith nonetheless. A faith, I believe, many religious people would recognise. So here is my faith. I believe we have a duty to leave the world a better pl ace than we found it. I believe we cannot shrug our shoulders at injustice, and just say that’s the way the world is. And I believe that we can overcome any odds if we come together as people.
That’s how my Mum survived the war. The kindness of strangers. Nuns in a convent who took her in and sheltered her from the Nazis, took in a Jewish girl at risk to themselves. It’s what my dad found when he came to these shores and joined the Royal Navy and was part of Britain winning the war.
Now of course my parents didn’t tell me what career to go into. My late father, as some of you know, wouldn’t agree with many of the things I stand for. He would’ve loved the idea of “Red Ed.” But he would have been a little bit disappointed that it isn’t true. My mum probably doesn’t agree with me either, but like most mums is too kind to say so. And look when I was younger I wasn’t certain I wanted to be a politician. But I do believe the best way me for to give back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through politics. Now that is not a fashionable view today. Because millions of people have given up on politics, they think we’re all the same. Well I guess you could say I am out to prove them wrong.
That is who I am. That is what I believe. That is my faith.
And I know who I need to serve in Britain with my faith. It’s the people I’ve met on my journey as Leader of the Opposition. The people who come up to me on trains, in the street, in shops who ask me about what the Labour Party is going to do for them and tell me the stories of their lives. It’s for them, the people I have met on my journey as Leader of the Opposition that today’s speech is for. You know I think of the young woman I met at a youth centre in London earlier this year. She was brimming with hopes and ambitions for the future. She was full of life. She was full of desire to get on and do the best for herself. And then she told me her story. She’d sent off her CV to 137 employers and she’d not had a reply from any of them. Many of you in this audience will know people in the same position. Just think how that crushes the hopes of a generation. I want to talk to her, to a whole generation of young people who feel that Britain under this Government is no t offering them a future.
I think back to the small businessman I met in July. A proud man called Alan Henderson, a small businessman. Let me tell you Alan Henderson’s story: He’d spent 40 years building up his sign making business, 40 years. He told me his story, he went to see his bank manager in 1972 at his local high street bank, he got a loan and he started his business. But something terrible happened to Alan Henderson and his family a few years back. He was ripped off by the bank he had been with all that time and Alan Henderson and his family have been living through a nightmare ever since. I want to talk to him, and all the people of Britain who feel they’re at the mercy of forces beyond their control.
I want to talk to all of the people of this country who always thought of themselves as comfortably off, but who now find themselves struggling to make ends meet. They ask: Why is it that when oil prices go up, the petrol price goes up. But when the oil price comes down, the petrol price just stays the same? They ask: Why is it that the gas and electricity bills just go up and up and up? And they ask: Why is it that the privatised train companies can make hundreds of millions of pounds in profit at the same time as train fares are going up by 10% a year? They think the system just doesn’t work for them. And you know what? They’re right. It doesn’t. It doesn’t work for them but for the cosy cartels and powerful interests that government hasn’t cut down to size. I want to talk to them and all the millions of people across our country who don’t think they get a fair crack of the whip.
And I want to say to them, yes our problems are deep. But they can be overcome. Deep problems about who Britain is run for and who prospers within it. One rule for those at the top, another rule for everybody else. Two nations, not one. I want to say to them today it’s not the Britain you believe in. It’s not the Britain I believe in. It’s not the Britain this party will ever be satisfied with. So friends we’re going to change it. And here’s how.
My faith that we can, starts with the inner strength of us as a country. You see the problem isn’t the British people, just think about the Olympics and Paralympic games. It was a triumph for Britain. And why did we succeed? We succeeded because of our outstanding athletes from, Zara Phillips the grand-daughter of a parachuting Queen, to a boy born in Somalia, called Mo Farah. Mo Farah. A true Brit. And a true hero for our country.
We succeeded because of the outstanding volunteers, the Games Makers who are here with us today, all 70,000 Games makers. They put a mirror up to Britain and showed us the best of ourselves. We succeeded because of our outstanding troops, our outstanding troops, many of whom were drafted in at the last minute. And let us today pay tribute to their bravery, their courage, their sacrifice in Afghanistan and all round the world. And let’s say to them, and let’s say to them, just as you do our duty by us in the most courageous way possible so we will always do our duty by you, both in military and in civilian life.
We succeeded because of our outstanding police and let us in this city of Manchester show our appreciation for what the extraordinary police men and women of our country do for our country.
And we succeeded and this is a real lesson, we succeeded because of a group of individuals, a group of individuals who saw the odds against London’s bid and thought, never mind the odds, we are going to fight for the bid for London, we are going to win the bid for London, from Seb Coe to our very own Dame Tessa Jowell.
And you know what friends, we succeeded, because of one reason more than any other, we succeeded because of us. We succeeded because of us, us the British people, us the British people who welcomed the athletes from abroad, who cheered them on. Who found ourselves talking to each other each morning about what had happened at the Olympics the night before, in a way that we hadn’t talked to each other before. We succeeded because we came together as a country we worked together as a country. We joined together as a country. That’s why we achieved more than we imagined possible.
You know, I’ll just tell you this. I can’t remember a time like it in the whole history of my lifetime. I can’t remember a time like it, that sense of a country united, that sense of a country that felt it was together. That is the spirit this Labour Party believes in.
But I may not remember that spirit, but that spirit has echoed through British history. You know one hundred and forty years ago, one hundred and forty years ago to the year. Another Leader of the Opposition gave a speech. It was in the Free Trade Hall that used to stand opposite this building. It’s the Radisson now by the way. His name was Benjamin Disraeli. He was a Tory. But don’t let that but you off, just for a minute. His speech took over three hours to deliver, don’t’ worry, don’t worry, and he drank two whole bottles of brandy while delivering it. That is absolutely true. Now look, I just want to say, I know a speech that long would probably kill you. And the brandy would definitely kill me. But let us remember what Disraeli was celebrated for.
It was a vision of Britain. A vision of a Britain where patriotism, loyalty, dedication to the common cause courses through the veins of all and nobody feels left out. It was a vision of Britain coming together to overcome the challenges we faced. Disraeli called it “One Nation”. “One Nation”. We heard the phrase again as the country came together to defeat fascism. And we heard it again as Clement Attlee’s Labour government rebuilt Britain after the war.
Friends, I didn’t become leader of the Labour Party to reinvent the world of Disraeli or Attlee. But I do believe in that spirit. That spirit of One Nation. One Nation: a country where everyone has a stake. One Nation: a country where prosperity is fairly shared. One Nation: where we have a shared destiny, a sense of shared endeavour and a common life that we lead together. That is my vision of One Nation. That is my vision of Britain. That is the Britain we must become.
And here is the genius of One Nation. It doesn’t just tell us the country we can be. It tells us how we must rebuild. We won the war because we were One Nation. We built the peace because Labour government’s and Conservative, governments understood we needed to be One Nation. Every time Britain has faced its gravest challenge, we have only come through the storm because we were One Nation. But too often governments have forgotten that lesson.
With one million young people out of work, we just can’t succeed as a country. With the gap between rich and poor growing wider and wider, we just can’t succeed as a country. With millions of people feeling that hard work and effort are not rewarded, we just can’t succeed as a country. And with so many people having been told for so long that the only way to get on is to be on your own, in it for yourself, we just can’t succeed as a country. Yes friends, to come through the storm, to overcome the challenges we face, we must rediscover that spirit. That spirit the British people never forgot. That spirit of One Nation. One Nation. A country where everyone plays their part. A country we rebuild together.
So here is the big question of today. Who can make us One Nation? Who can bring Britain together? What about the Tories? What about the Tories? I didn’t hear you, what about the Tories?
Let me explain why, let me explain why. I want to talk very directly to those who voted for David Cameron at the last general election. I understand why you voted for him. I understand why you turned away from the last Labour government. This Government took power in difficult economic times. It was a country still coming to terms with the financial crisis. A financial crisis that has afflicted every country round the world. I understand why you were willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt.
But I think we’ve had long enough to make a judgement. Long enough to make a judgement because they turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession since the war. Because there are more people looking for work for longer than at any time since the last time there was a Conservative government.
And here is the other thing, what about borrowing? Borrowing. The thing they said was their number one priority. This year borrowing is rising not falling. Let me just say that again. Borrowing the thing they said was the most important priority, the reason they were elected. It is rising not falling.
Not because there hasn’t been pain and tax rises and cuts affecting every family in this country. Not because they didn’t want to cut it borrowing. They did. Not because your services aren’t getting worse. They are. But because if you stop an economy growing, then it leaves more people out of work claiming benefits, not paying taxes. Businesses struggle so they’re not paying taxes. And as a result borrowing goes up. Borrowing not to invest in schools, in hospitals, transport and education. But borrowing to keep people idle. So the next time you hear a Conservative say to you Labour would increase borrowing, just remember it is this government that is increasing borrowing this year.
So what have we seen? We’ve seen recession, higher unemployment, higher borrowing. I don’t think that’s what people were promised. Now look there will be some people who say, and this is an important argument, they’ll be some people who say: ‘Well there is short-term pain but it is worth it for the long-term gain.’ But I’m afraid the opposite is true.
You see that the longer you have low growth in our country the bigger the debt hole becomes for the future and the bigger our problems will be in the future. The longer a young person is out of work that is not just bad for their prospects now; it is bad for their prospects for the whole of the rest of their lives. And if a small business goes under during the recession, it can’t just get back up and running again during the recovery.
So when David Cameron says to you: ‘Well let’s just carry on as we are and wait for something to turn up.’ Don’t believe him. Don’t believe him. If the medicine’s not working you change the medicine. And friends, I’ll tell you what else you change. You change the doctor too. And that is what this country needs to do.
Now look around you, you know the problem is the British people are paying the price of this government’s failure. You’re going to the petrol station and not filling up your tank because you can’t afford it. Your tax credits are being cut because the Government says it can’t afford it. Your frail mum and dad are not getting the care they need because the Government says it can’t afford it.
But there are some things this Government can afford. The wrong things. What do they think at this most difficult economic time is going to get us out of our difficulties? What do they choose as their priority? A tax cut for millionaires. A tax cut for millionaires. Next April, David Cameron will be writing a cheque for £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year. But each and every year. That is more than the average person earns in a whole year. At the same time as they’re imposing a tax on pensioners next April. Friends, we, the Labour Party, the country knows it is wrong. It is wrong what they’re doing. It shows their priorities.
And here’s the worse part. David Cameron isn’t just writing the cheques. He is receiving one. He’s going to be getting the millionaire’s tax cut. So next week maybe Mr Cameron can tell us how much is he awarding himself in a tax cut? How much is that tax cut he is awarding himself? For a job I guess he thinks is a job well done. How many of his other Cabinet colleagues have cheques in the post from the millionaire’s tax cut? And how can he justify this unfairness in Britain 2012.
And of course let’s not forget this tax cut wouldn’t be happening without Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Isn’t it shameful that the party that supported, that implemented the People’s Budget of 1909, Lloyd George’s budget, is supporting the millionaire’s budget of 2012.
So that’s the reality in Britain today. It is a rebate for the top. It’s rip-off for everybody else. It’s a recovery for the top. It’s a recession for everybody else. This Prime Minister said: ‘We are all in it together.’ Don’t let him ever tell us again we are all in this together.
And friends I say this. You can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if you raise taxes on ordinary families and cut taxes for millionaires. You can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if all you do is seek to divide the country. Divide the country between north and south. Public and private. Those who can work and those who can’t work. And you can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if your Chief Whip insults the great police officers of our country by calling them plebs.
But there is one thing that this Government might have claimed to be good at, and that is competence. Because after all, they think they’re born to rule. So maybe they’d be good at it. Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out of touch, u-turning, pledge-breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower than this Prime Minister and this Government?
There’s more there’s more, not quite Disraeli but there is more. What have we had. We’ve had the caravan tax, we’ve had the churches tax, we’ve had the pasty tax, we’ve had the granny tax, we’ve had panic at the pumps, we’ve had dinners for donors, we’ve had country supers with Rebekah Brooks. He even rode the horse. He sent the texts, he sent the texts. Remember LOL.
And now what do we have. We have the Minister for Murdoch becoming the Minister for the National Health Service. We have an International Development Secretary; she says she doesn’t believe in international development. And get this, we’ve got a Party Chairman who writes books about how to beat the recession, under a false name. Really, I’m not making this up; I’m really not making this up. I mean I have to say if I was Chairman of the Conservative Party, I’d have a false name too.
But here is my favourite one of all. There’s one more, here’s my favourite one of all. There is even a bloke, and I think they call him Lord Hill who went to see the Prime Minister. He made an appointment during the last reshuffle in order to resign. But David Cameron was too incompetent to notice that he wanted to resign. So Lord Hill is still in the Government. This lot are so useless they can’t even resign properly.
So they’re not going to build One Nation, so it is up to us.
And let me say to you, One Nation is not a way of avoiding the difficult decisions, it is a way of making the difficult decisions. And I’ve just got to be very clear about this and about what we face as the next Labour government. You see I think it is incredibly important that to be One Nation we must show compassion and support for all those who cannot work. Particularly the disabled men and women of our country. But in order to do so, those who can work have a responsibility to do so. We can’t leave people languishing out of work, for one year, two years, three years. We’ve got a responsibility to help them and they’ve got a responsibility to take the work that is on offer.
To be One Nation, we have got to give much greater dignity to our elderly population because you know, we’re going to have to tackle the care crisis that faces so many families up and down this country. And look, living longer should be one of the great virtues of the 21st century. But friends, in order to be able to afford to do that, we are going to have to work longer; have a later retirement age than we do now.
To be One Nation, we have got to live within our means. And because borrowing is getting worse not better, it means there will be many cuts that this Government made that we won’t be able to reverse even though we would like to. And that’s why we’ve said in this Parliament that we’d put jobs before pay in the public sector. And in the next Parliament we will have tough settlements for the public services and that will make life harder for those who use them and harder for those who work in them.
But here is the big difference between a One Nation government led by me, and this Government. Those with the broadest shoulders will always bear the greatest burden. I would never cut taxes for millionaires and raise them on ordinary families. That is wrong, that is not being One Nation. And here is the other thing, I will never accept an economy where the gap between rich and poor just grows wider and wider. In One Nation, in my faith, inequality matters. It matters to our country.
Now what does it mean to the Labour Party to be One Nation? It means we can’t go back to Old Labour. We must be the party of the private sector just as much as the party of the public sector. As much the party of the small business struggling against the odds, as the home help struggling against the cuts. We must be the party of south just as much as the party of the north. And we must be the party as much of the squeezed middle as those in poverty. There is no future for this party as the party of one sectional interest of our country.
But so too it is right to move on from New Labour because New Labour, despite its great achievements, was too silent about the responsibilities of those at the top, and too timid about the accountability of those with power. In One Nation responsibility goes all the way to the top of society. The richest in society have the biggest responsibility to show responsibility to the rest of our country. And I’ve got news for the powerful interests in our country, in One Nation no interest, from Rupert Murdoch to the banks, is too powerful to be held to account.
So we must be a One Nation party to become a One Nation government, to build a One Nation Britain. And here’s how we are going to take these steps to do that.
We need a One Nation economy and the first big mission of the next Labour government is to sort out our banks. Sort them out once and for all. Not just to prevent another crisis but to do what hasn’t been done in decades. Necessary to enable us to pay our way in the world. We need banks that serve the country not a country that serves its banks.
Think about Alan Henderson, the small businessman I talked about earlier on. He wanted to be able to go into his bank, look his high street manager in the eye and know that he was working for him. Instead he found a bank more interested in playing the international money markets. That’s why he was ripped off.
Of course, this government promised change, but things aren’t really changing. So I have got a message for the banks, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Either you fix it yourselves between now and the election or the next Labour government will once and for all ensure that the high street bank is no longer the arm of a casino operation and we will break you up by law.
Now look friends, there will be some people who say this is all too radical, let’s just carry in as we are. I say we can’t carry on as we are. We can’t carry on as we are, two nations not one. The banks and the rest of Britain. We must have a One Nation banking system as part of a One Nation economy.
Next, we need an education system that works for all young people. You see, to be a One Nation economy you have got to use all the talents of all of our young people. It’s not just that it’s socially right, it is absolutely essential for our economy for the future.
I remember when Chris and I were at Haverstock. I remember at Haverstock school, my comprehensive, the kids who were good at passing exams, who were academic, they could go to university and the world would just open up for them like it did for me. But think about all those kids who had talent and ability, great talent and ability. School just didn’t offer them enough. It was true twenty five years ago, and it is even more true today.
Just think in your minds eye about the 14 year old today. Today is a school day. Think about that 14 year old, not academic, already bored at school, maybe already starting that process of truanting, of not going to school. Now of course they need to get back to school and their parents need to get them back to school. They can’t afford to drift through life with no qualifications and Britain can’t afford for them to do it either. But we can’t just say to that 14 year old just put in the work, because we have been failing them too. You see for a long time our party has been focused on getting 50% of young people into university. I believe that was right. But now it’s time to put our focus on the forgotten 50% who do not go to university.
Here’s the choice that I want to offer to that 14 year old who is not academic. English and maths to 18 because rigour in the curriculum matters. But courses that engage them and are relevant to them. Work experience with employers. And then culminating at the age of 18 with a new gold standard qualification so they know when they are taking that exam they have a gold standard vocational qualification, a new Technical Baccalaureate. A qualification to be proud of. You know, we’ve got to change the culture of this country friends. We can’t be a country where vocational qualifications are seen as second class.
They are a real route to apprenticeships and jobs. They can be as valuable to our young people as a university degree. We need to make it so.
So we’ve got to change the culture in this country and there needs to be that real route to apprenticeships but let me tell you though, there is another problem. Only one in three large employers in Britain actually offers apprenticeships. And if anything, in the public sector the situation is far far worse. That is about a culture of a country. That’s about a culture of a country which hasn’t been dealt with for decades. It is the task of the next Labour government to do that. So the public sector is going to have to step up to the plate and understand we can’t be two nations. We can’t be two nations. And when the public sector offers contracts to the private sector the next Labour government will ensure that every private sector contract will only be awarded to a large company that trains the next generation with apprenticeships. Because when the public sector is having a contract with a private sector company, it is not just buying goods and services, it must be about building One Nation together. Public and private sectors joining together to do it.
And we need a new deal with British business. You get the money, you get control of the money for training, as you have long asked for, you set the standards, as you have long asked for. But you have a responsibility to make sure the training happens. In One Nation there is no place for free riding. Free riding where firms that don’t train poach workers from firms that do.
Now think about this vision of education. Education to the age of 18 with proper vocational qualifications, and then think about the vision on offer from the Conservatives. Michael Gove. Michael Gove, who wanted to bring back two-tier academic exams. I remember what that was like. O-levels and CSEs one whole group of young people written off. We are not going back to those days. Michael Gove who has contempt for vocational qualifications and has abolished some of the best vocational qualifications our country has. And Michael Gove who has nothing to say about education to 18.
So in education there really is a choice of two futures. Education for a narrower and narrower elite, with the Conservatives. Or a One Nation skills system as part of a One Nation economy with the next Labour government.
To be a One Nation economy we have to make life just that bit easier for the producers, and that bit harder for the predators. “Predators and producers”, I think one year on people know what I was talking about. You see businesses tell me that the pressure for the fast buck from City investors means they just can’t take the long view. They want to plan one year, two years, ten years ahead but they have to publish their accounts in Britain every 3 months. In line with the wishes of the best of British business, we will end that rule so companies in Britain can take the long term productive view for our country.
Companies in Britain are far more easily bought and sold than in many other countries. Do you know that when a takeover is launched the hedge funds and the speculators can swoop in for a quick profit. They are not acting in the interests of firms or the nation. They are just in it for the fast buck. It is wrong and we will change it.
And here is the thing, ladies and gentlemen, I invite British businesses – work with us in advance of the next Labour government. Let’s refound the rules of the game so we have a One Nation business model as part of a One Nation economy for our country.
So friends, in banks, in education in the rules of the game for companies –One Nation gives us an urgent call of change. But One Nation is not just about the things we need to change, it is about the things we need to conserve as well. Saying that doesn’t make me a Conservative. Our common way of life matters.
My vision of One Nation is an outward looking country. A country which engages with Europe and the rest of the world. I am incredibly proud to be the son of immigrant parents. I am incredibly proud of the multi-ethnic diverse Britain which won us the Olympic bid. The Olympics saw that kind of country here in Britain. But to make that Britain work. To make that vision work for our country, immigration must work for all and not just some. And friends, too often in the past we have overlooked those concerns, dismissed them too easily.
Here is how my approach is going to be different both from the last Labour government and this Conservative government. You see we need secure management of out borders, we need competent management of the system. But here is the big change, it is about the way our economy works. You see, immigration has really significant economic benefits but not when it is used to undercut workers already here and exploit people coming here.
The last Labour government didn’t do enough to address these concerns and the Tories never will. So the next Labour government will crack down on employers who don’t pay the minimum wage. We will stop recruitment agencies just saying they are only going to hire people from overseas. And we will end the shady practices, in the construction industry and elsewhere, of gang-masters. So we need a system of immigration that works for the whole country and not just for some.
You know there is no more important area of our common life than the United Kingdom itself. Now one of the four countries, Scotland, will be deciding in the next two years whether to stay or to go. I want to be quite clear about this, Scotland could leave the United Kingdom. But I believe we would be far worse off as a result. Not just in pounds and pence but in the soul of our nation. You see I don’t believe that solidarity stops at the border. I care as much about a young person unemployed in Motherwell as I do about a young person unemployed here in Manchester. We have common bonds, we have deep bonds with each other. The people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. And by the way, if you think about the people of Scotland and the Olympic games, they weren’t cheering on just the Scottish athletes of Team GB, they were cheering on all the athletes of Team GB. That’s what the SNP don’t understand. And why would a party that claims to be left o f centre turn its back on the redistribution, the solidarity, the common bonds of the United Kingdom? Friends it is up to us. It is up to us, we the Labour Party must be the people who fight, defend and win the battle for the United Kingdom.
And after the United Kingdom itself there is no more important area of our common life than the NHS.
The magic of the NHS for me is that you don’t leave your credit card at the door. The NHS, it’s based on a whole different set of values, a whole different set of values that the people of Britain love. Not values of markets, money and exchange but values of compassion, care and co-operation. That is the magic of the NHS; that is why the British people love the NHS and I’m afraid the Tories have shown in government it’s something they just don’t understand.
Remember before the last election, remember those airbrushed posters? ‘I’ll protect the NHS’ with that picture of David Cameron. Remember those speeches? The three most important letters to me, he said, were N-H-S. It was a solemn contract with the British people. And then what did he do? He came along after the election and proposed a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for, that nobody knew about and nobody wanted. And here’s the worst part. When it became unpopular he paused. Remember the pause? He said he wanted to listen, and what happened? The GPs said no. The nurses said no. The paediatricians said no. The radiologists said no. The patients said no. And the British people said no. And what did he do? He ploughed on regardless. He broke his solemn contract with the British people, a contract that can never be repaired.
Let me tell what I hate about this reorganisation; let me tell you what I hate. I hate the waste, I hate the waste of billions of pounds at a time the NHS has its worst settlement, its most difficult settlement for a generation. I hate the fact that there are 5,500 fewer nurses than when David Cameron came to power. Think of what he could have done if he hadn’t spent billions of pounds on that top-down reorganisation and had used the money to employ nurses, rather than sacking them. But here’s what I hate most of all. It’s that the whole way they designed this NHS reorganisation was based on the model of competition that there was in the privatised utility industry, gas, energy and water. What does that tell you about these Tories? What does that tell you about the way they don’t understand the values of the NHS? The NHS isn’t like the gas, electricity and water industries. The NHS is the pride of Britain. The NHS is based on a whole different set of values for our country. Friends, it just shows that the old adage is truer now than it ever was: You just can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.
So let me be clear, let me be clear, the next Labour government will end the free market experiment, it will put the right principles back at the heart of the NHS and it will repeal the NHS Bill.
So friends, this is where I stand. This is who I am. This is what I believe. This is my faith.
You know, I was talking to my mum this morning, as you do before a big speech, and she reminded me her mother was born in a small Polish village in 1909. I went back to that village with my mum about a decade ago. About 2,000 people live there and it’s quite an event having people from England coming over. It feels a long way from that village, and what my parents experienced, to this stage today. You see Britain has given my family everything. Britain has given my family everything. Britain and the spirit, the determination, the courage of the people who rebuilt Britain after the Second World War. And now the question is asked again: who in this generation will rebuild Britain for the future? Who can come up to the task of rebuilding Britain? Friends, it falls to us, it falls to us, the Labour Party. As it has fallen to previous generations of Labour Party pioneers to leave our country a better place than we found it. Never to shrug our shoulders at injustice and say that is the way the world is. To come together, to join together, to work together as a country.
It’s not some impossible dream. We’ve heard it, we’ve seen it, we’ve felt it. That is my faith.
One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.
Annual Labour Conference 2012 : Full text of the Labour Leader's Speech by Ed Miliband MP (2 October)
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said the following in his speech to Labour Party conference in Manchester on 2 October 2012:
It is great to be in Labour Manchester. And you know Manchester has special memories for me because two years ago I was elected the leader of this party. I’m older. I feel a lot older actually. I hope I’m a bit wiser. But I am prouder than ever to be the Leader of the Labour Party.
You may have noticed that doing this job you get called some names, some of the nice, some of them not so nice. Let me tell you my favourite; it was when Mitt Romney came to Britain and called me ‘Mr Leader.’ I don’t know about you but I think it has a certain ring to it myself, it’s sort of half-way to North Korea. Mitt, thanks a lot for that.
Let me tell you a bit of insight in to Conference. I always look forward to Conference. But the Leader’s Speech, as previous leaders will attest, can be a bit of a trial. You get all kinds of advice from people. Say this, don’t say that. Smile here, don’t smile there. Stand there, don’t stand there. Thanks Tony, Gordon and Neil for that. But sometimes you get a bit fed up with it as the Leader. And so the other day, and this is an absolutely true story, I decided that to get away from it all, the speechwriting, all of that, I’d go for a walk with my three year old son, Daniel. It was an absolutely gorgeous late summer day. So we went out, I wanted to go to the park. Here’s the first thing he said to me: “Daddy, I can help you with your speech.” I was like not you as well! He is a Miliband after all. And he said to me: “Daddy, you can’t do it on your own.” This is absolutely true, and I said “well that’s a good Labour insight, you can’t do it all your own. Daniel what do you want in my speech?” He said “I want dinosaurs! I want dinosaurs, I want flying dinosaurs! I want dinosaurs that eat people daddy!” I said, “No Daniel. We tried predators last year.”
OK, look only one problem, where’s my speech? I want to do something different today. I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you who I am. What I believe. And why I have a deep conviction that together we can change this country. My conviction is rooted in my family’s story, a story that starts 1,000 miles from here, because the Miliband’s haven’t sat under the same oak tree for the last five hundred years.
Both of my parents’ came to Britain as immigrants, Jewish refugees from the Nazis. I know I would not be standing on this stage today without the compassion and tolerance of our great country. Great Britain.
And you know my parents saw Britain rebuilt after the Second World War. I was born in my local NHS hospital, the same hospital my two sons would later be born in. As you saw in the film I went to my local school. I went to my local comprehensive with people from all backgrounds. I still remember the amazing and inspiring teaching I got at that school, and one of my teachers, my English teacher, Chris Dunne, is here with us today. Thank you Chris and to all the teachers at Haverstock.
It was a really tough school, but order was kept by one of the scariest headmistress you could possibly imagine, Mrs Jenkins. And you know what? I learned at my school about a lot more than how to pass exams. I learned how to get on with people from all backgrounds, whoever they were.
I wouldn’t be standing on this stage today without my comprehensive school education.
So, Britain gave me, gave my family, a great gift that my parents never had. A safe and secure childhood. And you know my parents didn’t talk much about their early lives, it was too painful, it hurt too much. The pain of those they lost. The guilt of survivors. But I believe that their experience meant they brought up both David and myself differently as a result. Because having struggled for life itself, they instilled in us a sense of duty to ease the struggles of others. And this came not just from my parents’ wartime experience it came from the daily fabric of our childhood. You know there were toys and games, rows about homework. I was actually a Dallas fan, believe it or not, which didn’t go down well with my dad as you can imagine.
So of course there were the normal things, but every upbringing is special, and mine was special because of the place of politics within it. When I was twelve years old, I met a South African friend of my parents, her name was Ruth First. The image I remember is of somebody vivacious, full of life, full of laughter. And then I remember a few months later coming down to breakfast and seeing my mum in tears because Ruth First had been murdered by a letter bomb from the South African secret police. Murdered for being part of the anti-apartheid movement. Now I didn’t understand the ins and outs of it, but I was shocked. I was angry I knew that wasn’t the way the world was meant to be. I knew I had a duty to do something about it. It is this upbringing that has made me who I am. A person of faith, not a religious faith but a faith nonetheless. A faith, I believe, many religious people would recognise. So here is my faith. I believe we have a duty to leave the world a better pl ace than we found it. I believe we cannot shrug our shoulders at injustice, and just say that’s the way the world is. And I believe that we can overcome any odds if we come together as people.
That’s how my Mum survived the war. The kindness of strangers. Nuns in a convent who took her in and sheltered her from the Nazis, took in a Jewish girl at risk to themselves. It’s what my dad found when he came to these shores and joined the Royal Navy and was part of Britain winning the war.
Now of course my parents didn’t tell me what career to go into. My late father, as some of you know, wouldn’t agree with many of the things I stand for. He would’ve loved the idea of “Red Ed.” But he would have been a little bit disappointed that it isn’t true. My mum probably doesn’t agree with me either, but like most mums is too kind to say so. And look when I was younger I wasn’t certain I wanted to be a politician. But I do believe the best way me for to give back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through politics. Now that is not a fashionable view today. Because millions of people have given up on politics, they think we’re all the same. Well I guess you could say I am out to prove them wrong.
That is who I am. That is what I believe. That is my faith.
And I know who I need to serve in Britain with my faith. It’s the people I’ve met on my journey as Leader of the Opposition. The people who come up to me on trains, in the street, in shops who ask me about what the Labour Party is going to do for them and tell me the stories of their lives. It’s for them, the people I have met on my journey as Leader of the Opposition that today’s speech is for. You know I think of the young woman I met at a youth centre in London earlier this year. She was brimming with hopes and ambitions for the future. She was full of life. She was full of desire to get on and do the best for herself. And then she told me her story. She’d sent off her CV to 137 employers and she’d not had a reply from any of them. Many of you in this audience will know people in the same position. Just think how that crushes the hopes of a generation. I want to talk to her, to a whole generation of young people who feel that Britain under this Government is no t offering them a future.
I think back to the small businessman I met in July. A proud man called Alan Henderson, a small businessman. Let me tell you Alan Henderson’s story: He’d spent 40 years building up his sign making business, 40 years. He told me his story, he went to see his bank manager in 1972 at his local high street bank, he got a loan and he started his business. But something terrible happened to Alan Henderson and his family a few years back. He was ripped off by the bank he had been with all that time and Alan Henderson and his family have been living through a nightmare ever since. I want to talk to him, and all the people of Britain who feel they’re at the mercy of forces beyond their control.
I want to talk to all of the people of this country who always thought of themselves as comfortably off, but who now find themselves struggling to make ends meet. They ask: Why is it that when oil prices go up, the petrol price goes up. But when the oil price comes down, the petrol price just stays the same? They ask: Why is it that the gas and electricity bills just go up and up and up? And they ask: Why is it that the privatised train companies can make hundreds of millions of pounds in profit at the same time as train fares are going up by 10% a year? They think the system just doesn’t work for them. And you know what? They’re right. It doesn’t. It doesn’t work for them but for the cosy cartels and powerful interests that government hasn’t cut down to size. I want to talk to them and all the millions of people across our country who don’t think they get a fair crack of the whip.
And I want to say to them, yes our problems are deep. But they can be overcome. Deep problems about who Britain is run for and who prospers within it. One rule for those at the top, another rule for everybody else. Two nations, not one. I want to say to them today it’s not the Britain you believe in. It’s not the Britain I believe in. It’s not the Britain this party will ever be satisfied with. So friends we’re going to change it. And here’s how.
My faith that we can, starts with the inner strength of us as a country. You see the problem isn’t the British people, just think about the Olympics and Paralympic games. It was a triumph for Britain. And why did we succeed? We succeeded because of our outstanding athletes from, Zara Phillips the grand-daughter of a parachuting Queen, to a boy born in Somalia, called Mo Farah. Mo Farah. A true Brit. And a true hero for our country.
We succeeded because of the outstanding volunteers, the Games Makers who are here with us today, all 70,000 Games makers. They put a mirror up to Britain and showed us the best of ourselves. We succeeded because of our outstanding troops, our outstanding troops, many of whom were drafted in at the last minute. And let us today pay tribute to their bravery, their courage, their sacrifice in Afghanistan and all round the world. And let’s say to them, and let’s say to them, just as you do our duty by us in the most courageous way possible so we will always do our duty by you, both in military and in civilian life.
We succeeded because of our outstanding police and let us in this city of Manchester show our appreciation for what the extraordinary police men and women of our country do for our country.
And we succeeded and this is a real lesson, we succeeded because of a group of individuals, a group of individuals who saw the odds against London’s bid and thought, never mind the odds, we are going to fight for the bid for London, we are going to win the bid for London, from Seb Coe to our very own Dame Tessa Jowell.
And you know what friends, we succeeded, because of one reason more than any other, we succeeded because of us. We succeeded because of us, us the British people, us the British people who welcomed the athletes from abroad, who cheered them on. Who found ourselves talking to each other each morning about what had happened at the Olympics the night before, in a way that we hadn’t talked to each other before. We succeeded because we came together as a country we worked together as a country. We joined together as a country. That’s why we achieved more than we imagined possible.
You know, I’ll just tell you this. I can’t remember a time like it in the whole history of my lifetime. I can’t remember a time like it, that sense of a country united, that sense of a country that felt it was together. That is the spirit this Labour Party believes in.
But I may not remember that spirit, but that spirit has echoed through British history. You know one hundred and forty years ago, one hundred and forty years ago to the year. Another Leader of the Opposition gave a speech. It was in the Free Trade Hall that used to stand opposite this building. It’s the Radisson now by the way. His name was Benjamin Disraeli. He was a Tory. But don’t let that but you off, just for a minute. His speech took over three hours to deliver, don’t’ worry, don’t worry, and he drank two whole bottles of brandy while delivering it. That is absolutely true. Now look, I just want to say, I know a speech that long would probably kill you. And the brandy would definitely kill me. But let us remember what Disraeli was celebrated for.
It was a vision of Britain. A vision of a Britain where patriotism, loyalty, dedication to the common cause courses through the veins of all and nobody feels left out. It was a vision of Britain coming together to overcome the challenges we faced. Disraeli called it “One Nation”. “One Nation”. We heard the phrase again as the country came together to defeat fascism. And we heard it again as Clement Attlee’s Labour government rebuilt Britain after the war.
Friends, I didn’t become leader of the Labour Party to reinvent the world of Disraeli or Attlee. But I do believe in that spirit. That spirit of One Nation. One Nation: a country where everyone has a stake. One Nation: a country where prosperity is fairly shared. One Nation: where we have a shared destiny, a sense of shared endeavour and a common life that we lead together. That is my vision of One Nation. That is my vision of Britain. That is the Britain we must become.
And here is the genius of One Nation. It doesn’t just tell us the country we can be. It tells us how we must rebuild. We won the war because we were One Nation. We built the peace because Labour government’s and Conservative, governments understood we needed to be One Nation. Every time Britain has faced its gravest challenge, we have only come through the storm because we were One Nation. But too often governments have forgotten that lesson.
With one million young people out of work, we just can’t succeed as a country. With the gap between rich and poor growing wider and wider, we just can’t succeed as a country. With millions of people feeling that hard work and effort are not rewarded, we just can’t succeed as a country. And with so many people having been told for so long that the only way to get on is to be on your own, in it for yourself, we just can’t succeed as a country. Yes friends, to come through the storm, to overcome the challenges we face, we must rediscover that spirit. That spirit the British people never forgot. That spirit of One Nation. One Nation. A country where everyone plays their part. A country we rebuild together.
So here is the big question of today. Who can make us One Nation? Who can bring Britain together? What about the Tories? What about the Tories? I didn’t hear you, what about the Tories?
Let me explain why, let me explain why. I want to talk very directly to those who voted for David Cameron at the last general election. I understand why you voted for him. I understand why you turned away from the last Labour government. This Government took power in difficult economic times. It was a country still coming to terms with the financial crisis. A financial crisis that has afflicted every country round the world. I understand why you were willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt.
But I think we’ve had long enough to make a judgement. Long enough to make a judgement because they turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession since the war. Because there are more people looking for work for longer than at any time since the last time there was a Conservative government.
And here is the other thing, what about borrowing? Borrowing. The thing they said was their number one priority. This year borrowing is rising not falling. Let me just say that again. Borrowing the thing they said was the most important priority, the reason they were elected. It is rising not falling.
Not because there hasn’t been pain and tax rises and cuts affecting every family in this country. Not because they didn’t want to cut it borrowing. They did. Not because your services aren’t getting worse. They are. But because if you stop an economy growing, then it leaves more people out of work claiming benefits, not paying taxes. Businesses struggle so they’re not paying taxes. And as a result borrowing goes up. Borrowing not to invest in schools, in hospitals, transport and education. But borrowing to keep people idle. So the next time you hear a Conservative say to you Labour would increase borrowing, just remember it is this government that is increasing borrowing this year.
So what have we seen? We’ve seen recession, higher unemployment, higher borrowing. I don’t think that’s what people were promised. Now look there will be some people who say, and this is an important argument, they’ll be some people who say: ‘Well there is short-term pain but it is worth it for the long-term gain.’ But I’m afraid the opposite is true.
You see that the longer you have low growth in our country the bigger the debt hole becomes for the future and the bigger our problems will be in the future. The longer a young person is out of work that is not just bad for their prospects now; it is bad for their prospects for the whole of the rest of their lives. And if a small business goes under during the recession, it can’t just get back up and running again during the recovery.
So when David Cameron says to you: ‘Well let’s just carry on as we are and wait for something to turn up.’ Don’t believe him. Don’t believe him. If the medicine’s not working you change the medicine. And friends, I’ll tell you what else you change. You change the doctor too. And that is what this country needs to do.
Now look around you, you know the problem is the British people are paying the price of this government’s failure. You’re going to the petrol station and not filling up your tank because you can’t afford it. Your tax credits are being cut because the Government says it can’t afford it. Your frail mum and dad are not getting the care they need because the Government says it can’t afford it.
But there are some things this Government can afford. The wrong things. What do they think at this most difficult economic time is going to get us out of our difficulties? What do they choose as their priority? A tax cut for millionaires. A tax cut for millionaires. Next April, David Cameron will be writing a cheque for £40,000 to each and every millionaire in Britain. Not just for one year. But each and every year. That is more than the average person earns in a whole year. At the same time as they’re imposing a tax on pensioners next April. Friends, we, the Labour Party, the country knows it is wrong. It is wrong what they’re doing. It shows their priorities.
And here’s the worse part. David Cameron isn’t just writing the cheques. He is receiving one. He’s going to be getting the millionaire’s tax cut. So next week maybe Mr Cameron can tell us how much is he awarding himself in a tax cut? How much is that tax cut he is awarding himself? For a job I guess he thinks is a job well done. How many of his other Cabinet colleagues have cheques in the post from the millionaire’s tax cut? And how can he justify this unfairness in Britain 2012.
And of course let’s not forget this tax cut wouldn’t be happening without Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Isn’t it shameful that the party that supported, that implemented the People’s Budget of 1909, Lloyd George’s budget, is supporting the millionaire’s budget of 2012.
So that’s the reality in Britain today. It is a rebate for the top. It’s rip-off for everybody else. It’s a recovery for the top. It’s a recession for everybody else. This Prime Minister said: ‘We are all in it together.’ Don’t let him ever tell us again we are all in this together.
And friends I say this. You can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if you raise taxes on ordinary families and cut taxes for millionaires. You can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if all you do is seek to divide the country. Divide the country between north and south. Public and private. Those who can work and those who can’t work. And you can’t be a One Nation Prime Minister if your Chief Whip insults the great police officers of our country by calling them plebs.
But there is one thing that this Government might have claimed to be good at, and that is competence. Because after all, they think they’re born to rule. So maybe they’d be good at it. Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out of touch, u-turning, pledge-breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower than this Prime Minister and this Government?
There’s more there’s more, not quite Disraeli but there is more. What have we had. We’ve had the caravan tax, we’ve had the churches tax, we’ve had the pasty tax, we’ve had the granny tax, we’ve had panic at the pumps, we’ve had dinners for donors, we’ve had country supers with Rebekah Brooks. He even rode the horse. He sent the texts, he sent the texts. Remember LOL.
And now what do we have. We have the Minister for Murdoch becoming the Minister for the National Health Service. We have an International Development Secretary; she says she doesn’t believe in international development. And get this, we’ve got a Party Chairman who writes books about how to beat the recession, under a false name. Really, I’m not making this up; I’m really not making this up. I mean I have to say if I was Chairman of the Conservative Party, I’d have a false name too.
But here is my favourite one of all. There’s one more, here’s my favourite one of all. There is even a bloke, and I think they call him Lord Hill who went to see the Prime Minister. He made an appointment during the last reshuffle in order to resign. But David Cameron was too incompetent to notice that he wanted to resign. So Lord Hill is still in the Government. This lot are so useless they can’t even resign properly.
So they’re not going to build One Nation, so it is up to us.
And let me say to you, One Nation is not a way of avoiding the difficult decisions, it is a way of making the difficult decisions. And I’ve just got to be very clear about this and about what we face as the next Labour government. You see I think it is incredibly important that to be One Nation we must show compassion and support for all those who cannot work. Particularly the disabled men and women of our country. But in order to do so, those who can work have a responsibility to do so. We can’t leave people languishing out of work, for one year, two years, three years. We’ve got a responsibility to help them and they’ve got a responsibility to take the work that is on offer.
To be One Nation, we have got to give much greater dignity to our elderly population because you know, we’re going to have to tackle the care crisis that faces so many families up and down this country. And look, living longer should be one of the great virtues of the 21st century. But friends, in order to be able to afford to do that, we are going to have to work longer; have a later retirement age than we do now.
To be One Nation, we have got to live within our means. And because borrowing is getting worse not better, it means there will be many cuts that this Government made that we won’t be able to reverse even though we would like to. And that’s why we’ve said in this Parliament that we’d put jobs before pay in the public sector. And in the next Parliament we will have tough settlements for the public services and that will make life harder for those who use them and harder for those who work in them.
But here is the big difference between a One Nation government led by me, and this Government. Those with the broadest shoulders will always bear the greatest burden. I would never cut taxes for millionaires and raise them on ordinary families. That is wrong, that is not being One Nation. And here is the other thing, I will never accept an economy where the gap between rich and poor just grows wider and wider. In One Nation, in my faith, inequality matters. It matters to our country.
Now what does it mean to the Labour Party to be One Nation? It means we can’t go back to Old Labour. We must be the party of the private sector just as much as the party of the public sector. As much the party of the small business struggling against the odds, as the home help struggling against the cuts. We must be the party of south just as much as the party of the north. And we must be the party as much of the squeezed middle as those in poverty. There is no future for this party as the party of one sectional interest of our country.
But so too it is right to move on from New Labour because New Labour, despite its great achievements, was too silent about the responsibilities of those at the top, and too timid about the accountability of those with power. In One Nation responsibility goes all the way to the top of society. The richest in society have the biggest responsibility to show responsibility to the rest of our country. And I’ve got news for the powerful interests in our country, in One Nation no interest, from Rupert Murdoch to the banks, is too powerful to be held to account.
So we must be a One Nation party to become a One Nation government, to build a One Nation Britain. And here’s how we are going to take these steps to do that.
We need a One Nation economy and the first big mission of the next Labour government is to sort out our banks. Sort them out once and for all. Not just to prevent another crisis but to do what hasn’t been done in decades. Necessary to enable us to pay our way in the world. We need banks that serve the country not a country that serves its banks.
Think about Alan Henderson, the small businessman I talked about earlier on. He wanted to be able to go into his bank, look his high street manager in the eye and know that he was working for him. Instead he found a bank more interested in playing the international money markets. That’s why he was ripped off.
Of course, this government promised change, but things aren’t really changing. So I have got a message for the banks, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Either you fix it yourselves between now and the election or the next Labour government will once and for all ensure that the high street bank is no longer the arm of a casino operation and we will break you up by law.
Now look friends, there will be some people who say this is all too radical, let’s just carry in as we are. I say we can’t carry on as we are. We can’t carry on as we are, two nations not one. The banks and the rest of Britain. We must have a One Nation banking system as part of a One Nation economy.
Next, we need an education system that works for all young people. You see, to be a One Nation economy you have got to use all the talents of all of our young people. It’s not just that it’s socially right, it is absolutely essential for our economy for the future.
I remember when Chris and I were at Haverstock. I remember at Haverstock school, my comprehensive, the kids who were good at passing exams, who were academic, they could go to university and the world would just open up for them like it did for me. But think about all those kids who had talent and ability, great talent and ability. School just didn’t offer them enough. It was true twenty five years ago, and it is even more true today.
Just think in your minds eye about the 14 year old today. Today is a school day. Think about that 14 year old, not academic, already bored at school, maybe already starting that process of truanting, of not going to school. Now of course they need to get back to school and their parents need to get them back to school. They can’t afford to drift through life with no qualifications and Britain can’t afford for them to do it either. But we can’t just say to that 14 year old just put in the work, because we have been failing them too. You see for a long time our party has been focused on getting 50% of young people into university. I believe that was right. But now it’s time to put our focus on the forgotten 50% who do not go to university.
Here’s the choice that I want to offer to that 14 year old who is not academic. English and maths to 18 because rigour in the curriculum matters. But courses that engage them and are relevant to them. Work experience with employers. And then culminating at the age of 18 with a new gold standard qualification so they know when they are taking that exam they have a gold standard vocational qualification, a new Technical Baccalaureate. A qualification to be proud of. You know, we’ve got to change the culture of this country friends. We can’t be a country where vocational qualifications are seen as second class.
They are a real route to apprenticeships and jobs. They can be as valuable to our young people as a university degree. We need to make it so.
So we’ve got to change the culture in this country and there needs to be that real route to apprenticeships but let me tell you though, there is another problem. Only one in three large employers in Britain actually offers apprenticeships. And if anything, in the public sector the situation is far far worse. That is about a culture of a country. That’s about a culture of a country which hasn’t been dealt with for decades. It is the task of the next Labour government to do that. So the public sector is going to have to step up to the plate and understand we can’t be two nations. We can’t be two nations. And when the public sector offers contracts to the private sector the next Labour government will ensure that every private sector contract will only be awarded to a large company that trains the next generation with apprenticeships. Because when the public sector is having a contract with a private sector company, it is not just buying goods and services, it must be about building One Nation together. Public and private sectors joining together to do it.
And we need a new deal with British business. You get the money, you get control of the money for training, as you have long asked for, you set the standards, as you have long asked for. But you have a responsibility to make sure the training happens. In One Nation there is no place for free riding. Free riding where firms that don’t train poach workers from firms that do.
Now think about this vision of education. Education to the age of 18 with proper vocational qualifications, and then think about the vision on offer from the Conservatives. Michael Gove. Michael Gove, who wanted to bring back two-tier academic exams. I remember what that was like. O-levels and CSEs one whole group of young people written off. We are not going back to those days. Michael Gove who has contempt for vocational qualifications and has abolished some of the best vocational qualifications our country has. And Michael Gove who has nothing to say about education to 18.
So in education there really is a choice of two futures. Education for a narrower and narrower elite, with the Conservatives. Or a One Nation skills system as part of a One Nation economy with the next Labour government.
To be a One Nation economy we have to make life just that bit easier for the producers, and that bit harder for the predators. “Predators and producers”, I think one year on people know what I was talking about. You see businesses tell me that the pressure for the fast buck from City investors means they just can’t take the long view. They want to plan one year, two years, ten years ahead but they have to publish their accounts in Britain every 3 months. In line with the wishes of the best of British business, we will end that rule so companies in Britain can take the long term productive view for our country.
Companies in Britain are far more easily bought and sold than in many other countries. Do you know that when a takeover is launched the hedge funds and the speculators can swoop in for a quick profit. They are not acting in the interests of firms or the nation. They are just in it for the fast buck. It is wrong and we will change it.
And here is the thing, ladies and gentlemen, I invite British businesses – work with us in advance of the next Labour government. Let’s refound the rules of the game so we have a One Nation business model as part of a One Nation economy for our country.
So friends, in banks, in education in the rules of the game for companies –One Nation gives us an urgent call of change. But One Nation is not just about the things we need to change, it is about the things we need to conserve as well. Saying that doesn’t make me a Conservative. Our common way of life matters.
My vision of One Nation is an outward looking country. A country which engages with Europe and the rest of the world. I am incredibly proud to be the son of immigrant parents. I am incredibly proud of the multi-ethnic diverse Britain which won us the Olympic bid. The Olympics saw that kind of country here in Britain. But to make that Britain work. To make that vision work for our country, immigration must work for all and not just some. And friends, too often in the past we have overlooked those concerns, dismissed them too easily.
Here is how my approach is going to be different both from the last Labour government and this Conservative government. You see we need secure management of out borders, we need competent management of the system. But here is the big change, it is about the way our economy works. You see, immigration has really significant economic benefits but not when it is used to undercut workers already here and exploit people coming here.
The last Labour government didn’t do enough to address these concerns and the Tories never will. So the next Labour government will crack down on employers who don’t pay the minimum wage. We will stop recruitment agencies just saying they are only going to hire people from overseas. And we will end the shady practices, in the construction industry and elsewhere, of gang-masters. So we need a system of immigration that works for the whole country and not just for some.
You know there is no more important area of our common life than the United Kingdom itself. Now one of the four countries, Scotland, will be deciding in the next two years whether to stay or to go. I want to be quite clear about this, Scotland could leave the United Kingdom. But I believe we would be far worse off as a result. Not just in pounds and pence but in the soul of our nation. You see I don’t believe that solidarity stops at the border. I care as much about a young person unemployed in Motherwell as I do about a young person unemployed here in Manchester. We have common bonds, we have deep bonds with each other. The people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. And by the way, if you think about the people of Scotland and the Olympic games, they weren’t cheering on just the Scottish athletes of Team GB, they were cheering on all the athletes of Team GB. That’s what the SNP don’t understand. And why would a party that claims to be left o f centre turn its back on the redistribution, the solidarity, the common bonds of the United Kingdom? Friends it is up to us. It is up to us, we the Labour Party must be the people who fight, defend and win the battle for the United Kingdom.
And after the United Kingdom itself there is no more important area of our common life than the NHS.
The magic of the NHS for me is that you don’t leave your credit card at the door. The NHS, it’s based on a whole different set of values, a whole different set of values that the people of Britain love. Not values of markets, money and exchange but values of compassion, care and co-operation. That is the magic of the NHS; that is why the British people love the NHS and I’m afraid the Tories have shown in government it’s something they just don’t understand.
Remember before the last election, remember those airbrushed posters? ‘I’ll protect the NHS’ with that picture of David Cameron. Remember those speeches? The three most important letters to me, he said, were N-H-S. It was a solemn contract with the British people. And then what did he do? He came along after the election and proposed a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for, that nobody knew about and nobody wanted. And here’s the worst part. When it became unpopular he paused. Remember the pause? He said he wanted to listen, and what happened? The GPs said no. The nurses said no. The paediatricians said no. The radiologists said no. The patients said no. And the British people said no. And what did he do? He ploughed on regardless. He broke his solemn contract with the British people, a contract that can never be repaired.
Let me tell what I hate about this reorganisation; let me tell you what I hate. I hate the waste, I hate the waste of billions of pounds at a time the NHS has its worst settlement, its most difficult settlement for a generation. I hate the fact that there are 5,500 fewer nurses than when David Cameron came to power. Think of what he could have done if he hadn’t spent billions of pounds on that top-down reorganisation and had used the money to employ nurses, rather than sacking them. But here’s what I hate most of all. It’s that the whole way they designed this NHS reorganisation was based on the model of competition that there was in the privatised utility industry, gas, energy and water. What does that tell you about these Tories? What does that tell you about the way they don’t understand the values of the NHS? The NHS isn’t like the gas, electricity and water industries. The NHS is the pride of Britain. The NHS is based on a whole different set of values for our country. Friends, it just shows that the old adage is truer now than it ever was: You just can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.
So let me be clear, let me be clear, the next Labour government will end the free market experiment, it will put the right principles back at the heart of the NHS and it will repeal the NHS Bill.
So friends, this is where I stand. This is who I am. This is what I believe. This is my faith.
You know, I was talking to my mum this morning, as you do before a big speech, and she reminded me her mother was born in a small Polish village in 1909. I went back to that village with my mum about a decade ago. About 2,000 people live there and it’s quite an event having people from England coming over. It feels a long way from that village, and what my parents experienced, to this stage today. You see Britain has given my family everything. Britain has given my family everything. Britain and the spirit, the determination, the courage of the people who rebuilt Britain after the Second World War. And now the question is asked again: who in this generation will rebuild Britain for the future? Who can come up to the task of rebuilding Britain? Friends, it falls to us, it falls to us, the Labour Party. As it has fallen to previous generations of Labour Party pioneers to leave our country a better place than we found it. Never to shrug our shoulders at injustice and say that is the way the world is. To come together, to join together, to work together as a country.
It’s not some impossible dream. We’ve heard it, we’ve seen it, we’ve felt it. That is my faith.
One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.
For me, Ed Miliband's "A Better Future" party political broadcast mirrors his last ever hustings at Haverstock Hill
I remember Ed’s last ever hustings on September 5 2010 at Haverstock Hill, for his precise words that politics is not about being a technocrat or being a good manager. I think yesterday’s Conference speech at Manchester in 2012 proves that Ed can surprisingly confound his critics, but that he is genuine leader-material. Ed is concerned about doing the right things, not doing thing rights – Labour lost 5 million voters prior to 2015, and got 29% of the vote in 2010 (the worst performance for Labour since universal suffrage). I did actually vote for Ed, and Andy second. I had a nice chat with Andy on Monday at Manchester Town Hall after the Fabian Question Time Fringe, after Andy had answered my question (stating explicitly he would repeal the Health and Social Act 2012). I physically attended this meeting at Haverstock Hill Comprehensive School, and remember indeed speaking with Frank Dobson MP, Holborn and St Pancras.
Even Ed conceded in this talk that inequality was shocking under Labour’s tenure, and I remember mentioning the lack of coverage of this in Tony Blair’s autobiography in the photo session afterwards with Ed. Ed is incredibly charismatic in real life, and very interesting to talk to. He came across well in this hustings above, and in the conference speech yesterday. I fully support Ed’s ambition for vocational training, low pay, and inequality. Actually, if you listen carefully to this narrative Ed harshly criticises divides in UK, and even criticises the policy of tuition fees in 2010 (before they even went up). He even then goes to elaborate the markets in society, especially in higher education, and its limits in public services. This is of course a major strand in the political philosophy on “the public good” which Ed has shared with Prof Michael Sandel, lecturer of the seminal “Justice” course at Harvard. I genuinely think Ed has commenced a narrative about what sort of society we wish for, and here is the Labour’s Party Political Broadcast being shown tonight.