Home » Posts tagged 'speech'
Tag Archives: speech
Ed Miliband speech in Bedford on the economy: 10p tax rate and mansion tax (full text)
It is great to be here in Bedford.
In 1957, the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave a speech just across the river here, to celebrate Britain’s economic success.
New jobs, higher wages, greater opportunities for people to make something better for themselves and for their families.
It became known as the speech where he declared “you’ve never had it so good”.
Today in Bedford, in Britain as a whole, things are very different.
Small business-people are working harder than ever before.
People are working harder than ever before.
But for far too many, wages are falling and prices are rising. They’re getting worse off.
Far from feeling they have never had it so good, millions across Britain today fear they will never have it so good again. Life for them, and for their children.
The question that people ask me the most is “how do we turn this round?”
That’s why I have come to Bedford today.
Because I think it starts with a truth that we have forgotten as a country:
That economic recovery will be made by the many, not just by a few at the top.
Britain needs great, successful big business leaders.
It needs them to feel rewarded and supported.
But they know better than anyone that they can’t succeed alone.
It is only when working people have confidence and security.
When everyone’s sons and daughters have chances to work and learn new skills.
When enterprising small businesses can flourish and succeed.
And when together we build world-class services – from childcare for our kids to new roads and rail – that we will succeed again as a nation.
That’s not a Labour idea or a Conservative idea.
It is a British idea.
And it is what I want to talk to you about today.
Previous generations knew the truth: Our economic success depends on the success of all working people.
In the industrial revolution, it wasn’t just the mill owners and the factory bosses who drove our economy forward.
It was the people who went down the mines, spun the cotton, built the ships, and constructed the bridges.
Many of our world-leading engineers and inventors came from ordinary families, people like the great engineer, Thomas Telford, and the inventor of the railway, Robert Stephenson.
And in the 19th century, Britain improved housing, built proper sanitation, ensured good working conditions, not just because it was fair, but because it was essential for our economy to succeed.
Our country knew that economic success was made by the many, not just by a few at the top.
You know that here in Bedford better than anyone.
From the industrial revolution to well into the twentieth century, the Stewartby brick works, just down the road, gave jobs to thousands of people.
The bricks the people of Bedford made constructed the houses that they and so many others lived in.
And it was the good wages they earned that made it possible for them to afford those homes.
Economic success was built with the hands of working people.
But could only be sustained through the pockets of working people.
And Britain knew this lesson too after the Second World War.
We built great new public services to improve people’s lives.
But the NHS and free education didn’t just do that, they strengthened our economy as well.
I think of my dad, who came to Britain as an immigrant, was able to learn English at Technical College, went on to join the Royal Navy, and saw the new post-war economy built.
It was only possible, because Britain knew that only a healthy, better educated workforce could compete with the best in the world.
An economy made by the many not by the few.
And you know somewhere along the way we forgot that lesson as a country. We need to relearn that lesson.
People in Britain are putting in the hours – doing the shifts – as never before.
But something has changed in the last few years.
There’s less chance of promotion.
Less chance of a pay rise.
And prices just go up and up and up.
Petrol for the car. Tickets for the train.
Childcare for the kids. Deposits for a first home.
The “squeezed middle” has never been so squeezed.
And if we carry on as we are it will be like that for years to come.
It’s no wonder our economy isn’t growing when people can’t afford to buy the things that British businesses try to sell.
And then think too about the skills of working people that we need for our economy to succeed.
Young people here in this training centre are getting the help, but so many young people across Britain aren’t.
Every time a young person with ambition and talent can’t get on, it isn’t just bad for them. It is bad for our economy.
Some of you here today run small businesses.
Your businesses are vital to our economy.
But today, many small businesses across Britain just don’t have the orders to keep them growing, hiring and investing.
And all they hear from the banks are promises about how things will get better tomorrow.
But tomorrow never seems to come.
You know better than anyone that every time someone with a great idea for a business is knocked back, it isn’t just bad for them. Britain’s economy is weakened too.
So today, Britain’s economy is just not working for working people.
And that’s why it isn’t working for Britain. It’s no mystery as to why we’re in the trouble we’re in.
The squeeze on working people has deep roots.
Hard as it is to believe, over the last three decades or so, less than 15 pence of every additional pound Britain has made has gone to an entire half of the population
While 24 pence in every pound has gone to the top 1 per cent of earners.
The last Labour government took action to change this.
Labour helped families with the minimum wage and tax credits.
It made a difference.
But it wasn’t enough.
The problem now is that things are getting worse not better.
This Government promised change. But change isn’t coming.
They are cutting taxes for one group this year.
The very richest in society.
This April, people earning over a million pounds a year will get an average tax cut of £100,000.
Now, we need very successful entrepreneurs in Britain.
Making profits. Being rewarded.
But we can’t succeed as a country just by hoping wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everyone else.
Our economy won’t turn around that way.
That’s why it’s not right to be cutting taxes for the very richest when everyone else is just seeing their living standards squeezed.
You know, somebody said to me recently: this Government seems to be the first in our history to believe that you can base a whole economic strategy on the misery rather than the success of the working people of the country.
They cut the tax credits that make work pay for millions.
They take the side of the train companies, the energy companies and the petrol companies while we pay more for train tickets, energy bills and the fuel for the car.
David Cameron talks about a global race.
And it is essential that we can compete with China and India and others.
But I have to tell you, Britain won’t win a race to the bottom.
By competing in the world as a low skill, low wage economy.
You know this here, which is why you are working so hard, providing the training.
So all we are offered at the moment is the promise of wealth trickling down from the top, squeezing the middle further and a race to the bottom.
It doesn’t work.
And that’s been shown over the last two and half years.
We were promised that we could have growth and a lower deficit.
In fact, we’ve had almost no growth and the deficit is rising again. That’s because people aren’t in work paying taxes.
Too many are out of work and on benefits.
And, what’s worse, this approach can’t work.
Because we will only build prosperity, when everyone plays their part.
To do that we need a new One Nation strategy for the British economy.
The starting point is that the recovery will be made by the many not just by a few at the top.
We cannot go on with an approach that simply promises more of the same: year after year of squeezed living standards for the majority of working people.
It’s wrong for them and it’s wrong for our economy.
We have said we should start with a temporary cut in VAT as part of our 5-point plan, cancelling the millionaire’s tax cut, and not cutting tax credits this April.
The approach we need is not just different from this Government; it is also different from the last.
After the next election, there will be less money around.
We know that we will inherit a high deficit and we will face difficult choices.
But we have also learnt from this government that without a plan for growth, a plan to tackle the deficit will fail.
And it is different choices and new priorities that will turn our economy around.
That means starting by protecting the incomes of working people with new priorities in taxation.
The One Nation Labour government led by me will put a fairer tax system at the heart of its new priorities.
It is a crucial part of how we build an economy where everyone can play their part.
A One Nation Labour budget next month would lay the foundations for a recovery made by the many, not just a few at the top.
Let me tell you about one crucial choice we would make, which is different from this government.
We would tax houses worth over £2 million.
And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people.
We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government.
We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised.
This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers.
Moving Labour on from the past and putting Labour where it should always have been, on the side of working people.
Showing our priority to do everything we can to make a difference to people’s living standards.
Sending a message about how Britain is going to succeed in the years ahead:
That when you play your part, when you make your contribution to the economy, you will be rewarded.
And that Britain’s economic success will be built by the many, not just by a few at the top.
That is why Ed Balls and I want a 10 pence tax rate and a mansion tax in government.
We’ve rightly said that we will only set out our tax and spending commitments at the next general election.
That is the way a responsible opposition should conduct itself.
However this is a clear signal about the priority we attach to a fairer tax system and the living standards of working people.
We would also be making different choices between the most powerful in our society and ordinary working people.
Working people are paying more than they should, from energy to credit, and we would take action to
Break the stranglehold of the big six energy suppliers.
Stop the train company price rip-offs on the most popular routes.
Introduce new rules to stop unfair bank charges.
And cap interest on payday loans.
But this is only a beginning of a plan to build a One Nation economy.
The biggest changes Britain needs will come from economic reform. Let’s start with skills.
As you all know, Britain needs to have the best skilled workforce in the world if we are going to compete.
The industrial revolution was built on the skills of the best workers in the world.
In more recent decades, Britain’s Universities have given us some of the world’s greatest scientists and innovators.
Today, however, we still lag well behind our competitors in productivity. Not because we don’t work hard.
We do.
We work longer hours than many of our competitors.
It is because we’re not doing enough to get the best out of everyone, in particular the 50% of young people who don’t go to University.
That is where the next wave of productivity and growth must come from in an economy made by the many not just a few at the top.
We need a revolution in vocational education and apprenticeships.
Of course, I want young people from all backgrounds to aspire to go to University.
But I also want young people who are awarded an apprenticeship to know that Britain values you.
That means our country has to change.
We must end the culture which says University is always best and vocational education is second-best.
It simply isn’t true.
That’s why One Nation Labour will create a new technical baccalaureate, to complement A-levels.
So a 14-year old knows the qualifications they should be aiming for at 18.
It will give employers the control of the money for training for the first time so that young people are trained in the skills they need for the future.
And we will demand that Britain’s employers step up and offer real apprenticeships and training right across the country.
I know that so many great British companies want to play their part in leading this revolution: training our workforce and investing in our future.
But we can’t just provide people with the skills and then sit back and expect the right jobs to be there for them automatically.
We must also work together to ensure that better jobs are being created in our economy.
Today, we are increasingly two nations: with high skill, high paying jobs for those at the very top but low-skill, low paid, long hours jobs for too many people.
That’s because over the last three decades, we have seen fewer and fewer middle-income jobs in Britain.
That’s fewer jobs in skilled trades and more jobs paying less, with greater insecurity.
We must turn this round.
So a One Nation economy needs to support businesses that create sustainable, middle-income jobs.
That means a modern industrial policy that supports the sectors that will create those jobs of the future like the green industries that are so important for our country.
And an end to the short-termism which prevents many businesses investing.
Let me give you an example. We will stop takeovers that are waved through on the votes of speculators and hedge funds who flood in to buy shares once a takeover bid has been announced.
Because when that happens it can destroy great British companies and the good jobs that go with them.
One Nation Labour will also work with companies and workers to encourage a living wage across our country.
We also need to understand another big change in our economy.
That many new jobs in the future will come not from a small number of large businesses, but from a large number of small businesses.
So we need a new One Nation strategy for small business.
There are more than 3.5 million single person businesses in Britain right now.
People with new skills and new ideas starting out.
Trying to make a difference.
Like many of you here today.
These small businesses need a government that is on their side.
A government willing to take on the vested interests, wherever they find them, in the private or the public sector.
One Nation Labour will be that government.
That’s why it is One Nation Labour that is leading the way on banking reform.
Following Labour’s call last year for real separation between casino and high street banking, the Chancellor has moved.
But not far enough.
He still refuses to put in place a comprehensive power to split the banks by law.
We need that in legislation so if the banking system does not change its culture, we can break the banks up.
And new small businesses need something else too.
They need opportunities to work together.
So a One Nation Labour government would change the way Regional Growth funds work.
Because at the moment they all too often prioritise the interests of big businesses.
We’d make them work for small businesses across the country too.
So that we could find new ways for businesses to build shared facilities and develop deeper connections with each other.
Enabling them to start to overcome the challenges they face.
Finally, businesses and working people need a whole nation that supports them.
In the 19th century, people argued for clean air and sanitation. That allowed people to move to the cities for work and the great new industries to prosper.
In the course of the 20th century, the school leaving age went from 11 at the beginning of the century to 16 by the end. This enabled people to do the jobs they couldn’t have dreamed of before and allowed Britain to compete on the global stage.
Now in the 21st century, we must remember those lessons.
Today, too often, Britain just leaves people on their own.
That means too many parents can’t work, even though they want to work because they can’t get the childcare they need.
Too many people have to drop out of work when their parents become old or ill, because they can’t get the social care they need.
Too many young people just don’t have enough money for a deposit on a first home. That is bad for them and bad for our economy because they can’t move to the jobs they need.
And too many businesses find they can’t succeed because we haven’t built the roads, rail and infrastructure that we need.
They all know that we can’t solve these problems on our own.
None of us on our own are going to build the roads we need, the railways we need, the housing we need.
It is only by acting together.
And that is the idea at the heart of a One Nation economy: that our recovery will be built by the many – by all of us working together – and not just by a few at the top.
And that is what we will fight for between now and the General Election.
There is a big choice that will dominate that election.
It is a choice between two different visions of our economy.
The Conservative vision of a race to the bottom in wages and skills, rewarding those at the very top but leaving everyone else squeezed as never before.
Or the One Nation Labour vision.
Our economy will only prosper when the vast majority of the people of this country prosper too.
When working families have confidence and security; when they can invest in their future; and when they can start businesses of their own.
Britain is at a fork in the road. We can carry on as we are: falling wages, low growth, failure to tackle the deficit.
Or Britain can take the path I have outlined: a recovery made by the many, tackling low growth and reducing the deficit, building not squeezing the middle, all of us playing our part in turning this economy around.
One Nation.
Not just a better way to live, but the only way to prosper.
It is how Britain has flourished in the past.
It is what the Labour government understood in 1945.
It’s what Harold MacMillan understood when he spoke here in Bedford more than half a century ago.
We can rebuild this country.
We can offer people hope.
We can make an economy that works for working people.
It’s a goal worth fighting for.
It’s what One Nation Labour will do.
Ed Miliband uses his "Future That Works" speech to repeat his 'one nation' theme
Ed Miliband will give the following “Future That Works” speech to repeat his ‘one nation’ theme. The speech does not cover faults in the political process, which is an aim of Labour’s reformulation of policy, neatly epitomised by #plebgate and George Osborne’s train ticket fiasco yesterday. That is for another time perhaps. The speech however emphasises two particular strands of the ‘one nation’ theme, corresponding to the policy review underway by Jon Cruddas: the economy, and society.
Despite the BBC aiming for ‘balanced coverage’, which appears to give prominence to the austerity alliance and the views of the Taxpayers’ Alliance in showcasing their policy for low income tax, the case made for the economy is a good one. It is possible that more people are in employment, but the consensus is that this is supported by flexible, part-time work with little job security. The productivity of the UK has actually flatlined, and seasoned experts have now agreed that a financial stimulus should have started a few years ago. As it was there was no Keynesian stimulus, economy, and the main material fact is that the economy is now in recession, whereas it was recovering albeit in a fragile way in 2010. Borrowing is up, because growth in the overall economy is so poor; this is money which cannot be spent on supporting the disabled in their living, or the living wages of teaches or nurses. There is very weak evidence for ‘trickle down economics’ – there is virtually no evidence that individuals who are paid excessively are not passing this down to employees and workers. In fact, they have actually benefited from a lower rate of income tax (50p band), which Labour failed to implement throughout its last entire period of government. The second version of Beecroft, dubbed ‘shares-for-rights’, has been a direct attack on employment rights; if a new startup is failing, shares in it will be worthless, and one wonders what the limit might be for trading basic rights in the workplace? Could such a policy one day culminate in staff being offered money for basic health and safety rights in future? While the government is able engineer domestic law, watering down the rights of workers, they will not be able to get out of European law so easily.
Ed Miliband refers to cutting ‘too far too fast’, and this indeed is entirely consistent with his previous message. It is impossible for Miliband to specify what cuts will be necessary in 2015, given that the economy is in a much poorer state than the one inherited in 2010. Labour has previously stated that it would not have cut so many frontline staff in the police, for example, but it is frustrating for Labour that it is not able to give reassurances to those in the public sector. However, Miliband has thus far set out an argument that ‘vested interests’ will not have a dominant rôle in policy, and he has been at pains to establish that members of trade unions do not provide more than about 40% of overall Labour Party funding.
A society where no sector has extreme dominance is the second thrust of the reformulated Labour policy. However, Ed Miliband knows that it is going to be extremely hard for the society to be rebalanced without the economy being rebalanced, and it may be difficult to achieve all of Ed Miliband’s political aims through a single economic strategy. Such a strategy might be predistribution, but Ed Miliband will find it hard to introduce a fairer, redistributive tax system, without loud claims that he is ‘punishing’ wealth creators. It is, actually, however extremely unlikely that CEOs with very high incomes will simply leave and go abroad, as they have ongoing commitments here in London and the rest of the country (such as mortgages, free from ‘mansion tax’). Such CEOs are often placed by multi-national companies, and if a multi-national company wishes to maintain a presence in the UK, which still represents a formidable market (whether for Starbucks, Coca Cola or Vodafone), a multinational company will have no difficult in finding replacement for such CEOs who wish to emigrate.
The full text of this speech is as follows:
“People have come here from all walks of life, from all parts of our country.
Young people looking for work, construction workers, nurses worried about the NHS and off duty police officers worried about cuts to frontline services. People from every corner of Britain.
So many people have the will to work, the ambition to work, but cannot find a job. They do not think that Britain owes them a living. They are not asking for the earth. They just have a simple request. They want a future that works for them.
And what did the Government say? They told us austerity would help our economy grow. But our economy has not grown. It has flatlined.
They told us ‘we’re all in this together’. But now they are cutting taxes for millionaires, as they raise taxes on everybody else, including our pensioners.
They told us the gain would be worth the pain. But even after the cuts, the pain, the tax rises, borrowing is not falling – it’s rising. They are even failing the one test they set themselves.
And the reason they are failing is that they’ve got old answers. The old answers that just don’t work. They really believe that trickle-down economics and a sink or swim society is the way to get Britain working.
They really believe that everybody else has got too many rights at work and if we make it easier to fire them, our economy will succeed.
Of course, there will still be hard choices.
“With borrowing rising not falling today, I have said that whoever was in government now would have to make some cuts.
I do not promise easy times. But I do promise a different and fairer approach.
This Government has shown us self-defeating austerity, by cutting too far and too fast, is not the answer.
And let me tell you one cut I would never make: I would never cut taxes for millionaires while raising taxes for everybody else.
You don’t build a successful country with sink or swim.
You do it by building One Nation.
One Nation is a country where we give hope to our young people again.
One Nation is a country where those with the broadest shoulders always bear the greatest burden.
And One Nation is a country where we defend our great institutions, like our National Health Service.”
Transcript of President Obama's address to the U.S. nation (1/5US, 2/5UK)
11:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
It's hurting but it isn't working – Ed Miliband's brilliant response
Ed Miliband’s speech was brilliant with this incredible ad lib:
“George Osborne at the weekend aspired to be a mix of Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine, with typical Conservative hubris. He’s more like Norman Lamont with an iPod playing ‘Je Ne Regrette Rien'”.
Remember this?
Well, this is the text of today’s response by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing his UK budget for 2011.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor spoke for nearly an hour.
But one fact says it all.
Growth down last year, this year and next year.
It is the same old Tories.
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
What did he say last year about growth?
Judge me on the figures.
Well judge him we will.
Every time he comes to this House, growth is downgraded.
Last June, 2011 growth down from 2.6% to 2.3%.
In November, down again.
In January what did the Prime Minister say?
His three priorities for this year were growth, growth, growth.
And what happened?
Growth is down, down, down.
And taking account of all the measures.
What is the Chancellor’s singular achievement?
To deliver a budget for growth that downgrades the growth forecasts.
Down this year to 1.7%.
Downgraded next year too.
It didn’t happen by chance.
It happened by choice.
His choice.
And it’s the wrong choice.
To go too far and too fast.
There was another way.
In his own words from the June Budget – he chose to go £40bn further and faster in tax rises and spending cuts than our plan to halve the deficit over four years.
It’s the pace of cuts that has seen consumer confidence fall in almost every month since the General Election.
In his first Budget the Chancellor promised:
“steady and sustained economic recovery”.
And when last September’s growth figures came out, the Chancellor took the credit.
He called the figures “a vote of confidence” in the Government’s economic policy.
But when the economy contracted in the fourth quarter, what did he do?
He blamed the snow.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even he must appreciate the irony.
Because while the Prime Minister was grounded from his Christmas trip to Thailand, the Chancellor was on the piste in Klosters.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess it was the right type of snow for a skiing holiday.
Just the wrong kind of snow for our economy.
But what is it about the British snow?
They had worse snow in Germany…
…a big freeze in France…
… in the US – the worst blizzards for decades.
But despite all of that their economies grew in the fourth quarter.
And while our growth forecasts have worsened, theirs have improved.
The German economy is forecast to grow more strongly than it was last year.
So is the US.
Growth in the world economy has been revised up.
But which is the ma jor country downgrading its growth forecasts?
The United Kingdom.
It’s not the wrong type of snow that’s to blame, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It’s the wrong type of Chancellor,
…the wrong type of chancellor, in the wrong type of government
With the wrong priorities for Britain.
He also promised in June that his Budget would deliver “low inflation”
And what has happened?
Inflation has risen month after month after month.
It didn’t simply happen by accident.
It is happening because he took the wrong decision on VAT.
Same old taxes.
Same old Tories.
And he promised us falling unemployment too.
And what has happened since he gave his first Budget?
Over 60,000 more people looking for work.
And today we are told in the Red Book unemployment is forecast to rise further.
To this Tory Government, just like the ones of the past, unemployment is still a price worth paying.
And many people will wonder what world the Chancellor was describing today.
In the constituencies of over 130 Members of this House, 10 people are chasing every job.
One in five young people looking for work.
Communities seeing libraries and children centres closing.
Families seeing their living standards squeezed.
Not just this year, but year after year after year.
And what does the Government say to communities losing jobs?
Let me tell you what they recently told the people of Newport, justifying the closure of their passport office.
It said the redundancy payments of the staff being sacked would provide a “boost in trade for the local economy”.
What kind of planet are these people living on?
On growth, on inflation, on unemployment – on the promises he made, the Chancellor couldn’t bring himself to admit the truth.
That his second Budget tells the story of the failure of his first.
At this stage of the recovery growth should be powering ahead.
Unemployment should be falling fast.
And every month when unemployment is higher than it should be it stores up long-term damage.
Every month when growth is lower than it should be, it hits the future potential of our economy.
The problem is, instead of admitting it, he refuses to change course.
What did the Energy Secretary say?
If the figures change the Government “should not be lashed to the mast” of their reckless gamble.
It should be willing to change and think again.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it’s not as if they haven’t had practice at the u-turn business.
They’re becoming the past masters.
On forests, school sport, housing benefit for those looking for work, even on the vanity photographer, they have been forced to climb-down.
But on this, the issue that matters most, they are least willing to change.
At the weekend we learned something new about the Chancellor:
Apparently, his political aspiration is to be a blend of Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine.
Mr Deputy Speaker, another comparison springs to mind.
Because we see the same refusal to change course we saw from the Tories in the early 1980s.
The same hubris and arrogance of the early 1990s.
He’s more like the political love child of Geoffrey Howe and Norman Lamont.
Next thing we know, he’ll be ordering in the champagne and singing in the bath, je ne regrette rien.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a growth Budget.
It is not a jobs Budget.
It is a Budget for more of the same.
From a complacent, arrogant Chancellor.
In a complacent, arrogant Government.
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us not forget, these are not just the Chancellor’s decisions.
They are not just the Prime Minister’s decisions.
They’re the Deputy Prime Minister’s decisions too.
He is an accomplice to this Tory plan.
When it comes to the economy, the man who coined the phrase alarm clock Britain has the snooze button well and truly on.
Nobody voted for this deficit plan.
Least of all his Liberal Democrat voters who were told in promise after promise that he would never countenance it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I can put it this way, is it any wonder no-one wants to share a platform with him.
On the measures he proposes to support growth, we will look at them.
But there is little reason to believe they will make the difference to growth we need.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has already factored in every single measure he’s just announced.
And they still produced today’s downgraded growth forecast and higher unemployment figures.
And it’s no wonder.
An enterprise zone proposal dusted off from the 1980s cannot undo the damage of a deficit plan that goes too far and too fast.
It didn’t work then, it won’t work now.
And you can’t blame people for being sceptical when the Chancellor says he’s got a new flagship policy for growth.
Because what happened to his last flagship policy for growth, at the centre of his June Budget?
Does anyone remember the national insurance holiday
He was strangely silent about it today.
In June he boasted it would help to protect the areas worst hit by his cuts.
He stood at that despatch box taking credit for the 400,000 small firms he said would benefit.
How many have actually benefitted?
Mr Deputy Speaker, he’s been strangely shy in revealing the figures but someone let slip to the Financial Times.
By mid-January it wasn’t 400,000.
It wasn’t 40,000.
It wasn’t even 4,000.
It was less than a half of one percent of the number he prom ised, just 1,500 businesses.
And his green flagship policy, the Green Investment Bank.
I think his energy Secretary had it spot on.
“Ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend.”
Well his green bank can’t borrow for the next 5 years.
And this policy is a lame duck.
On his incentives for small firms, we will look at the detail
But I have to say, his decision to cancel flexible working for families with children between 16 and 18 is extraordinary.
Only this Prime Minister could take the credit for championing a policy with Mumsnet, and then a few months later take the credit with small business for dumping it.
You’ve got to ask Mr Deputy Speaker – has he no shame?
The idea that families needing flexibility imperil our economic future is frankly absurd.
And tells you all you need to know about this Government’s values and how they think our economy succeeds.
Greater insecurity as t he route to greater prosperity.
Well we take a different view.
Flexible working is yet another broken promise from the broken promise Prime Minister.And while we’re on the subject what about one of the biggest broken promises of all.
Remember what he said before the election?
He, the Prime Minister, was banker basher in chief.
He was the man to deliver, and I quote, a day of reckoning for the bankers.
It’s not a day of reckoning, it’s business as usual.
Last year Labour’s bonus tax raised £3.5bn.
And this year their bank levy raises just £1.9bn.
A Tory Government cutting taxes for the banks.
Instead of doing that he should have used the money to reintroduce the Future Jobs Fund, build 25,000 homes, and boost enterprise.
They are not taking the long term steps to build the high skill, high wage economy of the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, they are failing on growth, and they are failing on living standards too.
What did the Prime Minister say before the election to families receiving tax credits?
He said that below £50,000 a year, their tax credits were safe
When Labour said otherwise, the Home Secretary said this:
“That is a lie, and it is irresponsible for Labour to be … worrying families needlessly”.
But what is the truth?
Next year, over one million families with incomes as low as £26,000 will lose all their tax credits.
They should be ashamed of their broken promises.
All part of the cost of living crisis they are imposing.
The Chancellor trumpeted the rise in the personal allowance.
But let’s look at the facts.
He came along in the June Budget and put up VAT, costing families £450 a year.
Now he’s got the nerve to expect them to be grateful when he gives them a fraction of their own money back.
Let me tell you what the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us this morning: “there is an awful lot of giving with one hand… and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
It’s the classic Tory con.
And what about their decision on petrol?
He’s done the same thing again.
He’s cut duty by 1 pence.
But he’s whacked up VAT on fuel by 3p.
Families won’t be fooled.
It’s Del Boy economics.
For a two earner family both on average wages, after VAT and tax credits, it’s the same as 5p up in the basic rate of income tax this year and just 1p down next.
What do the British people know from history?
Every Tory tax cut ends up costing them more.
Same old Tories.
Same old deceit.
We needed a Budget that changed the direction of economic policy.
We needed a Budget that protected the Promise of Britain that the next generation does better than the last.
We needed a Budget that changed course on cutting too far and too fast.
The Chancellor said at the weekend with his customary modesty that he had completed his rescue mission of the British economy.
After this Budget, it’s not the Chancellor who is rescuing the country.
It is the country that needs rescuing from the Chancellor.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when families look at this Budget,
Look at the squeeze on their living standards,
Look at the job losses in their communities,
They will conclude:
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
Vince's speech at the LibDem conference: Many themes should be a top priority for us too
Vince’s speech, unlike the misreporting of it mainly from the BBC who patently didn’t understand the business or legal issues involved, made for very interesting reading for me as a Labour member with an interest in both business and commercial law. I would like to discuss various intriguing aspects of it for me.
But to hold our own we need to maintain our party’s identity and our authentic voice.
This is now being an increasingly difficult problem for the Liberal Democrats. There has to be by necessity an alignment of the beliefs and values of the leadership of the Party and its grassroot members. It was interesting to eavesdrop on the discussion that the Party had earlier this week on brand strategy, as it was clear from the floor that there is much confusion about the brand identity and brand equity of the members of the Party. Of course, the position on the rate of cuts which ultimately emerged from Vince Cable and Nick Clegg remains for many quite unfathomable, and certain issues are pretty straightforward by the Liberal Democrats, for example strong Liberal (anti-statist) values in civil liberties. However, certain grey areas see problems for the leadership and activists alike; for example, free schools is an incredibly perplexing area for the Liberal Democrats to embrace in a way so enthusiastically as Michael Gove’s fervour.
We will fight the next general elections as an independent force with our options open. Just like 2010. But coalition is the future of politics. It is good for government and good for Britain. We must make sure it is good for the Lib Dems as well.
Yes, indeed. It is now ‘do-or-die’ for the Liberal Democrats. There won’t be an end of ‘boom-and-bust’ in this context, unfortunately, because if the Liberal Democrats get the economic recovery and cuts wrong, even if the recession ends, they will be unelectable for a decade. However, it is argued that if the Liberal Democrats make a success of their new Coalition policy, the Coalition politics of pluralism could become accepted.
There was, of course, a global financial crisis. But our Labour predecessors left Britain exceptionally vulnerable and damaged: more personal debt than any other major economy; a dangerously inflated property bubble; and a bloated banking sector behaving as masters, not the servants of the people. Their economic model combined the financial lunacies of Ireland and Iceland. They built a house on sand and thought that they were ushering in a new, progressive work of architecture. It has collapsed. They lacked foresight; now they even lack hindsight.
If Cable feels Labour is in denial over the deficit, undeniably he has been slow to come to the conclusion that the crisis was global. I remember him pontificating in the Commons about how it was an academic philosophical issue of where the financial crisis came from, but it was necessary to find a solution for it. Vince Cable’s lack of acceptance that this was a global crisis historically speaks volumes.
We know that if elected Labour planned to raise VAT. They attack this government’s cuts but say not a peep about the £23bn of fiscal tightening Alistair Darling had already introduced. They planned to chop my department’s budget by 20 to 25%, but now they oppose every cut, ranting with synthetic rage, and refuse, point blank, to set out their alternatives. They demand a plan B but don’t have a plan A. The only tough choice they will face is which Miliband.
This statement is totally ridiculous. If Vince Cable is so self-effacing, can he not at least give a suitable explanation for this poster?
But I am not seeking retribution. We have a pressing practical problem: the lack of capital for sound, non property, business. Many firms say they are already being crippled by banks’ charges and restrictions.
This is undoubtedly a sensible line of attack for Vince and George to pursue, as it encompasses the Liberal
Democrats’ values of fairness, and Labour’s lack of engaging with the public about how the bankers, who had largely caused this crisis, were not been punished for their recklessness. If anything, it is perceived that Labour pumped lots of taxpayers’ money in it, whilst the leading CEOs in the investment banks received knighthoods and huge bonuses. Labour’s fundamental error, if there is to be one single one amongst the plethora, is the unforgiveable increase in the rich-poor divide, which will forever be a legacy of Labour. It began in earnest with Thatcher, progressed with Blair, and compounded through Gordon Brown’s long stint as Chancellor. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
And the principle of responsible ownership should apply across the business world. We need successful business. But let me be quite clear. The Government’s agenda is not one of laissez-faire. Markets are often irrational or rigged. So I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour. Why should good companies be destroyed by short term investors looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors sometimes forget their wider duties when a cheque is waved before them?
This is an incredibly important paragraph in my opinion, as short-termism has been identified by many academics in leadership, including William George at the Harvard Business School, as a major cause of irresponsible leadership in business. This, together with failures in corporate governance and corporate social responsibility in a post-Enron age, remain admirable targets for Vince’s wrath. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
??But the big long term question is: how does the country earn a living in future? Natural resources? The oil money was squandered. Metal bashing? Mostly gone to Asia. Banking? Been there, done that. What is left? Actually quite a lot. People. Skilled and educated people. High tech manufacturing of which we already have a great deal. Creative industries, IT and science based industries and professional services. In my job I meet many outstanding, world class, British based companies. But we need more companies and more jobs in the companies we have. It is my job as Business Secretary to support business growth. And this knowledge based economy requires more high quality people from FE, HE and vocational training. Here, we have a problem. Businesses cannot grow because of a shortage of trained workers while our schools churn out young people regarded by companies as virtually unemployable. The pool of unemployed graduates is growing while there is a chronic shortage of science graduates and especially engineers. There has to be a revolution in post 16 education and training. We are making a start. Despite cuts, my department is funding 50,000 extra high level apprenticeships this year – vital for a manufacturing revival. My Conservative colleague David Willetts and I want to sweep away the artificial barriers between universities and FE; between academic and vocational; between full time, part time and continuing life long learning; between the academic and vocational.
The ‘Yeah, but’ is that Vince Cable is making savage cuts in universities such as Cambridge, currently top in the world, at a time when we should be investing in basic research, translationary research and applied research, with a view to investing in our country’s future. This should be a top priority for Labour too.
Nick Clegg: keynote speech 2010
Cynics expected us to back away. Instead, we confounded those who said that coalition Government was impossible. We created a Government which will govern and govern well for the next five years.
<
I don’t recall many people saying that Coalition government was impossible. However, I think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have indeed created a Coalition that can last until 2015. I simply don’t agree with people who say it won’t last the full distance.
Of course there are those who will condemn us. We are challenging years of political convention and tradition and our opponents will yell and scream about it. But I am so, so proud of the quiet courage and determination which you have shown through this momentous period in British political history. Hold our nerve and we will have changed British politics for good. Hold our nerve and we will have changed Britain for good.
Yes, this is the sentiment that I get from genuine LibDem members and supporters all the time, that the torrent of abuse about the Coalition is pretty unselective and continuous. The “Yell and scream” phraseology I’m sure is to picture Labour members as thick yobs, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that Labour has to be highly disciplined and well-mannered in its selective criticism.
Just think what we’ve done already. We’ve ended the injustice of the richest paying less tax on investments than the poorest do on their wages. We’ve guaranteed older people a decent increase in their pension. In November, we will publish a Freedom Bill to roll back a generation of illiberal and intrusive legislation. By Christmas, Identity Card laws will be consigned to the history books. From New Year’s Day, the banks will pay a new levy that will help fill the black hole they helped create. On 1 April, 900,000 low earners will stop paying income tax altogether. In May, the people of Britain will get to choose their own voting system. And this time next year, there will be a pupil premium so the children who need the most help, get the most help.
The Freedom Bill I think will be a good move, as Labour did screw up on civil liberties. Many sane people thought this rapid progression into a super-surveillance state was ridiculous, as well as the intensity of over-criminalising people. I welcome the Freedom Bill, not because it will be a popular piece of legislation, but because it is inherently sensible after Labour has eroded civil liberties. Labour managed to achieve this in an insidious manner, including of course the ID cards scheme which some or all of the Labour leadership contenders themselves voted for.
Remember the four big promises we made in the election campaign? For the first time in my lifetime, Liberal Democrats are able to deliver on those promises.
We promised no tax on the first £10,000 you earn. We’ve already raised the personal allowance by £1000. And in the coming years we will go further to put money back in the pockets of millions of low earners.
We promised more investment in the children who need the most help at school. It will happen at the start of the next school year.
We promised a rebalanced, green economy, a new kind of growth. Already we’re taking action on the banks. We’ve set up a regional growth fund. There will be a green investment bank to channel money into renewable energy. These are the first steps to rewire our economy. New jobs, new investment, new hope.
And we promised clean politics. We’re giving people the chance to change our voting system, cleaning up party funding and finally, a century after it should have happened, we are going to establish an elected House of Lords.
Those pledges we made, together, in the election of 2010, will be promises kept in the election of 2015. The Coalition Programme, which commits the government to making all these changes, is not the Liberal Democrat manifesto. But it is not the Conservative manifesto either. It is our shared agenda. And I stand by it. I believe in it. I believe it will change Britain for good.
These are all impressive. However, the agreement with the Tories on Afghanistan, Trident, immigration and asylum, and free schools have been far from impressive. But then again – I am not totally clear on the views of the five Labour leadership contenders on these important matters.
The new politics – plural politics, partnership politics, coalition politics – is the politics our nation needs today. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are and always will be separate parties, with distinct histories and different futures. But for this Parliament we work together: To fix the problems we face and put the country on a better path. This is the right Government for right now.
The pluralism card was always going to be played by Nick Clegg in justifying the Coalition. It seems a perfectly reasonable one to play, in my opinion.
