It’s been good for us all to have been back here in Southport for our spring conference.
Spring conference, spring in the step.
Now this is a vitally important conference coming, as it does, on the eve of those all-important June 10th elections.
They’re the ones which will set the context for the next general election.
Our continued unity and determination remain vital components – not just for the success of the Liberal Democrats, but also for the long-term health of British politics.
Let’s turn that spring in our step into a collective stride forward.
But just before looking forwards, briefly let us all glance back – to last September’s conference season.
IDS. Remember him?
All those standing ovations?
Another year, another leader.
And what a leader.
Back to the future with Michael Howard.
Ask yourself these questions.
One – If I had said we would oppose the withdrawal of benefit from failed asylum seekers but then led you to vote in support of the Government on precisely that policy.
Two - If I had prejudged the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry and refused to apologise for suggesting the Prime Minister had lied.
Three - If I had agreed to take part in the Butler Inquiry and then done an about turn and pulled my party out. But then my party nominee had stayed on regardless in a personal capacity.
Four – If I had invited the Prime Minister to a meeting with me and a whistleblower, who it turned out, had once suggested that nuclear weapons be used against fundamentalist Muslims.
Wouldn’t you be just a little bit worried?
That’s 4 gaffes in 4 months for Michael Howard.
Supposing, today, you were an audience say of psychologists and social workers, you might conclude, we need to open a file.
Just 4 months in the job, and already there is clear evidence of disturbing trends.
All that honeymoon coverage.
All the hype, all the hope.
And what’s the Conservative Party’s average level of support today?
About the same level it was the day that William Hague resigned as leader of the Conservative Party.
Today, opportunism has a new name – that name is Michael Howard.
Well if that’s the story of the so-called Official Opposition - what about the effective opposition? The Liberal Democrats.
While the media go on and on about the Tories, we’ve been getting on with real politics.
No grand claims, no promises we can’t keep – but our progress is steady and we’re on a rising curve.
Currently, we’re 10 percentage points higher than we were in the polls at this time in the last Parliament.
37% of students back us, 36% of British Muslim’s back us.
We’ve made the right decisions about Iraq, top up fees, Butler and the rest.
We’re neck and neck with the Tories at local level;
We won Brent East from Labour at the national level;
We’re launching fresh ideas, fresh thinking;
Our confidence is growing.
Much has been written about the volatile state of British politics.
Something is certainly going on.
There is a whiff of something new.
The Times got a sniff of it recently.
They had a headline which read…‘Honest politics’.
I have long argued that the British public is tiring of the antics of its politicians.
It’s tiring of the party political knockabout.
Tiring of the yah-boo slanging matches across the despatch box.
Tiring of the time wasting - when there is so much work in our country to be done.
People don’t want a Prime Minister to exaggerate on ethical issues like war.
But neither do they want the Opposition to sneer on every issue.
They want solution-based politics, aspirational politics.
And they’d like to think that when someone says something in public life, they mean it!
But Labour and the Conservatives – they just don’t get it.
They’ve spent so long doing it in the same old way, they haven’t noticed that the rest of us have moved on.
Step forward, the Liberal Democrats.
You know, so-called ‘honest politics’ isn’t actually rocket science.
What we do –certainly what I try to do - is to tell it like it is.
That’s not always easy.
But today, I believe - with our talented front bench team – the Lib Dems can offer real solutions to the country’s problems.
Why?
Because our kind of politics is based in trust and fairness.
Surely the two commodities which – as matter of course - should underpin our political system?
The public, you know, are not stupid.
They know you have to make tough choices in the fight against international terrorism;
They know you have to make tough decisions about tax -
About how much to raise.
And how much to spend.
And where you’re going to spend it.
Let’s face it, we’ve spent long enough telling them ‘you can’t get something for nothing!’
The Prime Minister is now bedevilled by what his own spin-doctor described as ‘this huge stuff about trust’.
His problem is the political judgements he reached in taking us to war in Iraq.
One year on - our country is split – and many people now believe he exaggerated the threat and sold us a flawed prospectus.
Tony Blair made his case with extraordinary fervour.
He forced his reluctant party to do as he wished - supported by, of course, his principal cheerleaders: the Conservatives.
But look at Iraq today.
The terrorists have arrived alright.
The Americans just can’t wait to leave.
Liberal Democrats,
Ours is the party which stood up to the Prime Minister over Iraq – when the official opposition was nowhere to be seen.
After the terrible bombing in Madrid last weekend,
With rising fear about Al Qaida,
It falls again to us to ask the critical questions.
International terrorism is one of the greatest challenges the world is facing.
It requires fresh thinking;
Bold and imaginative strategies.
We need to understand the rise of militant Islam;
We need to counter the globalisation of terrorism;
We need to defeat the savagery that is Al Qaida.
September 11th was a horrifying event which ushered in this era of insecurity and uncertainty.
The events Madrid were a ghastly reminder, closer to home.
The first phone call I placed that day was to the Spanish Ambassador, to express on behalf of all of us, that the Spanish people are not alone in facing this challenge.
As Liberal Democrats, we instinctively favour consensus and community.
Yet this party doesn’t shy away from war – if it is the only solution and the last resort.
It seems likely those bombs in Madrid were placed by Al Qaida.
It was a cowardly and criminal act.
There are many who would say that, in itself, was an act of war.
I don’t subscribe to that view because I don’t believe it’s helpful to use the rhetoric of war to describe what is happening.
Why? Because Al Qaida is not a nation.
It’s a fanatical group of murderers who deserve to be treated as such.
Calling this a ‘war’, suggests these terrorists are ‘warriors’.
I say again, this was a cowardly and criminal act – and that’s how we should treat it.
They should be hunted down and brought to justice.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, in a speech in his Sedgefield constituency, set out his view of how we should deal with global threats.
He spoke of a new world order.
We should think very carefully about the implications of his words.
In that speech, the Prime Minister edged close to making the case for a new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes – one much favoured by the present White House.
Make no mistake – this is a huge step.
And there are also real dangers in this approach.
A doctrine of pre-emption could be a licence for nations to intervene beyond their territory – whether or not they are under threat themselves;
A doctrine of pre-emption could be an opportunity for nations to decide for themselves what constitutes a real threat;
A doctrine of pre-emption could have justified President Bush and the Prime Minister attacking Iraq without ever having gone near the United Nations.
It would be naïve to believe that only the good guys - the democracies - with world peace at heart – would invoke such a doctrine.
Prime Minister, if we go down this road, there must be constraints.
Such a doctrine must be rules based; it must be grounded in international law;
It must be endorsed by the UN;
It must be multi-lateral;
Above all, it must not be an opportunity for adventurism.
I believe that the international community acts best when it acts together.
Prime Minister - look outwards.
And don’t just look across the Atlantic.
Spain, our friend, has been terribly scarred.
This is a moment to draw closer to our European neighbours.
And this is a moment to strengthen the United Nations – an imperfect body – but the best we’ve got.
I believe the world will be a better and a safer place if we gather the wisdom, the expertise and the support of all friendly nations – not just the views of our only superpower – in seeking to confront terrorism.
We play into the hands of the terrorists when they succeed in driving us apart.
Iraq has eroded trust in the Prime Minister.
I believe it can’t be regained in ever the same way again.
So trust is a fundamental problem for this Prime Minister;
But lack of fairness is a problem for all of us.
In our country, what is fair about the council tax?
What is fair about a system which makes the poorest 10% pay four times more out of their income than the well off?
The Conservatives invented the council tax – to replace the poll tax.
Michael Howard had a big hand in it.
But there is one person who does deserve a big hand.
It’s only since Ed Davey proposed a sensible solution, that Labour has got round to reviewing it.
That’s some tribute to Ed.
What we want is a local income tax, based on the ability of people to pay.
That’s practical, it’s workable – And it will mean tax cuts for those on low and modest incomes.
Under the Liberal Democrats, the majority of people in this country would be paying less local tax.
Now that’s what I call fairness.
Or how about this - what’s fair about top up and tuition fees?
Is it fair that – if the Prime Minister gets his way - a young graduate could be paying a higher marginal rate of tax than a millionaire?
It’s true further education is badly financed.
It’s true we want our universities to be the best in the world.
What we propose is to charge a 50% top rate of tax – on incomes over £100,000 - to pay for scrapping tuition fees altogether.
This would affect just 1% of our top rate taxpayers - most of whom are graduates anyway.
Now that’s what I call fairness.
And what’s fair about making an elderly person with, for example, Alzheimer’s disease, pay for their personal care?
Our society needs to have a long hard think about the way it treats our older citizens.
These are people who have made their contribution.
As we grow wealthier as a result of their efforts, they need our help.
Britain’s seniors should be able to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.
If they don’t have close family, it’s unacceptable that they are left at the mercy of the marketplace.
They deserve security.
They deserve dignity.
They deserve our respect.
A Liberal Democrat government would introduce free long-term personal care for the elderly – as a right.
We’ve costed it – we can do it – and we’ve done it in Scotland.
Now that’s what I call fairness.
What about crime?
Tony Blair coined the slogan ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.’
We Liberal Democrats have much to say on crime.
We have much to say which is ‘tough on crime’.
And we want 21st century solutions.
But sending people to prison, no matter how minor their crime, may satisfy the instinct for revenge, but it doesn’t prevent the crime from happening in the first place.
Nor does it stop people re-offending when they get out.
You know, sticking record numbers of people into prison isn’t tough - it’s very easy in fact, and it’s also very expensive.
When our prisons are overflowing, does it really make sense that the number of shoplifters in jail has increased 1000% in the last ten years?
Of course society must be protected from violent criminals;
People who have committed a violent crime and are a threat to society – of course they should be kept in prison.
But a new approach to sentencing can be equally tough.
Keeping non-violent offenders out of jail and forcing them to pay back the communities they have abused – that’s tough.
Educating offenders, getting them productive jobs and stopping them from re-offending – that’s tough.
Getting drug addicts off the streets and into rehabilitation – that’s tough.
In short, there are no easy answers.
Our way, the Liberal Democrat way, Mark Oaten’s way – is fairer and more effective.
The Prime Minister is fond of telling us that it’s tough being in Government.
Actually, if you remember, he used to tell us it was tougher in opposition!
But he has a point.
Making choices and setting priorities isn’t easy.
The Liberal Democrats have been criticised in the past for choosing the easy option – for promising the earth because we wouldn’t be called on to honour our promises.
I am determined to confound that particular charge.
It is only through making these tough choices that we have gained credibility.
The toughest choices of all are economic choices.
They will determine the next election.
Two weeks ago I set out how a Liberal Democrat Government would run the economy.
I said it would tax more fairly, it would simplify tax and it would spend more sensibly.
I also said that we would cut back on central government, to push more money out to our frontline priorities – health, education, scrapping the council tax and fighting crime.
I pointed out that the tax system in this country is unfair.
How can it be right those at the top end of the income scale pay 35% of their income in taxes while the bottom end pay 42%?
I am not scared to use the word re-distribution.
Because this, above all, is about fairness.
You can deliver fairness in the tax system.
You can axe the council tax and replace with a local income tax.
You can introduce a 50% rate on earnings over £100,000.
That would raise - on government figures - £4.7 billion.
We’d spend that on abolishing tuition and top up fees, introducing free long-term care for the elderly and smoothing the path of a local income tax.
And you can spend tax-payers money more efficiently.
At the last election, we Liberal Democrats won the argument for higher public spending on key services.
We said taxes would have to go up to pay for years of Conservative under-investment.
Labour scoffed – then, after being safely re-elected, guess what – they put up taxes.
So much for trust in public life.
The money is there now - the question is how it is being spent?
What are the tough choices?
Our party wants to see more money spent differently, cutting red tape and bureaucracy - getting the money to hospitals and schools.
We want more money spent locally, decided by local priorities.
That’s fairness - and freedom!
But, don’t be fooled by our opponents.
This isn’t some Conservative promise about waste - all cutting paperclips and bureaucrats.
No, this is about real choices about government spending, shifting it to deal with our priorities.
Vince Cable and David Laws have done a brilliant job showing what we mean.
Their work isn’t finished yet - because the Chancellor has yet to reveal all of his plans.
But we’ve set out our intentions.
We’ve said we would slim down Whitehall.
Cut back on ministries.
Devolve administration.
There is plenty of fat there under this centralised administration.
But it’s the next bit which is harder.
We would cut back on unnecessary and wasteful defence procurement – making sure front line troops get the kit they actually need;
We would say no to the child trust fund – and spend the money on early years education;
No to the billions to be spent on ill-judged Identity Cards – and spend it on the police instead.
I have also set out a radical plan for a greener Britain - with a green economy.
This isn’t some pipe dream.
I want British business to lead the world in environmental technologies.
I want us to lead the world in improving the efficiency of cars, developing alternative fuels, finding sensible green solutions which save money.
A healthier environment means a healthier quality of life.
Now that’s what I call fairness.
It’s become popular to assert today that there is little difference among the political parties.
Labour increases taxes; the Tories cut taxes; the Lib Dems stand for fairer taxes.
That’s usually about as far as the argument goes;
But it does the electorate a disservice.
Of course the economy is important.
But so is the behaviour of the political parties.
It’s not just the Tory party leader who alarms me.
It’s their policies.
Against tuition fees – but refusing to rule them out.
For patients and pupil’s passports – which are tax-payer subsidies to the private sector.
Against – or is it for – tax cuts?
That depends who your listening to at the time.
This isn’t a vision for Britain, it’s a nightmare scenario.
But we Liberal Democrats do have a vision for Britain.
And - right now - our party has a real chance to make a difference.
On June 10th, we shall contest those local, European and the London mayoral elections.
In metropolitan councils – like Liverpool, Newcastle, and Manchester – the Conservatives have been wiped out.
In Sheffield and South Tyneside, they have there is only one Conservative councillor in each.
They have nothing to say in our inner cities
Theirs is a party in retreat.
In the London mayoral elections, Simon Hughes is the only man who can beat Ken Livingstone.
If you don’t believe me – check out William Hill – the bookmakers.
Simon is already second favourite and gaining fast.
Simon would be a Mayor for all of London and all Londoners.
Simon would be a Mayor for all faiths and all communities.
Simon would be a Mayor for all races and all religions.
In the European elections, here in the North West, Saj Karim has a great chance of becoming our first Asian MEP.
Now that would really be something.
Liberal Democrats – this is a moment when we should take a long hard look at ourselves and what we want.
The rewards won’t be instant; but our goal should be clear.
We should have confidence.
Confidence in our outlook.
Confidence in our principles.
Confidence in our increasing ability to deliver.
We are already in partnership government in Scotland.
We are already in power in councils up and down the land.
When we stand up for what we believe in – as we did over the war in Iraq – we get respect.
We must build on that.
Let’s make it clear there is a party in this country which values trust.
There is a party which believes in fairness.
There is a party which believes in freedom.
There is a party with the policies to make these happen.
As your leader I have had to take tough decisions
Tough decisions on the Iraq war.
Tough decisions on the Butler Inquiry.
Tough decisions on tax and spend.
No doubt there will be more ahead.
You know that you can trust me to take the tough decisions.
Now we must persuade the public that we can take tough decisions for our country as well.
ENDS
Return to March Articles & Speeches.
Return to Articles & Speeches.